“Don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is an old adage most of us have heard with full understanding of its meaning. It only makes sense, providing one has any sense, to refrain from damaging that which makes survival possible. Now, after reading the words under the headline “Meyer’s Future,” subtitled “City Weighs Housing Permit Extension Amid Development Push” (King City Rustler; Oct. 3, 2025, issue), I find myself in the situation of taking a small nip out of the hand that provides me, not in monetary renumeration, but in opinion space. I take issue with a published article.
One of the first things I look for when reading articles is the byline; who submitted the story? There are a couple names we local readers are accustomed to seeing, Sean and Ryan mostly, but more often than not we read Staff Report and know that is the edited information and/or photos sent in by some entity regarding an event or current situation. This particular submission is by an L.W. Hamilton, freelance reporter; a name unknown to me so I turned to the back page, to the end of the article, where I thought I would find, in italics, a brief bio of the writer. But, nothing. Not where he/she is from, what publications written for, or any credentials mentioned. Odd. So, we are left to wonder about the author’s background, which leads to wonder about the author’s overall intent: to report or to opine.
What is found at the end is notification of the next Planning Commission meeting, with pertinent information as to where, when and with explanation about how to attend electronically. (We’ll revisit this information later in the column.) All that is normal, apart from the last sentence: “Come and see to help decide the future of King City.” That is not informational, reportorial writing, that is editorial writing; and, obviously, not well constructed grammatically.
And this type of writing appears throughout the piece; and the piece is not small. Let’s compare this story with two opinion columns, mine and George’s. In this past issue, my column used 30 inches of column space with a word count of 996; another 11.5 inches dedicated to graphics and title. George used 28 inches of column space, so approximately 950 words with 5.5 inches dedicated to photo and title. The Meyer article used 46.5 inches of column space and 27 inches dedicated to photo and title.
First, let’s take a look at the words, which by my estimate is around 1,500 used. These words quote or cite four people in support of the writer’s subject but counters with only one city staff who offers the city’s requirement to uphold an ordinance, which does not allow farmworker housing with metal walls. In that reference, we have the city manager, apparently quoted, as citing two existing local housing facilities and the ordinance addressing housing construction. The citing leads one to believe the city determines construction standards. It does not. The 2018 Seasonal Farmworker Housing Ordinance is a state ordinance, which, if researched, shows the reason why metal walls are prohibited (it is a big state and metal walls lead to overheating in some areas and overcooling in others and prevent acceptable insulation standards) and informs that, per the website, “Local authorities are responsible for enforcing these standards with penalties for non-compliance.”
It seems to this writer that such an imbalance of information and semantical shenanigans in support of one side of an issue is a slant in reporting, a bias to one side of the issue, that should not go unchallenged. We see the writer’s blatant opinion of the entire issue in the last four paragraphs, even tossing in some history of the building to stir up a little nostalgia (the author’s name and reference to Mr. Steinbeck conjures thought). To say this is reporting not opining is a bit of a stretch to any writer who has any background or experience in the field of media communications.
And as for the photo, also submitted by author Hamilton, on the front page and above the fold, the caption is not entirely accurate as the clock section of the building is not actually part of the housing section. This fact is mentioned in the article, as is the fact that that section of the building has been sold and is scheduled for demolition. Also, I fail to see where that clock is historic in any way, as it is not designated so by any official entity and, as many of my generation recall, was not even built back in the tomato processing days. That part of the property was where scores of high schoolers turned around as we “dragged main” back in the day.
Oh, and back to the italicized information offered at the end of the article. This column will appear the day after the Planning Commission meeting cited, Oct. 7, and, as the agenda for that meeting was posted last week outside City Hall revealed, further discussion of the issue was held over until the Nov. 18 Planning Commission meeting. I’m betting now the author wishes this article was held until The Rustler’s Nov. 12 issue; but maybe that’s just the writer in me. In full disclosure, I will state here that though I am one of five planning commissioners, I will only make a decision about this issue after reading staff supplied material and hearing public arguments as presented in official proceedings.
***
Republican politicos estimate it will take $35 million to $50 million to bail out soybean farmers, to name only one segment of crop producers, after Mr. Trump’s tariffs have cut off sale to China and other nations. This bail out is now being considered necessary to keep farms afloat. I’m of the opinion you get what you pay for, and with their vote, farmers bought hardship for themselves. So, forget any taxpayer money coming your way and live with it like the rest of us must.
Take care. Peace.
