By Robert Lovingood
In many ways, 2016 was a year of recovery.
We began the long process of healing from the December 2, 2015 terror attack. We continue with hope, as we work through the healing process and the painful aftermath of those directly and indirectly impacted from the attack.
Over the summer, the Pilot Fire burned 12 square miles and forced many evacuations. Days later, the Blue Cut Fire destroyed more than 100 homes, forced the evacuation of 82,000 people and burned 56 square miles. While the devastation is long lasting, it is not insurmountable. We can be thankful that there was no loss of life or serious injuries in the fires. And we owe a debt of gratitude for the remarkable work of more than 2,600 firefighters, law enforcement officers, countless volunteers and others who worked so tirelessly for our community. Amid tragedy and suffering, they are beacons of courage, kindness and service. They exemplify the best in the human spirit and the command to love thy neighbor.
In the past year, we made advances on a variety of issues including public safety, the economy, homelessness and more. Here are some highlights I’d like to share.

Public Safety
For the third year, we allocated county funds for “Operation Desert Guardian,” a three-month series of crime sweeps that ended with 376 arrests in Hesperia, Apple Valley, Adelanto, Victorville and unincorporated Victor Valley areas. We also implemented reforms to welfare fraud policies and supported a series of ongoing welfare fraud sweeps around the county. The board of supervisors added two additional investigators to strengthen the district attorney’s cold case prosecution unit.
After sheriff’s employees gave back raises during the recession, this year we reached a new labor contract with the sheriff’s association that was approved by 88 percent of members. And Sheriff’s Academy Class 205 marked the very first time ever the department had three academy classes going at the same time. Lastly, in the wake of the Dec. 2, 2015 terror attack, the board of supervisors approved $8.2 million in immediate improvements to county facilities, such as expanded security guard services, upgraded security cameras and key card access installations plus $2 million to conduct a security assessment of all county facilities.

The economy & jobs
While government doesn’t create jobs, it does influence the conditions that encourage or discourage job-creators. We are seeing new business investment in the High Desert. Stirling Capital Investments has announced the completion of a fully leased 447,740-square-foot industrial facility in Victorville. Arden Companies announced it is relocating to a new state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Victorville — and with it 100 jobs. Plans are underway for a 1.3 million-square-foot distribution center, which is expected to create 400 to 500 long-term jobs in the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan area. And in December, Clark Pacific broke ground on its new precast concrete manufacturing plant in Adelanto.
In the fall, my office put on the second annual “Made in the High Desert” manufacturing event that featured school tours for over 500 local students so they might learn about exciting local job opportunities in manufacturing. The next day, the county economic development department put on a local job fair focused on manufacturing jobs.
Throughout the year, my staff assisted over 700 local businesses and individuals who had questions about county departments or who were experiencing delays or issues. We also assisted with organizing a homebuyers resource event in Victorville so those interested in buying a home could learn about financial responsibility and available programs.
Regionally, the Inland Empire continues to expand. Not only has the region reached new records in employment, its job quality is as good as it was before the recession. And as of mid-year, Victor Valley home values had increased 84 percent since 2012. In the High Desert, the average home price at mid-year was $119 per square foot.

Veterans & Seniors
Service providers and prospective employers assisted hundreds of former members of the military during my third annual Veterans Resource Fair. Veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam as well as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan received help in applying for service-related benefits, information on job opportunities and other services. It’s worth noting that San Bernardino County has the highest amount of new veteran cash benefits in the state.
We allocated special discretionary funds in support of a variety of senior programs, including local senior clubs, health fairs and the Meals on Wheels program. We also assisted the High Desert Regional Council on Aging with outreach to the First District senior centers, providing them with information on available resources.

Homelessness
San Bernardino County continues to make progress reducing homelessness. In January, 1,887 homeless people were counted, a 12 percent decline from 2015. This is due in part from successful investments in permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing and workforce investment programs. In January, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald visited the board of supervisors and congratulated the county on its impressive inroads in eliminating homelessness among veterans. The county and its partners housed 862 homeless veterans in 2016. Programs provide the veteran with wrap-around social services which include a social worker, health care, mental health assistance, drug and alcohol assistance if necessary, and employment assistance.

Environment
I appreciate the work county code enforcement has done in implementing my initiative to use jail inmates to clean up illegal dump sites. In the past year, inmate crews cleared more than 578 tons of trash and 7,922 tires in the First District plus an additional 68 tons of cement and nine boats at an illegal dump site near Interstate 15 and Dale Evans Parkway. The cement was recycled and the tires were used as fuel at local cement plants.
In August, the board of supervisors rejected the controversial Soda Mountain solar project that gained national attention because of its impacts on sensitive areas of the Mojave Desert. The project, I believe, was ill-suited for the location near Joshua Tree National Park. In February, the board approved a resolution outlining five regions that are best suited for solar projects. This will help protect communities from encroachment and gives fair guidance to solar developers. I still believe that solar developments are best suited for disturbed lands such as fallow agriculture lands, brownfields [sites that are already severely contaminated] and former mine sites.
On December 5, I had the honor of being sworn in for my second term as your county supervisor. As we begin a new year and a new term, I welcome your ideas and suggestions. If you have an issue or concern, please contact my office at (760) 995-8100 or email me at SupervisorLovingood@SBCounty.gov. May God bless you and your family throughout the coming year.

Robert Lovingood is vice chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors representing the First District.

By Carlos Avalos
Within the span of two months in early 2004, two men who were colleagues on the Fontana Police Department came to what those in the law enforcement profession refer to as the “end of watch,” a phrase that connotes finality. It is a term of art that is substituted for death, one that is meant to be a reminder that in life these individuals stood guard, as civil centurions, as the thin blue line separating the good and the civilized people of the community from the sociopaths that prey upon them, ensuring order and the rule of law, and that their time on duty has now passed. Both died while they were yet young and vital, each only halfway through, at most, what each anticipated would be a rewarding career keeping Fontana safe. One of those two Fontana Police Officers – Aaron Lloyd Scharf – is celebrated and commemorated by the department in the form of a key police training facility having been named in his honor. On a constant basis, his legacy is reinforced such that the newest generation of officers with the department – and succeeding ones – will come to know his name and legend. In contrast, there is nothing that stands in tribute anywhere at the police station to the other officer – Mario Ujimo Nelson – whose contribution to the department, in life, was no less intense or sincere. That discrepancy tells much about the department, yesterday and today.
Separate but equal grew to become a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, an interpretation by which it was held that racial segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race.
The phrase “Separate but equal” was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase “equal but separate.”
Jim Crow laws were also implemented, enforcing racial segregation throughout the Southern United States. Enacted after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued in force until 1965. They mandated “De jure” or rightful entitlement to equal public accommodations, but legally reinforced racial segregation in all public facilities in states of the former Confederacy.
In practice, the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all. The doctrine was overturned by a series of Supreme Court decisions, starting with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
The overturning of segregation laws in the United States was a long process that lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, involving federal legislation (especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and many court cases.
Sadly enough, while laws are in place to protect people from racial discrimination and bias, people of minority descent and women are treated differently than their white colleagues in many cases.
As pointed out in many other journalistic venues, the Fontana Police Department lags behind all others in the nation when it comes to racial diversity. In the August 28, 2015 edition of the online magazine Governing, an article by Mike Maciag entitled “Where Police Don’t Mirror Communities and Why it Matters” states that “Out of all the police departments in the United States, minorities are the most underrepresented in the Fontana P.D; with 26 percent of its 188 full time officers as minorities, compared to roughly 86 percent of the total population.” Because this article is more than a year old, the Fontana Police Department might have a better ranking on the list, but it might also still be dead last in the nation when it comes to the racial diversity ratio on the police force vis-a-vis the population it polices.
A troubling fact mentioned in the article is that Fontana was not the only city in the Inland Empire to make the list. Ontario made the list with 36 percent of its police force qualifying as minorities, with an 83 percent minority population. Rialto had 44 percent of its force of minority descent, with 88 percent of its total population being minorities. San Bernardino had a minority police force of 39 percent, with a total city minority population of 82 percent. This lack of minority presence in police work is a national problem; it is especially pronounced in the Inland Empire. Some might catalog this as a coincidence. Facts point to another reason why this lack of racial diversity is a calling card of the Fontana Police Department and many other police agencies in the Inland Empire.
According to the Sentinel’s sources from within and outside the Fontana Police Department there have been and currently are complaints from minority officers regarding the bias they say both they and the citizens the officers are expected to protect and serve encounter.
That the department’s minority officers are met with bias and disrespect by a predominantly Caucasian command staff raises questions as to whether the department as a whole can be fair and impartial toward the community the department serves, which is predominantly comprised of minorities.
The Fontana Police Department has come under the limelight over the past few months and is currently involved in a civil lawsuit with two decorated employees, one African American and one Hispanic, having sued the department and the city for racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Officers David J. Moore Sr. and Andrew Anderson, represented by attorneys Bradley C. Gage and Milad Sadr, filed a lawsuit in San Bernardino Superior Court against the City of Fontana and its police department, alleging discrimination, retaliation and failure to take corrective action. That case is to go to trial next month, at which time it will be determined if there is any truth to Moore and Anderson’s allegations and, if so, how this behavior went unnoticed for so long. There have been several articles written about the lawsuit, in-custody deaths, and questionable actions by Fontana’s successive chiefs of police. Information with sinister overtones relating to the department has emerged of late, even as there are indications that the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office have interested themselves in multiple allegations of civil rights violations, the abuse of prisoners and unethical behavior at the hands of law enforcement agencies in San Bernardino County.
In certain cases, the department’s discriminatory actions against minorities are not overwhelmingly direct, but rather subtle, detectable less from what exists and more from what does not exist.
When new Fontana police officers are asked about Mario Nelson, the vast majority draw a blank. Typical responses are something along the lines of “He sounds familiar” or “I’m not sure.” The fact is Mario Nelson was employed by the Fontana Police Department as a police officer from 1999 until his death in 2004. Nelson was liked and he was a kind officer. He had recently been chosen to be a part of the canine unit and was assigned K9 Oscar as his partner. In January 2004, Officer Nelson had been assigned to work the graveyard shift. After getting off of work, he drove home in his full police uniform in his marked black and white patrol vehicle. As with all K9 teams at Fontana PD, Oscar accompanied his handler home that morning, where Nelson’s ex-fiancée was lying in wait. While nobody knows exactly what transpired, Officer Nelson was shot in the head.
Shortly thereafter, officer Summer Ing, who has since retired after having achieved the rank of corporal, was flagged down by a Rialto police officer requesting her assistance with conducting a welfare check at Nelson’s residence. Upon their arrival, Officer Ing found Mario Nelson’s lifeless body along with the body of his ex-fiancée who, it would later be determined, had taken her own life. Officer Ing frantically called for help over her police radio. Medical assistance arrived too late; Mario Nelson was dead.
Mario’s partner Oscar was later found hiding in Mario’s room. The death of Officer Mario Nelson not only shook the patrol officers of the department but also the community. Officer Nelson’s funeral was held in a Baptist church in Riverside. Many of the Caucasian officers who attended the service were critical and cruel about the service. Some even made racial remarks about how Mario’s family and friends were acting during the service, according to officers in attendance. The police administration at the time ruled Mario’s death to be an off-duty incident, resulting in his family being denied the benefits that are awarded to officers killed in the line of duty. Under at least one interpretation, officer Nelson should have been considered on-duty during the initial stages of his arrival home that morning. According to department policy, as long as an officer is in uniform, he or she may be required to take police action on the way home or within the officer’s neighborhood or within the officer’s house.
Officer Mario Nelson was an officer killed while in the Fontana uniform and then found by another Fontana officer. A walk around the Fontana Police station partially illustrates why newer Fontana officers do not know who he is. There is not one photograph of Officer Nelson hanging on the walls. Nor is there a plaque with his name or a badge or name tag belonging to him to commemorate him. This treatment suggests that to the Fontana police administration, officer Nelson was of little note and therefore does not need to be recognized.
At the privately owned Fontana Police K-9 field, there are plaques hanging on the walls in honor of past donors and sponsors. Among those is a 3×5 photograph of Officer Nelson and K9 Oscar hanging on the wall, mixed in with other photographs, a lone and relatively obscure testament to Mario Nelson’s time as a Fontana police officer.
This is in stark contrast to the department’s reaction to the death of Fontana Police Sergeant Aaron Scharf. Scharf, a Caucasian male, died while sleeping on his couch of a heart attack. He was in his 30s when he died, and his passing was a shock to the department. The Fontana police administration was so upset and disconsolate over the loss of Aaron they fought and succeeded in having Scharf’s death ruled to be work related. Scharf, a member of the special enforcement detail, had the department’s shoot house name after him and a large plague bearing his name hangs on it to this day. The city named a street after him and established a trust fund for his family. Currently there is an 8×10 photograph of Aaron Scharf in the Fontana Police Department’s investigations briefing room.
According to sources from within and outside of the department, this is the same Aaron Scharf who was accused by other officers of illegal searches and surveillances. The same Scharf who would tell his patrol teams to go and look for “ninjas” (a derogatory term used to describe African Americans at night) and report back to him. The same Aaron Scharf that was reportedly involved with thousands of missing ephedrine pills. Aaron Scharf had been sued more than once for excessive force against minorities. This is the man recognized to the exclusion of another officer by the Fontana Police’s leadership.
The question as to whether the different treatment of these two officers was because one was a minority and one was not has surfaced. Of note is that sergeant Scharf was a so-called one percenter and on the S.W.A.T team. The term one percenter refers to a group of department members, all of them Fontana S.W.A.T team members and close friends, who consider themselves to be the department’s elite, a police force within a police force. Within the last year, evidence that has been buried in decades of dust, deceit and lies has come forth. That evidence tells a very different story than the popular conception lionizing the one percenters as heroic personages, dedicated to the protection of the community and justice. Some of that evidence suggests the one percenters had and continue to have dark secrets and have not always been fair, dispassionate and courageous in upholding the law.
More than three years after the earthly departure of officers Nelson and Scharf, officer Miles Franks, an African American policeman, died of a heart attack while off-duty. Franks had tried for years to become a police officer and when finally hired by Fontana Police he had fulfilled a dream of a lifetime. Officer Franks was so proud to be a Fontana officer he reportedly had over 20 uniforms. He never wore the same uniform two days in a row, which is practically unheard of in law enforcement. As an extension of that demonstration of pride, officer Frank’s family had the Fontana Police Department badge engraved on the top of his casket. Officer Franks’ funeral was held in a large Christian Church. Officer Franks, known for his kindness and courtesy, prayed before every meal. These mannerisms earned him the sobriquet, bestowed upon him by Caucasian officers, of “Whitewashed” or “Carlton,” the latter after the character Carlton Banks from the TV sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Based on his popularity in the community and among rank and file members of the department, Franks’ service was filled to capacity. Toward the end of the ceremony the pastor invited people to go up on the stage and say some words to Franks’ family. This was an opportunity for Fontana Police Chief Rod Jones to come forward and thank Frank’s family for his dedication to the organization and offer some kind words about him. However, Jones did not budge from his seat. Not one captain went up, not one lieutenant, not one sergeant. In fact not one person from the Fontana Police administration went up to speak on Miles Franks’ behalf. The only person from the department who spoke was a friend of his, one who had not planned on speaking, but knew somebody from the organization had to say something kind about Franks. And again as with Mario Nelson, not one photograph of Franks hangs in the Fontana Station. Not one plaque, not one badge or name tag. Franks no longer exists at the Fontana Police Department and his memory is dead to the organization he was so proud to serve.
There has been a disparity in the treatment of these individuals in life and after death. Based on the actions of the Fontana police management, the separate and not equal treatment is apparent. The Fontana police administrators seem unconscious of the discrepancy. And while all the deaths, Nelson’s, Franks’ and Scharf’s, are keenly felt by their families and friends, within the organization they served, one is held higher than the others Some see in this a good old boys club of systematic racism alive and well at the Fontana Police Department. And while officer Nelson and officer Franks are gone, they are not forgotten to all. In their community, they are remembered for their kindness, generosity, devotion, and caring personalities. May officers Nelson and Franks and sergeant Scharf rest in peace, all three embraced by death, the great equalizer.

Evincing an extreme sensitivity to allegations suggesting the city council or members thereof are on the take, Victorville Mayor Gloria Garcia last week issued a blanket denial of wrongdoing on the part of the former council and expressed confidence the newly composed council is as above reproach as Caesar’s first and third wives – Cornelia and Calpurnia – and less censurable than Caesar’s second wife, Pompeia.
Garcia took umbrage at some campaign material that apparently suggested the council was hiding things from the public by burying them or obfuscating them in the council’s meeting agendas and further suggested that the council had been compromised by graft and bribery.
In November, former councilman Ryan McEachron was defeated in his reelection effort by Blanca Gomez. McEachron, who was the senior member of the city council at the time of his departure, was soundly defeated, having garnered fewer votes than not only Gomez, but Garcia, incumbent councilman Jim Cox and Lionel Dew, another challenger, in the race for three positions on the council.
McEachron’s defeat was widely seen as a rejection of a pay-to-play atmosphere some believe has come to predominate Victorville. McEachron, who started his first council run in 2008 as a political outsider, transitioned into an insider midway through that campaign when he was embraced by then-county assessor Bill Postmus as an alternative to incumbent councilman Bob Hunter, who had previously been a Postmus ally but who had fallen into disfavor with the Postmus political machine. McEachron’s ascendency came during the final throes of Postmus’ political hold over San Bernardino County, which had previously consisted of his chairmanship of the board of supervisors and simultaneous chairmanship of the San Bernardino County Republican Party. Upon McEachron coming into office, widespread revelations about Postmus’ homosexuality and drug use, which he had for more than eight years hidden from the public during his reign as one of the county’s most powerful politicians, compromised the effectiveness of the Postmus political machine, which celebrated itself as a conservative Christian and family-value oriented institution and counted among its members assemblyman Anthony Adams and Postmus’ successor as supervisor, Brad Mitzelfelt. Both Mitzelfelt and Adams would see their political careers evaporate in the multitude of revelations that attended the discrediting of Postmus, including ones pertaining to bribe-taking, money laundering and political conflicts of interest. McEachron, who was less solidly connected to Postmus and succeeded, at least initially, in distancing himself from him, adroitly tapped into many of the same fundraising sources Postmus had used to build his political career to gain reelection to the Victorville City Council in 2012. But by this year, McEachron’s connection to elements of the business community accustomed to paying politicians to do their bidding appear to have caught up with him.
What was unclear in Garcia’s remarks at the end of the December 20 Victorville City Council meeting, while only a handful of residents remained in the council chambers, was whether she genuinely did not understand or appreciate the forces which had laid McEachron’s political career to rest or whether she was militating to deflect any suspicion that accompanied her affiliation with McEachron.
“I do find it necessary to bring something to the public’s attention,” Garcia said. “A video went out during the city council campaign that was totally untrue. It stated that the agenda was difficult to follow, that our meetings are so boring that people fall asleep. If the agenda is difficult to follow we would like to hear from the public. The agenda [that] is provided to the public is identical to the agenda each council member has and each agenda item is called out by category and number. So my suggestion is if you have suggestions for us to improve this, feel free to contact us. Call the city, make appointments with council members, anything that helps, because we are here to serve you.”
Garcia then turned her focus away from the charges of obfuscation to those pertaining to outright graft on the part of the council.
“An issue that really needs clarification is that on that video the council was accused of something that is very serious,” she said. “At that time, the council included myself, Mr. Jim Cox, Jim Kennedy, Ryan McEachron and Eric Negrete. We were accused of making backroom deals and that we were paid and bought for. I really do want the public to know that in the four years that I have been a council member none of these accusations have ever taken place.”
Garcia continued, “The reason that I bring this up is because people are now coming up to us or to me, I’ll speak for myself, and asking if this is true. And of course, it is self-fabricated and untrue. This is something that is harmful to all persons involved and I do feel I need to clarify the truth. I have been very proud to be a part of a council that represents the city in a very respectful and professional manner and I do hope that this new council will continue to do the same.”

The Misubishi Corporation’s effort to secure a 120-year-long permit to mine high-grade limestone in the San Bernardino National Forest from a proposed 128-acre quarry has progressed to the point where there is now environmental documentation available for review and public input. The proposed project has long presented a classic clash between environmental, corporate and community economic concerns. Mistsubishi is asking for what county officials processing the application appear to be disposed to grant: a construction and operational permit for the quarry and an accompanying 1.8 mile road to be located “almost entirely” on public land in Cushenbury Canyon on the north slope of the San Bernardino National Forest, six miles south of the community of Lucerne Valley and west of Highway 18.
Misubishi previously readied an application for the project, which it considers to be an expansion of a long-existing quarry operation. The matter had been on hold since 2013, but it is now preparing to proceed.
Industrialist Henry J. Kaiser originally developed the original Cushenbury limestone quarry to supply his steel making operations in Fontana during
World War II. He built a cement plant nearby in 1957. The facility was modernized in 1982 and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation purchased the plant in 1988.
Mitsubishi is proposing to develop a new high grade limestone quarry, what is referred to as the south quarry, to the south of its existing east pit, which has been a source of high grade limestone since the 1950s but which is nearly depleted of ore. The south quarry is near Mitsubishi’s west pit, which is under development and within a short distance from the Cushenbury cement plant as well. The west pit, however, yields relatively low-grade limestone that must be blended with higher grade limestone to make viable cement.
Plans for the project have been submitted to the U.S. Forest Service and are being processed by San Bernardino County’s Land Use Services Department.
The Forest Service and San Bernardino County are seeking public comment on federal and state environmental documents related to the proposal. The public can examine the documents, which provide a description of the project and the mitigation measures envisioned for it at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=36511 and submit comments. The comment period ends February 1.
Mitsubishi Cement has mining claims which extend into 440 acres of the San Bernardino National Forest. The company’s rights to operate are not absolute, however, and are subject to the discretion of the federal government as well as local planning authority, in the form of the planning division of the county’s land use services division, the county planning commission and ultimately, in the event of an appeal of the planning commission’s decision, the board of supervisors.
Mitsubishi has cultivated political goodwill at the county level, having made hefty contributions to the electioneering funds of local politicians, in particular former First District supervisors Bill Postmus and Brad Mitzelfelt. The company appears to be cruising toward a relatively routine approval of the new quarry proposal with the current county political leadership.
“Mitsubishi Cement has been a great asset to Lucerne Valley and the County of San Bernardino, offering much needed jobs and economic growth,” said San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Chairman James Ramos. “As the process for the adoption of the Mitsubishi Cement Corp. South Quarry project moves forward, I look forward to hearing the input from the public and reviewing the findings to make an informed decision once this comes before the board of supervisors.”
Proponents of the project emphasize that the cement plant and quarry operations employ about 130 and that the cement production operation represents a key cog in the Southern California and Southern Nevada construction industry, having supplied the cement for the Ontario Airport expansion, the new Hoover Dam bridge, the Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse, the Ritz Carlton Hotel Resort; McCarran International Airport, Wynn Hotel & Casino and the MGM Grand Hotel.
Environmentalists, however, see the prospect of the industrialization of the national forest as undesirable in any event and the granting of a 120-year operating permit as both unreasonable and too open-ended.
Bighorn sheep, which have seen radical reductions in their numbers, will be threatened by the project, project opponents maintain. A colony of the sheep migrates through the area on a regular basis. The project likewise presents the risk of causing a diminution of the nesting habitat for the golden eagle. The project will also eradicate plants that are rare or non-existent outside of the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains, including Parish’s daisy (erigeron parishii); Cushenbury buckwheat (eriogonum ovalifolium; Cushenbury oxytheca (oxytheca parishii); yucca shidigera; yucca brevifolia; yucca whipplei; beavertail cactus (opuntia basilaris); hedgehog cactus (echinocereus engelmannii); and Mojave mound cactus (E. triglochidiatus).
The Center For Biogoical Diversity is encouraging those who have a concern about the ecological impact of the quarry project to register their input.

The Mojave Desert Land Trust has used donations and grants obtained from the California Natural Resources Agency and the Marine Corps to make a $908,000 purchase of 640 acres of land adjacent to the western edge of Joshua Tree National Park.
Located south of Yucca Valley and the intersection of Acoma Trail and Golden Bee Drive and more than eight miles from the outskirts of Desert Hot Springs, the land had been owned for over a decade by Danmark Development, which had designs of subdividing the property for residential development. The property, an expanse of Joshua trees, piñon pines and brush, populated by no people and a smattering of desert tortoise, badgers, mule deer and an occasional bobcat, includes a ridge in the Little San Bernardino Mountains that presents a spectacular vantage over Long Canyon, both Yucca and Coachella valleys and the San Gorgonio Wilderness peaks to the west.
The land, nevertheless, is marred by debris, trash, old tires, discarded appliances, abandoned vehicles and upwards of 40,000 bullet casings, as over the years people have used it as a dump and unauthorized shooting range. An effort to clean the property up over the next several years is being planned.
It is the Mojave Desert Land Trust’s intention that the 640 acres will be absorbed into Joshua Tree National Park, becoming a protected area, meaning it will be off limits for development of any sort but will be open to hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians, and will stand as a wildlife preserve. This last function is significant, as the property is located within the wildlife corridor between Joshua Tree National Park and the Sand to Snow National Monument.
The Mojave Desert Land Trust, a nonprofit, will manage the land until it is transferred to the federal government for inclusion into Joshua Tree National Park.

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
In recent weeks and months, I have taken quite a beating for having unabashedly confessed my preference for older women. It has not always been so; the simple truth is I have my entire life been most enamored of women near, or very near, my own age. It is true that as a lad, or more accurately a tyke, I had something of a crush on my governess, who was, most likely two decades or thereabouts my senior. But for the most part, the girls that caught my imagination were essentially my contemporaries. It is a mathematical fact that given my advanced age, my contemporaries are now older women…
It is not that I do not have an aesthetic appreciation for the beauty of youth. Indeed, I am not blind to that. But there is a beauty to age, as well, if one is inclined to discern it. Moreover, for me at least, there is an importance attached to being able to converse with a women if I am to spend any but the most fleeting of time with her. Thus, she, and I, must have something to say and something to discuss. If I were to again be put in the position of being one on one with a 20-year-old woman – or a 30-year-old woman – as on occasion in recent times has happened, I am afraid I am at a loss as to what we would actually say. I fear that there would be just about nothing that I could say to her that she would have even the slightest interest in. And while I am sure that there would be something or other that she might say to me that would be meaningful, even though we might speak the same language, I am not sure I would understand it, given what passes for today’s vernacular…
So, as I said, a few of the guys were giving me a hard time for my professed partiality to older women and try as I might, I was not able to acquit my prejudice. So, I turn now to someone far more articulate than I to make that case. It seems that a young man once informed Benjamin Franklin that despite his libidinous desire for women, he was deathly afraid of marriage, even though getting married might seve to quell his libido. Mr. Franklin wrote him a letter, urging him to overcome his fear and find a matrimonial partner. Along the way, in recognizing that the young man might not heed his advice, Mr. Franklin told him that if he were to continue to carry on outside the bounds of wedlock, he should find an older woman to dally with. In so doing, Mr. Franklin made the points I believe explain, at least in part, my own feeling in this matter. So, here, without any further embellishment, is Mr. Franklin’s letter…

June 25, 1745

My dear Friend,

I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissors. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:
1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable.
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.
4. Because thro’ more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin’d to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.
6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.
7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!
Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.
Benjamin Franklin

John D. Glenn (left) and Silas S. Glenn Jr. (center) and Robert (right) A fourth brother, “Jerry”, died in a gunfight in Tehachapi in 1878. (Photo from the Virginia R. Harshman Collection)

By Mark Gutglueck
The Glenn family, consisting of Silas Glenn and his wife Mourning and their daughter and four sons, were early settlers in Lytle Creek. Silas and his wife moved from Texas to El Monte to raise their family in California, where conscription into the Confederate Army would not take place. In 1866, they moved to Lytle Creek, where Silas created a ranch.
1878 was a rough year for Mourning Glenn, as she suffered through the deaths of her husband, Silas Glenn, Sr., and her son, Jeremiah, who was killed in a gun battle. In the years thereafter, it was all she could do to maintain the Glenn Ranch in Lytle Creek Canyon. The widow was not without resources, and she was able to make ends meet by welcoming asthma and consumption patients at the ranch as boarders. As the situation suggests, she offered them comfort in a place where the climate might prove a curative to their maladies.
Over the next decade, Mrs. Glenn received little in the way of assistance from her son, Silas, Jr., who was engaged in working gold claims further up the canyon he had originally filed in 1874, although he lived at the ranch off and on.
By the late 1880s, Mrs. Glenn was in need of ever more assistance, and she turned to her daughter, Ellen, who had married James Applewhite, hoping to persuade her to relocate back to the ranch in Lytle Creek and provide her with the assistance she needed to keep the ranch from falling by the wayside. In 1889, at the age of 75, she wrote her daughter a letter with a formal invitation to return home with her husband and take on the management of the ranch. She was particularly looking forward to having her son-in-law, James Applewhite, present to handle the rougher duties running a ranch entailed. In an August letter she again wrote to her daughter, indicating that she had her hands full in dealing with those camping and taking day tours of the ranch, saying she was looking forward to the arrival of Ellen and her husband.
In the spring of 1890, Ellen and James Applewhite arrived at the ranch and took up residence there. And while Silas, Jr. and his brother John had long taken for granted that the ranch would be a part of their inheritance, they had been less than diligent with regard to looking after it or their mother. With the arrival of their brother-in-law, both grew alarmed that this meant James Applewhite was moving in on what they assumed was rightfully theirs and that they were being cut off at the pass for their piece of the canyon.
At that point, Silas and John had not been absent from the Glenn Ranch and Lytle Creek altogether, but they were rarely around, having been herding cattle in the valley.
Contemporary newspaper accounts paint a somewhat deprecating picture of the two brothers, intimating that they were, in the words of Lytle Creek historian Virginia R. Harshman, “generally considered worthless and shiftless.” Conversely, chroniclers of the time had a somewhat higher regard for their brother, Robert, who was making a name for himself in Tehachapi, and enjoyed what Harshman characterized as “an excellent reputation.”

Ellen Applewhite (nee Glenn), left; James Oliver “Ollie” Applewhite, the sone of James and Ellen Applewhite, center; James M. Applewhite, right (Photo from the Virginia R. Harshman Collection)

In addition to his suspicion that his brother-in-law and his sister were in the process of usurping his inheritance, John Glenn had grounds for a further animus toward them. In November 1889, his wife, Maude, had left him to return to live with her parents. John believed she had done so at least in part because of the counsel of his 27 year-old nephew, Ollie Applewhite, the son of Ellen and James Applewhite.
On Friday June 23, 1893, John and Silas, Jr had returned to the ranch, ready, legend has it, to settle the matter with regard to their brother-in-law encroaching on what they felt was theirs. According to some, they had come to even the score with Ollie Applewhite for moving in on John’s wife. If their plan had been to ambush Ollie at dusk when he returned home for the weekend from his job in the valley, that plan was frustrated when Ollie waited until Saturday morning to return in broad daylight. James Applewhite, alarmed by the Glenns’ demeanor, behavior and loose talk, left the ranch very early to meet his son on his way into Lytle Creek and forewarn him of what might lay in store for him.
Sometime around 10 a.m. on Saturday June 24, 1893, with John and Silas, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Applewhite and Ollie outside of one of the ranch’s dwellings, one of the Glenn brothers became accusative and insulting toward Ollie, who dismissed what was being said by his uncle, telling him he wanted to hear no more. John Glenn escalated the accusatory palaver to threats. James Applewhite told his brothers-in-law that he could see they were itching for a fight, and that he did not want there to be any hostilities. Nevertheless, he said, if they were determined to mix things up, there was going to be trouble. He then walked toward one of the ranch houses, which was some 120 feet from where he had just had the testy exchange with John and Silas. He would later testify that he believed he might be shot in the back as he made this tension-filled walk. At the house, he retrieved his shotgun from where he kept it at the ready behind the dining room door. He went to the other side of the house and out another door to another ranch house some 180 feet distant, where he positioned himself on the porch. The others, having spotted him, began approaching him. Ellen, sensing things were moving toward an unwanted confrontation, importuned her brothers to stop. They continued on. At a point somewhere in between the two houses, one of the brothers remarked that it would be best to “do up” the son before they took on their brother-in-law. As John drew his revolver, Ollie drew his and blasted his uncle John, reportedly firing a single shot which hit him in the temple, killing him instantly. At the same moment, James Applewhite discharged a single round of buckshot, three pellets of which struck Silas, dropping him. Silas, still alive, was taken into one of the houses while Ollie headed off directly to Cajon, to the closest telegraph station. There he telegraphed Colton to reach Dr. Daniels, who formerly lived in Lytle Canyon and was the Glenn family doctor. Ollie Applewhite rendezvoused with Deputy Sheriff Whiteman in Cajon after sending the electric dispatch, surrendered to him and they both returned to the Glenn Ranch. Whiteman found John’s weapon in his hand and the gun belonging to Silas under his coat. Both were cocked but had not been fired.
Silas Glenn hung on for more than a day-and-a-half, but expired at 6 a.m. on Monday June 26. Before he died, Silas dictated and then affixed his signature to a will bequeathing his 160 acres and water rights to his mother, to an 18-year-old girl in Cajon, and to Dr. Daniels. Among his last words was his pronouncement that he was sorry for what had happened.
The coroner’s inquest over John’s death concluded Ollie Applewhite had acted in self defense. But his father, fearing reprisals if the matter was not settled entirely in a court of law, insisted that Ollie stand trial. After Silas died, both father and son were taken to San Bernardino, but were not subjected to the ignominy of being housed in the jail. Ellen went with them, and they stayed at King House, under a type of house arrest supervised by a deputy.
The trial had its dramatic moments. Mrs. Mourning Glenn testified that she had seen Ollie, her grand son, and Maude Glenn, her daughter in law and John’s wife, engaged in an animated conversation “like a couple sparking.” And, she said they had gone to three dances together.
In his testimony, James Applewhite laid the blame for the events leading up to the shooting at his mother-in-law’s feet, saying she had stirred things up with her sons. He said he did not believe she was in full control of her senses and had acted irresponsibly.
Father and son were acquitted.
John Glenn’s share of the ranch went to his estranged wife, Maude (Hazard) Glenn.
Mourning Glenn sold the portion of the Glenn Ranch under her control to James Applewhite and left for Tehachapi to live with her son, Robert.

Moving on to six months after San Bernardino County sheriff deputies arrested a Rancho Cucamonga man for stealing his own motorcycle and jailed him for 23 days, the department is now refusing to take action against the man who a Superior Court judge has since determined was the actual perpetrator of the bike theft.
Though the department relied upon a forged document that was controverted by California Department of Motor Vehicle registration data in taking its initial action and despite a court having now ruled that document to be a doctored and non-binding bill of sale, the sheriff’s department is maintaining the matter is one best adjudicated in civil court. This has prompted the motorcycle owner, whose bike has yet to be returned to him, to initiate the administrative process which must be completed to undertake legal action against the department.
During the month of May 2016, 21-year-old Eric Stone was negotiating the sale of his 2007 Yamaha motorcycle to his friend Daniel Lorenzo, also of Rancho Cucamonga. Lorenzo took the motorcycle for a test ride and never returned it. Over the following 30 days Stone made several requests to Lorenzo for payment or return of his property, which Lorenzo refused. On July 3, 2016 Stone located and recovered his motorcycle.
The same day, July 3, deputies from the Rancho Cucamonga sheriff’s station arrested Stone for violating California Vehicle Code Section 10851, vehicle theft, even after deputies verified through the California Department of Motor Vehicles computer data base that the motorcycle was currently registered to Stone and he was named as the owner of record. That arrest was predicated on statements Lorenzo made to deputies when he contacted the sheriff’s department and reported the motorcycle as stolen. When the deputies responded to Lorenzo’s location, he presented them with forged documents, including a handwritten bill of sale. When deputies contacted Stone and found him in possession of the motorcycle, he told them that he is the owner of the motorcycle and could produce a valid title. Stone denied writing the bill of sale. Deputies then accessed the DMV database and confirmed Stone was the registered owner. Despite the determination that Stone was yet the owner of record, Stone was arrested. Deputies returned the motorcycle to Lorenzo.
Stone was handcuffed and transported to the West Valley Detention Center where he was subjected to a strip search and booked. Stone was denied access to a telephone within three hours of arrest as required by law. After his one initial phone call, Stone was denied access to a telephone for the next eleven days, even after written requests to jail staff, and he was unable to contact an attorney.
During his time in custody Stone claims he was subjected to sexual harassment from other inmates and was in constant fear of being assaulted. When he reported the harassment to jail staff, Stone alleges his complaint was initially ignored and it was suggested by deputies that he should take the other inmate into his cell and fight him.
According to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, deputies must immediately remove an inmate from an abusive situation, pending an investigation.
On July 26, 2016, after more than 23 days in custody, Stone was granted a release on his own recognizance by court order. Stone was required to appear in court four more times. On October 17, 2016 the district attorney dropped the case due to a lack of evidence.
After the criminal case against him was dropped, Stone contacted the Sheriff’s department to report his motorcycle stolen. The responding officer, Deputy Brian Ogas, refused to take a report, stating that it was a civil matter.
Stone pursued the case in small claims court. On December 20, 2016 Lorenzo told Judge David Williams, after he was served with documents to appear in court, that he had sold the motorcycle. Lorenzo was ordered to return the motorcycle or pay $5,065 to Stone.
Stone claims the deputies did not thoroughly investigate the case and ignored evidence to justify arresting him. The three weeks and two days he spent behind bars were a Kafkaesque nightmare, Stone said. He presented the Sentinel with a synopsis of a log he kept during the ordeal. Stone said another inmate began to sexually harass him and that he sought protection from one of the deputies. “The first deputy that I told about the sexual harassment stated I should take him [the inmate harassing Stone] into my cell and fight him. ‘Just do not fight on my shift,’” Stone quoted the deputy as saying. “The next shift came on and the inmate tries to fight me and a custody specialist said over the loud speaker, ‘Don’t don’t do that again or you might get punched in the face again’ to the other inmate. Then on this shift the inmate started groping me and I told a deputy. He said the same thing the last one said. When I demanded a sergeant take my report and make this stop, employee G6214 took a grievance and did not hand it to his sergeant. It got ‘lost.’ I requested another grievance from employee G4153. I was grabbed in my genitals by the other inmate because G6214 told me I had no choice but to go back into my cell. A few hours later I was removed from my cell by G4153 and taken to the protected custody area and spoke to a sergeant, who took pictures of me and then asked me what was going on. He then had me placed in the hole [solitary confinement] for two-and-a-half days before moving me back to the cellblock with the inmate who was touching me. I was told they saw nothing on the video.”
Stone said the interaction he had with the sheriff’s department in the aftermath of Lorenzo’s falsified report bordered on the surreal. “A true title supersedes any other type of document and it supersedes a forged bill of sale,” Stone said. “They said the DMV computer records showed them it was in my name. Then they declined my true title as evidence. The DMV data they accessed showed I was the owner. They completely disregarded that. It seems like they’ve got a grudge against me.”
Objectively, that does seem to be the case. The department has now arrested Stone three additional times, all for being under the influence or in possession of a controlled substance. The district attorney declined two of the cases due to a lack of evidence, after the lab results showed no presence of a controlled substance. The third case was never sent to the district attorney for review. During each of the arrests Stone was handcuffed, transported to West Valley Detention Center, subjected to a strip search and booked, all without any cases being filed.
Stone made a written request to the sheriff’s department for records related to the four arrests. The requests were denied by sheriff’s officials stating that he must obtain a subpoena for the records.
Stone is now purposed to make a civil case of the matter, perhaps a federal one. “I filed tort claims against the county already,” Stone said.
A claim against a governmental entity is a precursor to a lawsuit. The government has the option of accepting or denying the claim. After such a claim is denied, the claimant can move ahead with a civil suit.
“Every time I have attempted to get to the bottom of this situation, I get the run around and a claim that it will be investigated,” Stone said. “Daniel Lorenzo committed several crimes to have me arrested. He forged documents with my signature. He made a false 911 call, gave false information to the police and committed grand theft auto by means of fraud. And since they assisted him and don’t want to involve themselves in ‘a civil matter’ as they claim, why did they involve themselves in the first place if it was a civil matter? They are just engaging in word games. The cardinal sin of a police officer is to lie to the public they are to protect and serve. All they have is their image for trust. They shine a light in my eyes and I blink and then they tell me I’m drunk or drugged up when I’m completely sober. I can’t tell whether this is gross incompetence or corruption. The only way to get them to truthfully state what happened and who did what is to call them out publicly.”
The sheriff’s department declined to discuss any issues relating to Stone or his experience.

Parish’s daisy, known by its scientific name Erigeron parishii as wellas by the moniker Parish’s fleabane, is a plant native to San Bernardino County and Riverside County. It is one of five federally-listed threatened species – along with the Cushenbury buckwheat, Cushenbury milk-vetch, San Bernardino Mountains bladderpd and Cushenbury Oxytheca – losing habitat to development and the limestone mining industry on the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains. Of these five endangered plants, Parish’s daisy is the one that is yet most prolific, with the most numbers and a primary habitat that ranges some 35 miles long covering an estimated 1,029 acres in 50 separate enclaves stretching from San Bernardino County to Riverside County and in a smaller area in the hills around Yucca Valley. There are 16,000 known living Erigeron parishii plants occurring at elevations generally between 3,700 and 6,600 feet, most often in washes and canyon bottoms, but sometimes on alluvial benches or steep rocky mountainsides.
One factor in Erigeron parishii’s favor is it has a relatively high genetic diversity for a narrow endemic. Genetic diversity allows a living organism to adapt to changing environments. With more variation, it is more likely that some individuals in a population will possess variations in its genes that are suited for the environment.
Erigeron parishii is a small perennial herb reaching a maximum height of 12 inches. Its taproot can penetrate the carbonate soils to a depth of 20 inches. This gives the plant the ability to live in and on limestone. Its stem and foliage are covered in silvery-white hairs and most of the leaves are basal and measure from about one inch to less than two-and-a-half inches long.
The erect stems have inflorescences of one to ten flower heads, each between 0.4 inches to 0.8 inches) wide. The flower head has a center of golden yellow disc florets and a fringe of up to 55 lavender, pink, pale rose, or white ray florets, with 30-50 ray flowers per head.
Erigeron parishii usually grows on limestone substrates, or granite topped with a layer of limestone. It apparently requires very alkaline soils.
Parish’s daisy is a long-lived perennial that flowers from May through August, peaking mid-May to mid-June. Based on its conspicuous flowers, pollinators are insects including bees, butterflies and other known pollinators of similar and related species. Parish’s daisy produces plumed achenes adapted for wind dispersal and does not appear to have a seed dormancy mechanism. Based on observations of seedlings at several sites, reproduction is believed to be primarily by seed rather than vegetatively by rhizomes or stolons. There is no evidence of vegetative reproduction, and botanists have concluded that the species probably primarily reproduces sexually through outcrossing.
The same rock that the plant favors – limestone – is also sought after for human use and limestone mining is the most significant threat to its habitat. The primary threats to the plant associated with limestone mining are direct removal of mined materials which displaces the plant entirely, disposal of overburden on adjacent unmined habitat and road construction. Lesser threats include sand and gravel mining, off-highway vehicle use, recreational and urban development, powerline and hydroelectric development, and the loss of pollinators or seed dispersal agents.
Parish’s daisy was named by Asa Gray in 1884 in his Synoptical Flora of North America. It was reported to be “abundant on stony hillsides at Cushenberry Springs” by a botanist with the last name of Hall in 1907.