BEC's response to the E-R's misguided "Miss" in its May 14 editorial

The Chico Enterprise-Record’s May 14, 2005 Editorial reveals the E-R editor’s ignorance of the issues behind BEC’s request of a stay of the Humboldt Road Burn Dump remediation. The E-R’s "Miss" shows the paper’s common use of the Straw Man fallacy - when the author simply ignores the opponent’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position and then attacks it.

Here’s is the E-R’s editorial:

MISS - The Butte Environmental Council is showing its true colors. The local environmentalist group is taking the incongruous step of asking the state not to clean up a toxic burn dump.

We suspect the real reason is BEC opposes most growth, and state officials have said if the old burn dump is cleaned up to the state's satisfaction, there is nothing the state can do to prevent homes or offices from being built there.

The city's Planning Commission has already given approval to a subdivision on land partially within the old burn dump area. The approval of that subdivision, called Oak Valley, has been appealed to the City Council. The appeal will be heard Tuesday. Another possible reason for the environmentalists' request to halt the cleanup? Follow the money. Several BEC donors are among those who have filed the appeal to stop the development.

Don't expect the appeal to go far.

Here is BEC’s response:

1) BEC is not trying to stop the cleanup, just make sure it was analyzed legally and implemented in a manner that is the most safe for human health and the environment (see http://www.becnet.org/News/pr20050509.html).

2) It is is not "opposing growth" when BEC seeks to have the cleanup analyzed legally and implemented in a manner that is safest for human health and the environment. BEC hasn't challenged any Chico housing projects since 1996 and the pace of development approvals in the ensuing years has been swift.

3) BEC is not involved in the Oak Valley subdivision appeals, although the requests by the petitioners are a benefit to Chico, by keeping housing out of the upper foothills and requiring the development to pay for improvements to Hwy 32.

4) The E-R’s “follow the money” comment is laughable. The contributions received from the donors filing the development appeal don’t even approach paying the real cost of BEC’s eight-year efforts on the Humboldt Burn Dump.

Posted May 17, 2005