Op/Ed: Fluoride and Political Ambitions
Some people only read what they want to hear, one Watsonville City Council member says.
By Emilio Martinez, Watsonville City Council Member
In the attempt to keep it simple, this op-ed is about fluoridation and related political ambitions.
According to the law, California cities do not have to fluoridate unless an entity (somebody) like the California Dental Association (CDA) funds all of the costs. A city cannot be legally forced to fluoridate if they have to use any (underline “any”) of their own money (tax dollars).
On January 2010 then Mayor Luis Alejo proposed to the city council that Watsonville fluoridate because the CDA had proposed to pay for all of the costs.
What Mayor Alejo did not disclose during the city council meetings was that he had received campaign contributions from a CDA affiliate. He also didn’t disclose that he was once employed by CDA lobbyist Manny Diaz when Diaz was an Assembly Member. This was the same Manny Diaz who months before the January city council meeting lobbied Council Member Nancy Bilicich and me to vote for fluoridation. When I asked Mr. Diaz how he knew we were going to have a city council meeting regarding fluoridation, because I sure didn’t know about it, he said City Manager Carlos Palacios advised him of the information. Gee, here we (city council members) were receiving the Agenda on late Fridays before Tuesday’s city council meetings and Diaz knew months before? Did Mayor Alejo also know? How about other council members besides me and Bilicich? What about a Brown Act violation?
What was additionally alarming, well to me, was that Alejo also ignored the fact that the CDA’s proposal/Contract was based on an 8 year-old 1.6 million dollar estimate.
Now, if you obtained a bid to build a house eight years ago and you called the contractor today and said something like, “Hey do remember me? You gave me an estimate for $100,000 to build me a house around eight years ago. I’m thinking of building it now. When can you start?” what do you think you will hear on the other line?
A) Uncontrollable laughter
B) “What have you been smoking?”
C) “Did you graduate from high school?”
D) A dial tone
E) All of the above in chronological order
Why did Luis Alejo, an attorney, disregard the standard practice of requiring a current estimate of costs before entering into a contractual agreement? Could it because it wouldn’t behoove his political career as he was eyeing an Assembly seat? Would it be additionally beneficial for him to look like the champion of children stricken with poor dental health during his entire time campaigning while receiving around $12,000 in campaign contributions from a CDA affiliate? He would not have had that time benefit if an estimate for costs to fluoridate had been provided two years ago when he first demanded the city proceed with fluoridation.
For two years the children waited, the Pajaro Valley Community Health Trust waited and Dientes waited, only to find out that the California Dental Association decided it was not financially feasible to fluoridate after all. Makes me wonder if sincerity was the true issue because why didn’t the California Dental Association first obtain an estimate before presenting a Contact to the city council? Why did Mayor Alejo attempt to rush the matter through the city council? I recall then Mayor Luis Alejo once saying that I was not a politician. If he meant a political prostitute, I have to agree.
You would think that by now Watsonville citizens would tire of the political smoke-and-mirror tactics. Nope, not when it looks like they are sucking up to the Costco idea like a Dyson on a shag rug. Maybe a Walmart but not a Costco.
Don’t be surprised if the Costco “plan” lasts two years, all through and up to the time when Supervisor Greg Caput’s Supervisorial seat is up for election. When will Watsonville quit being misguided by a dangling rubber carrot? It depends when they want to quit reading what they want to hear.
-----
Emilio Martinez represents District 6 on the Watsonville City Council. He also writes a blog on local politics, the Watsonville Fishing Report.
Shirley Christmore Stroh
2:01 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
I am glad it did not come to fruition! We do not need flouride in our water. I am 75 years old and have my own teeth! All it takes is a toothbrush and toothpaste and regular dental checkups. And parents that make sure the children have a habit of brushing! That whole fiasco about making us have it in our water is a little skewed! It also will cost more than what they say to do it, with just the cost of some companies having to restructure their production! Why is the root of all projects made with the dollar sign in the eyes of our great leaders? Something for nothing, wrong!! The costs in the long run, goes to us, the taxpayer!
Patricia
3:09 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Very informative article, Emilio. So many questions and so few, if any answers. Even a high school graduate or less would have the instinct to inquire as to today's cost of building as to what it was 8-10 years ago. Thank goodness you are not a 'politician' as alejo suggested because if you went to the same math classes he did, we would not be receiving the benefit of your transparent information. Thanks for informing the community and public with the important info.
jwillie6
3:36 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Fluoridation is a Hoax and a Waste of Tax Money
It is truly sad when the politicains align with the big money, derived from selling this toxic waste fluoride to communities, and ignore the people they are supposed to be representing.
Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. It is one of the most poisonous substances on Earth. The chemical used (Hexafluorosilicic acid, which is an induatrial toxic waste chemical) cures nothing and heals nothing and has never been tested or approved by FDA or any government agency (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion.
Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.org). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.
There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.
_____________________________________________________________
nyscof
5:23 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The same sneaky politics shoved through the state-wide fluoridation mandate in 1995
Dentists manipulated legislators and bragged about it in the CDA Jounral
Ignoring the democratic process and discouraging a healthy dialogue, California fluoridationists worked secretly, quickly and dishonestly to pass a 1995 California fluoridation law, that forces most California communities to add fluoride into their water supplies, whether Californians want it or not, according to “The Fluoride Victory,”
California Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, working with CDA sponsored the legislation without constituent or local governing body approval, discussion or vote
“To make the most of the element of surprise, it was decided that Speier would wait until the last possible moment to introduce her fluoridation bill,” writes author Joanne Boyd.
“’We pretty much knew we’d catch (the anti-fluoridation faction) by surprise because it wasn’t well known outside of the dental community what was going on,' said Liz Snow, assistant director of CDA’s Government Relations (lobbying) Office. ‘But we didn’t want to give the other side any more time to mobilize than absolutely necessary,’” writes Boyd.
cont'd http://tinyurl.com/ywuujj
itsmecissy
8:29 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Walmart often markets itself to local communities with promises that new stores will bring new economic growth and that the company will provide a range of benefits around jobs, wages, and tax revenue for local government. That may or may not be true since the company is obsessed with cutting costs, and tax payments are one of its favorite targets. Let’s hope our city leaders get promises in written, enforceable agreements, so that we do not see those promised benefits disappear after/if a store opens. As for Costco, the majority are not unionized. However, Costco’s Employee Agreement -similar to a union contract- does include things like benefits, compensations, wages, disciplinary procedures, paid holidays, bonuses, and seniority. Bottom-line: any retail store the city considers should be willing to live up to standards that provide workers with decent wages, pay raises, and quality affordable health and retirement benefits. As for getting some decent shopping around here, I say bring it on!
I am glad the fluoride issue is over too. Some claim they will fight on and that the issue isn’t closed; whatever, knock yourself out! Thanks to everyone who fought so hard for the best interests of our community. A special thanks to Nick Bulaich who made this his personal cause for so many years, great job!
jwillie6
11:13 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Fluoridation is a waste of tax money
As a Civil Engineer, I know how wasteful fluoridation is. For every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
It is pure propaganda for the dental groups to claim savings of $38 for each $1 invested in fluoridation