Comments on: Nestle Public Meeting in McCloud Bigger Disaster Than Thought: Public Suffering “Nestle Fatigue?”

By: Michael Hill

Michael Hill — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:02 +0000

Having just watched TU’s episode on the McCloud and reading about Nestle’s efforts, I agree that they (Nestle) need to be stopped. I know of the McCloud, and have wanted to fish there but just haven’t been that far west yet. (For some reason, I just can’t seem to make it past Montana,Idaho and Utah) After seeing how beautiful a fishery it is, it would be a shame to have the headwaters (and whole river system) affected by the proposed bottling plant. I’m happy to see people that have the curage to stand up against what I consider “unnecessary progress”. People don’t understand the consequences of the bottled water industry and how it’s affecting the environment. Just because they bring in low paying jobs doesn’t justify the harm done. We need jobs, but we need to be responsible about it.
Look at what’s happened in yesterday’s Charleston, WV ruling about mountain top removal coal mining. There will be devastating consequence as a result of this judge’s decision to save jobs! Big corporations have screwed our environment and face little or no punishment for what they’ve done. Well, I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna’ take it anymore! Sign me up!!!

By: TC

TC — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:00:54 +0000

Betsy: The stories of Nestle moles seemingly pops up at every location. I’ll reserve judgment until something’s been proven, but it’s also a sign of the significant citizen distrust in Nestle’s process, which has always been far more concerned with getting water than it has with their impact on a town.

I know of at least two letters to the editor (locally) written by people who have received compensation from Nestle, yet they weren’t identified as such in the letter.

Then again, buying citizen support is so much easier than earning it.

By: Betsy Phair

Betsy Phair — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:17:03 +0000

Thanks, Tom.

It’s interesting that you talk about those who are getting paid to “Love Nestle”. I felt, back in 2003, right before the signing of the contract that there was a man who was paid by Nestle to come to town to “make sure things went smoothly” for Nestle.

I still have strong suspicions about that man. He has managed to put himself in a position of “power” on the MCSD board. Nothing has dissuaded me from my original thoughts.

There are others, who have received benefits from Nestle, not only in McCloud, but through-out the county and state, as well. The L.A. Times wanted to do a piece on “following the money” with Nestle and McCloud. Just before the article was to go to press, Nestle submitted a press release announcing that they were downsizing. Hmmmm!

By: TC

TC — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:33:43 +0000

Betsy: It’s possible this serves some larger Nestle plan, but the reality – and this thought is fueled by my years of experience with corporations – is that Nestle might just be this inept.

For years, they’ve had zero problems enforcing the same business template on community after community, but the reaction of the company – and its local representatives – to the recent adversity has been stunning.

Nestle’s willingness to sue the tiny town of Fryeburg and its divisive communications in other communities (outside agitators, etc) doesn’t suggest a savvy company. Instead, it suggests one that’s far behind the curve when it comes to getting what it wants.

This one will play out over time, but the Kearns & West disaster seems to be fueling a lot of McCloud residents’ desire to put Nestle behind them (except those getting paid to “love” Nestle).

By: Betsy Phair

Betsy Phair — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:53:52 +0000

Nestle is not dumb. They pay people a lot of money to look good. There are two possible reasons why this meeting went down: 1) Nestle wanted that to happen for some reason, perhaps so that the atendees would not go to future “Nestle unbiased 3rd party meetings”. 2) The “neutral” party found Nestle so egregious, that they manipulated the presentation. It will be interesting to see if Nestle finds a new company to represent them in the future. They certainly played around with attorneys when they went from Superior Court to Appellate Court. Because Nestle hired new attorneys, they were able to present “extra evidence”. Without that, non-factual “evidence”, I doubt that Nestle would have been able to win the appeal.
Now, if that isn’t manipulation, what is.
Perhaps there are other scenarios that I have not thought of.
Anyone got ideas here?