The hard truth
Regarding Lynn McKibbin’s May 19 letter, “Dignity Health Closes Boulder Creek Clinic,” I had a prior warning of what was to come when I got the official notice from Dignity Health, and it was what I expected.
I can pick out many statements that are “untruths.” Compassion, caring so much for patients? Balderdash! It’s all about the money, folks. Dignity Health spent 10 years looking for a site in Boulder Creek? In 10 years, they could have built more than 10 clinics.
I’ve never stopped missing Drs. Reed and Solomon. They were doctors as doctors should be. Sadly, those practices and true compassion are from days gone by.
With comment to Lynn’s transportation statements, I have no connection with Metro Santa Cruz or ParaCruz, but they are exactly what I need. I am without mobility and have a 300-pound powerpack wheelchair. It’s far from making me mobile. They roll me up into the van and voila! They take me where I need to go—appointments, shopping, just about anywhere.
They’re excellent drivers, friendly, safety-conscious and, best of all, they’re very reasonable. Hopefully, this will make some people (particularly seniors) more at ease.
Thank you, Lynn, for your spot-on letter. You’ve started the ball rolling. May others do the same. I don’t believe our letters will get much attention from Dignity Health, but we all can write to newspapers.
Ronaele Findley
Boulder Creek
Taken aback by comments
In the May 26 article, “Driver Who Hit and Killed Pedestrian Lambasts Caltrans,” I was a bit taken aback to see Jeremy Shreves pop up now to share what I perceive as self-serving statements. I have a few clarifications and updates I would like to share in response to this article.
One of the outcomes of the 2020 Santa Cruz County criminal court case was that Shreves was ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution. To date, I have not received any type of good faith payment from Shreves; unfortunately, I do not anticipate any court-ordered financial recovery from this person. Shreves was, unfortunately, driving without the state-mandated vehicle insurance.
On Friday, May 26, the Santa Cruz County court denied Caltrans motions. Caltrans has until mid-June to file a notice of appeal. If Caltrans chooses to move forward with filing a notice to appeal, this process can drag out for another two years for our family.
Though I do not dispute whether Shreves “remembers” whether he crossed the white line or Josh stepped into the roadway, the official CHP report, witnesses and Caltrans expert reports all agree Josh was walking behind the white lane line when Mr. Shreves’ vehicle struck Josh; this fact was never in dispute.
As far as Shreves feeling “frustrated” at having been portrayed as a remorseless career criminal, I have little empathy. Community members can view criminal public records and decipher for themselves if this person understands the ramifications of their repetitive past and recent life decisions and how they have and continue to forever change the lives of individuals and our community.
Shreves’ comment, “And I forgave myself a long time ago for that young person being in my way…,” leads me to the thought that Shreves does not feel true remorse for the part he played in Joshy’s death. Personally, I have never thought of pedestrians, including the school kids that regularly walk this path on Highway 9 (where Josh was killed) as “in my way” when I drive by. I pray that Shreves is never again behind the wheel of a vehicle, especially if he considers my/our children walking as in his way.
As you can imagine, I am still struggling with the fact that my Joshy is no longer physically (in our hearts forever) in my and his little sisters’ lives. I feel this is a wound that will never fully heal.
Kelley Howard (Joshy’s forever mom)
Felton
Representing both sides
I am writing about an article that appeared in your May 12 issue, “SLV Community Members Stage Protest Over Pride Flag.” I want it to be clear that I am not writing in either support nor defense of the topic discussed. Rather, I want to address the one-sided nature of the article.
I work in higher education, and diversity and thought sharing are important things when it comes to issues like this. As a mother of a recent SLV grad, I also understand the consequences of division, and silence, for our kids not being included in these conversations.
The author, Drew Penner, says, “the majority of people in the audience stood up, silently joining his protest.” What Mr. Penner failed to report was the viewpoint of the people who didn’t stand up.
I would’ve liked to have seen both sides represented to better understand this important interaction at the board meeting (inherently a place where we can publicly share our views). I, for one, would have liked to hear the point of view of the woman who “left in tears,” or the student carrying a miniature pride flag (discreetly, it is implied by Penner).
The only paragraph that vaguely attempted to address the other side, from Melissa Harrell, was neatly tucked in at the very end of the two-page article—like an afterthought—which underscores the journalistic imbalance of the piece.
Mr. Davis, alternatively, had seven paragraphs dedicated to his views, which, incidentally, also open another can of worms: the constitutional right of separation of church and state in our schools. I hope your staff writers and reporters will try and do better representing both sides in the future when reporting on such important and impactful topics.
Jenny Coleman
Ben Lomond
We welcome letters to the editor and commentaries on all topics of local interest. Email your submissions to [email protected]. Letters must include the writer’s name and hometown (for publication) and phone number (for verification). Submissions may be edited, and will be published as space permits. Letters are limited to 400 words, commentaries to 600 words.
