conversion opposition
In an effort to be fair and balanced, both The Malibu Times and Los Angeles Times miss the point. Instead of true analysis, they chose to quote Abigail Buck and Georgia Goldfarb respectively regarding the benefit of converting Fire Camp 8 into a prison. Both Ms. Buck and Goldfarb are ill informed and totally ignored the logistical and environment impact of the conversion. Instead, they chose to portray those who oppose the prison as elitists and hysterical.
In order to set the record straight, here are the reasons why converting Fire Camp 8 into a fire suppression prison is not and can never be feasible: There is only a single road access to PCH and the one remaining road is under constant repair from slides. The road cannot sustain 80-plus inmates, three shifts of
24/7 CDCR personnel, inmate visitors and daily Sysco delivery trucks. The increased use of the septic system at Fire Camp 8 dramatically increases the leeching from the septic which lubricates an ancient slide plane. Fire Camp 8 is the area?s only evacuation center. General public and incarcerated ndividuals cannot co-mingle; therefore the community loses its only safe harbor. Fire Camp 8 is an emergency first responder. In other words, if someone in the community is having a heart attack, they respond and can evacuate via helicopter. If Fire Camp 8 were converted, those services would be eliminated. These are some of the issues, if researched, would have served the community. Good journalism is not simply quoting someone who disagrees with an opinion and calling it a day. The Las Flores/Rambla/Piuma coalition was not mobilized by fear and selfishness. It dealt with fair and factual issues as to why the conversion for Fire Camp 8 was the wrong choice.
Maggie Karpuk