Index :
Jan 25, 1994 First Supervisorial
District special election: Dickinson Candidate Statement
Mar 9, 1994 Board
of Sups: Dickinson says no other use than SEPCO
May,
2001 Dickinson has County Counsel pressure CPAC Chair Debbie
Byrne
Aug 29, 2001 Sac Bee
quotes Dickinson being "undecided"
Aug 29, 2001 Board of
Sups: Dickinson on CEC process
Sep 6, 2001 Rio
Linda News: Dickinson's "word"
Sep, 2001
Email
to CEC: Dickinson undermines CPAC
Oct 2, 2001 Dickinson
reply to Jay O'Brien's Sept 20 OPEN LETTER
Oct 4, 2001 Rio
Linda News: Letters to Dickinson from Preston Robinson and Howard Baxter
Oct 8, 2001 Dickinson
reply to Allan Friedman's Oct 4 letter
Oct 9, 2001 Dickinson
reply to Jerry Sutton's Oct. 7 letter
Oct 9, 2001 Dickinson
reply to Jo Vierria's Oct 6 letter
Oct 10, 2001 Dickinson reply to
O'Brien's Oct 3 letter: Admits his attack
not based on public testimony
Oct 11, 2001 Letter from Jay O'Brien
(not answered by Dickinson)
Oct 29, 2001 Dickinson reply
to Lacey Carlson (Lacey is 5 years old)
Nov 5, 2001 Follow-up from
Jay O'Brien (not answered by Dickinson)
Nov 8, 2001 Dickinson
reply to Frieda Vierria's Oct 17 letter
Nov 20,2001 Board of
Sups: Dickinson re property values
Nov 20,2001 Board of
Sups: Dickinson re his Mar 9, 1994 Board meeting statement
Nov 20,2001 Board of
Sups: Dickinson re Community Benefits
Nov 29,2001 Rio Linda
News: Letter to Dickinson from Preston Robinson
Dec 4, 2001 Town hall meeting
in Rio Linda: Dickinson re FPL and Jay O'Brien
Dec 9, 2001 Sac Bee
says Dickinson "acknowledges that developers exert some (board) influence"
Dec 13,2001 Parks Board trumped by Dickinson!
Dec 13,2001 Jeff Culley asks
Dickinson about Community Benefits (below Jan 9 letter)
Dec 15,2001 Sac Bee: Dickinson
re rendering co, supports Tsakopolis
Dec
16,2001 Sac Bee Editorial: Follow-up on rendering co:
Mad Planning Disease
Dec 31,2001 Sac Bee: Letter to the Editor
by Dickinson re rendering co.
Jan 3, 2002 Rio Linda News:
Rendering vs FPL
Jan 9, 2002 Rio
Linda News: Jeff Culley correspondence, Dickinson answer re Community
Benefits
Jan 26,2002 Rio Linda
News: Another letter from Preston Robinson (Dickinson doesn't answer
Robinson's letters)
Jan 31,2002 Rio Linda
News: Debbie Courtney asks Dickinson to respond to constituents (Robinson,
O'Brien)
Feb 7, 2002 Rio Linda News: Campaign
solicitations?, Get rid of experienced CPAC people?
As everyone knows, our Rec and Parks Board has been negotiating with Florida Power and Light for benefits from the power plant, should it be built as planned. Directors Parker and McKenzie plus the Administrator were working with FPL toward an agreement.
Those duly elected representatives have now been taken out of the loop by First District County Supervisor Roger Dickinson.
Recreation and Parks Administrator Kathy Long told the Board of Directors at tonight's meeting that she received a call Wednesday from FPL's Renée Taylor. Taylor advised Long that FPL will no longer be negotiating with the Recreation and Parks District, as County Supervisor Roger Dickinson is now negotiating the Community Benefits package with FPL.
Administrator Long called Supervisor Dickinson's office, and talked to Dickinson's Chief of Staff Karen Ziebron. Ziebron confirmed to Long that Dickinson has taken over and is planning to negotiate the package. Long reported that Ziebron stated that Dickinson does not intend to appoint a citizen's committee.
Jay O'Brien
>From the Stop The Oppressive Powerplant mailing list
Rendering plant odors threaten Tsakopolos in South County
Dickinson sticks up for Tsakopolis: "At Wednesday's meeting, Supervisor Roger Dickinson suggested the county "should begin proceedings to revoke the use permit to set contemporary standards."
[click below for story]
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1329358p-1399019c.html
Yet he would have FPL pollute our air, and WE are HIS constituents!
Jay
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
Read the second letter to the editor in today's Bee, written by Supervisor Roger Dickinson. It is interesting that his contention is that the 1956 permit issued to the rendering plant is the "base line" to which later technological standards could be applied, conceivably reducing the odor pollution to less than the originally permitted 1956 levels.
It is interesting that this logic does not apply in Rio Linda. I have repeatedly asked that the FPL plant be held to the pollution levels expected from the (not built) SEPCO plant as licensed in 1994. This would be simple to do, and would guarantee that we not receive pollution of any kind at a level higher than that approved in 1994. To add Dickinson's logic expressed in his letter to the editor today, those pollution levels should be reduced from 1994 standards by virtue of "later technological standards".
Another subject... Don't miss the next to last letter, from Elverta's Deborah Courtney.
Jay
Link to the letters:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/1397313p-1471335c.html
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
After reading
Supervisor Roger Dickinson's letter to the Editor in the Sac Bee about
the Rendering Plant, it is apparent that his agenda is different for Rio
Linda/Elverta. He implies that the Rendering Plant's operation should be
in keeping with the use permit provisions set forth in 1956. Now when it
comes to the use permit or zoning for the proposed Florida Power and Light
(FPL) power plant here, he doesn't make a point that the original permit
that was issued for the SEPCO plant and it's expected pollutants would
be exceeded by those emitted by FPL who would be operating on the provisions
of the SEPCO plant. What gives? Sounds like two different standards being
applied.
The question
of the week is- Why does a politician who is running for reelection unopposed
still solicit campaign funds? I don't know the answer, do you? Too bad
there isn't a law that only allows campaign funds to be spent on the position
you are running for when you solicit the money.
I'm pondering why with 4 open seats on the Community Planning Advisory
Council, Supervisor Dickinson is replacing those on the CPAC who have been
and are willing to serve even though their term is up and not filling the
vacancies first. I am also wondering why Supervisor Dickinson is not replacing
the ones whose terms have been up the longest first. Could it be a personal
thing? I'm also curious whether or not it is the entire Board of Supervisors
who make the decision on appointments? Seems strange that our CPAC usually
has as many as seven vacancies and the choice is to get rid of the experienced
people before filling vacancies. For the record, it is not uncommon for
people to have served on our CPAC beyond their term. I would assume that
the CPAC can represent our community with experienced people on it because
it appears that it would take some time for a new appointee to learn the
ropes of the responsibilities of their position.