Writer shares the rest of the story
New feature on past stories debuts this week
And now for the rest of the story …
This week we are beginning a new column that we hope will answer some of the questions that linger after an initial story is printed. It is called “Case File Update” and it will appear when there is some new information to share on an ongoing investigation or a case that was never solved.
Assistant Editor Victoria Metcalf, who is also our law and order reporter, is following up on some stories that made headlines, but then faded from public view. For example — the stories that were published regarding human bones found by a homeowner on Bucks Lake Road in Quincy. Were they ever positively identified? How did the individual meet his demise?
What about the case that made national headlines after a little girl was rescued from a vehicle in East Quincy in December of 2015. Her rescue led to the discovery of her sibling’s bodies in a storage locker in Redding. The legal proceedings involving her caregivers are being handled in Monterey County. What is their status? How is the little girl doing now?
There are more stories such as these, and in subsequent months, we will share what Metcalf learns as she follows up with local enforcement and others. We are excited about this new column because in our work to publish this newspaper, we focus our time and energy on what is happening that week. This is a chance for us to share with our readers information that is still pertinent and no doubt of interest.
A number of ordinances focus on cannabis
Take the time to become informed about the proposals
Those with strong feelings about commercial cannabis are taking matters into their own hands and crafting ordinances and ballot measures that could dictate the future of cannabis in the county.
Staff writer Carolyn Shipp has researched the various options currently winding their way through the governmental process, and we encourage our readers to take the time to review her article. It’s clear from the numbers of letters to the editor, Where I Stands and website postings that we are receiving on the subject, this is an area of keen interest for Plumas County residents. The amount of information and arguments for and against can become overwhelming and is sometimes contradictory. Take the time to become as informed as possible, because you will be asked to weigh in on the subject.
Cannabis:
Agreed!
The BOS actually has three options, not two like what is stated in the article.
MAUCO is the only State standard ordinance listed of the five touted. If the others became law, this County would go even farther into debt with lawsuits. So to say the Planning Dept. was forced to pay all their attention to it is a farce… they openly accepted it.
To read about MAUCO please visit KEEPPLUMASGREEN.com, erroneously not listed in the article.
At the end of her article she misrepresents MAUCO by calling it another name.
Thanks
I was disappointed to see that the article discussing the future of cannabis, stated 5 ordinances were being considered, when at the end of the article 3 were discounted. The planning department will be delaying action on three, because an initiative would over ride them. Making it a lot of effort for possibly nothing. As a member of the MAUCO or Keep Plumas Green effort it starts feeling personal, like there is an attempt to consistently bury any publicity or legitimacy that our cause is due, because it is not what this paper believes in. That’s not how the news is suppose to work and it is not fair to its citizens.