An (Un)Civil Debate On Measure L

CHANGE YOUR OPINIONS, OR ELSE

To Cecily Hastings:

I have lived in Sacramento my whole life and in Land Park since 1987. I have tolerated R.E. Graswich’s opinions for many of those years, but his article “Not Again” in the August editions of Inside veered too far from the point and the truth. The column criticized Measure L, the “Sacramento Children and Youth Health and Safety Act,” on the November ballot.

As publisher and editor, you are responsible for employing Mr. Graswich and publishing articles like this. You have responsibility and accountability for this hit piece. Of course there are many legitimate things you might raise to critique Measure L, but to lump the entirety of Measure L’s scope and intent to past problems of the Roberts Family Development Center is unconscionable and irresponsible journalism. If the current city audit of the Roberts Center shows that its past problems are now resolved, do you plan to write some form of retraction? I should hope so.

Have you considered having balanced reporting on this issue, or are you simply committed to defeating Measure L for your own personal reasons? Your answers to these questions could impact my decisions on how I choose to proceed with my own next steps.

As the senior pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church, a large-ish faith community, I am no stranger to receiving emails like this one. It is diffi cult to speak to the community without receiving criticism. When I am criticized, if the critique is valid, I try to do better. I ask the same commitment from you as publisher of one of Sacramento’s important publications. In addition, as a Downtown pastor, I experience the daily failures of our society. That is why I am committed to creating opportunities for our people, especially young people.

So I ask you to consider the signifi cance of publishing articles like the one Mr. Graswich wrote, writing exclusively about the Roberts Center, rather than what Measure L will actually do and how it will work. Having read more than one article like this from your columnist, I will take additional steps to right these wrongs, if need be.

My wife is a successful Realtor with a major advertiser of your paper. I know more than a few agents who could be rallied to do something about having their names attached to your unjustifi ed position of Measure L, linked as they are to your publication through advertising.

As a leader of my faith community, person of conscience, and life-long Sacramentan, I request that you not only desist from publishing misleading and infl ammatory articles of this nature, but also, for the sake of journalistic integrity, do something to right this wrong.

Sincerely,

Pastor Frank Espegren, Senior Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church n

An (Un)Civil Debate on Measure L

PASTOR’S THREATS DON’T INSPIRE SUPPORT

To Pastor Espegren:

The editor and publisher of Inside Sacramento asked me to thank you for your email in regards to my column “Not Again” in our August editions. While I was surprised by the threatening contents of your email, and generally don’t respond to threats, your position in the community and St. John’s Lutheran Church motto of “Live God’s Love in the World” inspired me to reply.

If I understand your email, you demand that I retract my factually correct column on Measure L, publicly reverse my position, and support a political initiative that I oppose. If I refuse to reverse my opinion, you will drag your wife and her business associates into this political disagreement and make them “do something” that causes fi nancial harm to Inside Sacramento.

Living God’s Love in the World indeed.

As for the August column, there are no errors to retract. I fi nd it astonishing that you consider my opinions “unconscionable” and “irresponsible,” yet offer no criticism of Derrell Roberts and his organization, which, according to the California Attorney General, misappropriated thousands of dollars destined for impoverished farmworkers. Those are facts, not opinions.

Apparently, taking money from farmworkers is OK because “past problems are now resolved.” I hope so. Mr. Roberts was cited by Measure L proponents as an example of someone who deserves public funds. That makes him relevant for discussion.

As for Measure L, it’s a $10 million annual cash grab against the city’s general fund. That’s a fact. I believe it’s bad public policy. That’s an opinion.

Given that Measure L is a political and secular matter, I’m disappointed to see it provoke a senior pastor and “person of conscience” to debase himself by making threats against a small business, pulling his spouse and her colleagues into a political disagreement over a guy who writes opinion pieces for a local magazine.

Seriously, Frank, if Measure L stirs up this kind of anger and vengeance in a “leader of my faith community,” then it absolutely deserves to fail.

Best,

Bob Graswich n