Blog Archives

September 9 – 15, 2020

Highlights this week:

BRATTON…Cynthia Mathews and the Felix Street vote. Vice Mayor Donna Meyers’ violation of house remodel, Paul Amodor’s location, film critiques. GREENSITE…on Wharf Decision-making. KROHN…Jimmy Panetta on the spot over; AOC, women’s vote, ICE, Green New Deal, and his not so progressive vote record. STEINBRUNER…County Planning helping evacuees, funding fire volunteers, help for farmers.  PATTON… “Changing Anyone’s Mind”. EAGAN…Classic Deep Cover and Subconscious Comics.  QUOTES…”MASKS” 


DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ, 1912. This is the corner of Soquel and Pacific. The businesses here are now New Leaf Market on the right, and what is/was Forever 21 on the left. Early narrow-minded forces ripped out the car tracks, so we could have more folks forced to use automobiles and increase traffic.                                                       

photo credit: Covello & Covello Historical photo collection.

Additional information always welcome: email



SHARKS AND SURFERS. I’ll bet it’s easier to teach sharks than it is to teach surfers. I’ll also bet that if all the surfers painted the bottoms of their surfboards with the same un-natural vivid pattern, the sharks would no longer confuse them with sea lions, and would stop biting their boards. But to get surfers organized and have them copy anything ….nahhh!!! 

DATELINE September 7

CYNTHIA MATHEWS NOT VOTING ON FELIX STREET DEVELOPMENT. Last week I wrote that I was amazed our City Council voted to stop the 3 story development on Felix Street. I couldn’t figure why Cynthia Mathews didn’t vote as usual on the developers side — and I fact didn’t vote at all. As usual it was big thanks to our readers end emailers that I learned Mathews didn’t vote because she owns property on Felix Street. The positive thing is that Justin Cummings voted against the Felix Street development. We’re guessing it was because he must have figured he could keep the remaining few who believe he was a progressive, and that without Mathews being able to vote, the development wouldn’t have much support. 

PAUL AMADOR…WHERE’D HE GO? Paul Amador is an excellent physical therapist. However, I can’t find him anywhere since he had to evacuate. Anyone know where he is? Please contact me.

STREAMERS, VIEWS CRIES & CRITIQUES. With the movie theatres closed, the entire movie industry is in 100% flux. And due to the fires and UCSC rulings, radio station KZSC has no live broadcasts as of August 31. So no film or streaming reviews on air. Historically and otherwise, my eight-plus years of formal film classes at Berkeley and UCSC I am always stoked by the chance to critique and pass on stuff no matter how I/we have to watch it and whatever size screen. With that in mind…I’m still enthralled with watching RAKE. It’s one of the most consistent brilliant funny, curious, serious, series I’ve ever seen. It’s a Netflix feature from Australia back in 2010. This week Netflix introduced Charlie Kaufmann’s newest movie

“I’m Thinking of Ending Things”. You need warnings about Kaufmann’s films. Remember “Being John Malkovich”, “Synecdoche, New York” and especially “Eternal Sunshine of the Eternal Mind”. “I’m Thinking” is one of his impressionistic, dreamlike, psychological adventure voyages. It’ll stay with you for days after.” Lovecraft Country” on HBO is also well worth your time and mental gymnastics.

VICE MAYOR DONNA MEYERS & HER ILLEGAL HOUSING ?. On or about September 1st I received an unmarked 6″ x 9″ envelope with eleven pages of Santa Cruz Zoning Administrator Agenda reports and other municipal pages. There was a note included which states, “Aren’t elected officials require (sic) to uphold all City laws?”

Merely receiving this particular correspondence was so unusual that I photographed it.

All the enclosed pages are from February 2015 and contain the anonymous sender’s underlinings — to the effect that two parking spaces, including one covered space, are required. It said her lot “is considered a substandard lot due to its less-than-50-foot width”. Her lot only has an existing one-car garage. Her lot is on Laguna Street and it was approved by Nancy A. Concepcion and Ryan Bane City Planners. It’s sort of difficult to pull this together and I’m assuming that Donna Meyers’ lot is still illegal, even though this happened way back in 2015. But as the sender asked: don’t city officials have to obey the laws too? Probably more to follow.

September 7

I was struck by the observation from local historian Ross Gibson in his most recent weekly Sentinel column. He writes: “Visitors regard Santa Cruz city as an unspoiled historic town, yet the heated battles to preserve its character are unseen, except in its prominent failures.”  La Bahia and the Cooperhouse immediately come to mind as do the less dramatic historic small buildings on Front Street, now condemned to the bulldozer after city council approval of their demolition to make way for modern 80 feet tall mixed use retail/upscale housing monoliths towering over the western bank of the San Lorenzo River; as does the push to bulldoze the Main Library and build a new library under a 5-story parking garage at the current site of the Farmers’ Market, killing heritage magnolia trees in the process. It can legitimately be claimed that the decision-makers, staff and elected officials alike have little feeling for history, for human-scale, for sense of place. 

Next on the historical chopping block is the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf. Unlike the aforementioned examples the Wharf cannot be bulldozed. Rather, it will be transformed into an upscale tourist destination bringing in large cruisers to off-load moneyed visitors and in the process losing the Wharf’s historical charm and working class character save for the branding of its name. That is if the dollar dreams of city and business pan out. It’s equally likely that a gentrified Wharf will not attract locals or visitors if the sentiments of the hundreds who wrote comments on the Don’t Morph The Wharf!  petition 4 years ago are any indication. Recreating a tall building at the end of the Wharf to mimic the old demolished processing building does not work when it will jam up against the Dolphin Restaurant and cover the sea lion viewing holes. Erecting three such tall buildings, one to tell you where you are and the other to protect visitors from the cold wind (yes, it can get windy half a mile out to sea and that’s what the longest pier on the west coast USA should feel like) is high-end tourism not historic preservation. 

The Dolphin Restaurant: 12 feet. New proposed building next to it: 45 feet

There has been vehement community opposition to all the above examples although large segments of the community have no clue what the downtown and the wharf will look and feel like until it’s a done deal. There’s a small bit of pleasure seeing the bell tower of La Bahia as lone sentinel to the town’s beach area history, left standing due to the corona virus economic downturn. That pleasure will be short-lived when bulldozing the old and building the new mega hotel resumes. 

For saving the Wharf there is still time but the city is stacking the deck. One set of cards deals with their deciding to hold the 2 public hearings during a pandemic via ZOOM meetings. The outcome of the council vote will forever change the town’s character and history. It will be one of Ross Gibson’s “prominent failures.” We’ve waited 5 years for the EIR, what’s a few more months to get beyond ZOOM and gloom? As I said, they are stacking the deck.

Another set of cards deals with withholding the final EIR until a few days before the hearing bodies meet to vote on the issue. The final EIR contains the city’s responses to all the comments it received on the draft EIR. It will be the first opportunity to assess whether the city adequately responded to the concerns and inadequacies in the draft EIR expressed on the part of many individuals and groups such as The Sierra Club, the Santa Cruz Bird Club and Don’t Morph the Wharf! If the final EIR is as inadequate as the draft EIR then this very late circulation allows little time to read, assess and if necessary get legal opinion. As I said, they are stacking the deck.

This past week I requested a copy of the final EIR from the city. I was told a copy would be placed outside the office for me to pick up. I picked it up. It was a copy of the draft EIR. I alerted staff to the mistake and requested the final EIR. Staff said that Economic Development had decided to postpone the Planning Commission hearing from September 13 to October 1, keeping the council hearing on October 13 and that the final EIR would be released for the public at the end of September. This action shortens the time to respond to the final EIR by 2 weeks leaving only 2 weeks to read, assess, respond and seek legal opinion. 

As I said… 

The city has just released ( 9/10/20 ) the final EIR. Sometimes the sqeaky wheel…..
You can find it here

Gillian Greensite is a long time local activist, a member of Save Our Big Trees and the Santa Cruz chapter of IDA, International Dark Sky Association    Plus she’s an avid ocean swimmer, hiker and lover of all things wild.


September 7


Readers might remember a BrattonOnline “SC Report” column I wrote back in July, “Where Was Jimmy (Panetta)? I called out our Congress member for voting in favor of moving toward passage of this year’sUS/Trump war budget. Although the President did not get as much largesse as he wanted into the House’s final bill, the budget from the previous year looks like it will actually increase. It is notable that more than 40 progressive members of congress voted against this war budget (HR 6395), which is officially called “The National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA). The current FY 2021 spending is to be somewhere around $740.5 billion. Even after a series of internet searches, it’s tough to tell what the exact amount will be. If you include, as some do, the budgets of Homeland Security, FBI and the Dept. of Justice cybersecurity operations, and Dept. of Veterans Affairs, then next year’s military budget becomes around $935 billion. Yes, wow!

A Phone Call

Well, I received a phone call from Congressmember Panetta about a day after BrattonOnLine came out. He said he read my column and wished to set the record straight about two issues I wrote about. One, why was he not present when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, along with other House members, offered their impassioned speeches in support of women while lambasting Rep. Ted Yoho‘s use of the “effing B**ch” remark towards AOC on the steps of the capital; and two, why he, Jimmy Panetta, voted yay on the national war budget for Fiscal Year 2021? He said he was totally sympathetic and in support of AOC’s hour-long rising on the House floor seeking “recognition for a point of personal privilege” in responding to Rep. Yoho’s remarks the previous day. Congress member Panetta said he would have been there, but the list of supporters who spoke that day along with AOC was long and a limited number of spots were all taken. He says he has a “very good working relationship” with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and that they are both members of the House Progressive Caucus. On the military budget, he said that “15,000 jobs in the district” are dependent upon passage of the military budget. Panetta went on to say that there are 12 military installations in the district, and what he voted on was “all about the students, climate change, and removing Confederate names from all military installations.” Both the House and Senate versions of the bill support the name changes. “It was the first time we got to vote against Confederate-named bases,” he said. 

Tale of Two Cities

Dear Jimmy,
In case you’ve forgotten, the City of Santa Cruz is a part of the 20th US Congressional District. You don’t just represent the military in Monterey and other places in the district, but you represent the people of Santa Cruz too. Over the years, we have consistently and unapologetically voted for peace initiatives and against a Navy ship docking here during a July 4th ceremony, for example. We voted to become a “Nuclear-free Zone” as well. Our city council voted against Reagan’s war in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980’s. In the 90’s when Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London the council voted to support his extradition to Chile in order to stand trial. AOC and Bernie Sanders both support abolishing the thuggish arm of Homeland Security (funded by military budget), that is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. I suspect Santa Cruz voters would follow suit as well. I implore you not to take this part of your congressional district for granted. I urge you to conduct an annual town hall meeting on the military budget, receive input from regular Santa Cruz voters, and actually seek to “beat” those 15,000 jobs attached to the military budget into “ploughshares,” peace time jobs in education, alternative energy, and Covid-19 tracking-related work. There is no doubt that a reasonable person would look at the military budget and see tremendous bloat. It must be hard to continue to vote for this outrageous expenditure year in and year out. I urge you to lead by directing some of these funds into the coming implementation of the AOC-Ed Markey “Green New Deal (GND),” which I know you support. (Thank you!) Let’s argue over GND funding, not missiles and tanks and the funding of weapons for the Saudis in their unforgivable assault on the Yemeni people. GND offers the opportunity to invest the military budget money into green jobs and alternative energy. You can lead on this one and you will get tremendous support from the voters in Santa Cruz too!

Some of Jimmy’s (Not So Progressive)Record

  1. a) On July 21, 2020, Panetta voted YES on the Dept. of Defense budget for 2021. And it appears that Congress member Panetta has NEVER voted against the enormous military budget.
  2. b) On July 21, he also voted with 185 Republicans, against progressive Mark Pocan’s Amendment839 that every other progressive in Congress voted for, which tried to scale back an increase in weapons spending and other non-personnel cuts. It “sought to reduce the overall authorization level by 10%; excluding military personnel, DoD federal civilian workforce, and defense health program accounts from the 10% reduction.”
  3. c) On March 11, 2020, Panetta voted YES on HR 6172 USA Freedom Reauthorization Act,” which was the Progressive’s nightmare bill born out of a post-9/11 paranoia hangover. “This bill reauthorizes through December 1, 2023, provisions related to intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) and amends FISA-related provisions.” This bill authorizes the FISA court.
  4. d) On Jan. 29, 2020, Jimmy Panetta again voted against the progressives and in favor of a largely, I think fair to say, conservative-backed drug bill, “Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act.” In fact, the Addiction Center newsletter reported that [I]n a recent statement, the ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance echoed the Democrats’ position, as opposed to the Republican vote: “We continue to have serious concerns that granting the Drug Enforcement Administration class-wide scheduling authority for fentanyl analogues will exacerbate already disturbing trends in federal drug prosecutions and incarceration levels.”(US Senate extends Schedule 1 Fentanyl Analogues )
  5. e) Perhaps, the most Santa Cruz slighting of all his votes took place on July 17, 2019. Congressmember Panetta voted NOT to impeach Donald J. Trump for “high misdemeanors.” (It was a motion to table the impeachment, basically not vote on it.) Again, 95 Democratic House members wanted to impeach. Congressmember Panetta had also voted previously against impeachment, so this was the second bite at the apple. 

Jimmy’s Assistant called me last week after I emailed some more questions to the Congressmember following up on our discussion. Mathew Manning is a policy analyst for Panetta. He wanted to further clarify Jimmy’s stand on defense-related issues. Manning said, according to the Middlebury Institute study, the NDAA adds 15,000, jobs and “$50 million to the Monterey economy.” This includes 6,000 active military members and 5,000 civilian jobs. Then Manning ticked off a bunch of things Jimmy’s done: a provision to increase maternal support for military members; he voted against the Saudi aircraft deal because of war in Yemen; he supports closing Guantanamo Bay; and he voted in the recent budget hearing to “cut spending on military interventions abroad.” All good things.

“The $740 billion military budget is not enough for Senate Republicans. Now they want to give the Pentagon an additional $21 billion. 

Instead of making the CEOs of defense contractors richer, we should provide every working class American $2,000 a month until this crisis ends.” (July 23)

From an Aug. 18th rally in the Santa Cruz City Hall Courtyard.

(Chris Krohn is a father, writer, activist, and was on the Santa Cruz City Councilmember from 1998-2002. Krohn was Mayor in 2001-2002. He’s been running the Environmental Studies Internship program at UC Santa Cruz for the past 14 years. He was elected to the city council again in November of 2016, after his kids went off to college. His term ended in April of 2020.

Email Chris at

September 7

Stay tuned for the Sept. 15 details the County Planning Dept. will present to the Board of Supervisors to streamline rebuilding.  Will people be able to rebuild?  Supervisor McPherson said “Code compliance will be crucial.”  Will they be able to get insurance?  According to the State Insurance Commissioner, Santa Cruz County now qualifies for a moratorium on policy cancellations. 

The Board of Supervisors has consistently refused to allocate any of the State Public Safety Prop. 172 funds to support County Fire.  Last year, the County received $17 million from this permanent statewide sales tax, but gave ZERO to County Fire.  The Board also refused to use any of the new countywide sales tax, approved by voters as Measure G in 2018 for unmet critical needs that listed “fire” as the third funding use.  ZERO money from Measure G has funded fire protection. 

The County Board of Supervisors must be held accountable for their negligence.  Please write a letter to the editors of local papers, and the Board of Supervisors. 

Bonny Doon residents rushing to build fuel breaks in wake of destructive fires 

In January, 2019, the Sentinel published this good article, excerpted below:

Two back-to-back fires in the area — the 2008 Martin Fire and the 2009 Lockheed Fire — were wakeup calls, Christy said. The Martin Fire burned 520 acres, destroyed three homes, injured four people and did $5.4 million in property damage. The Lockheed Fire burned more than 7,800 acres, injured 10 firefighters and did $27 million in damage.

Bonny Doon’s Warrenella Road, an old ranch road flanked by two 50-foot-wide fuel breaks, played a major part in stopping that fire, Christy said. “It was what stopped the Lockheed Fire from burning through the center of Bonny Doon and basically wiping out our community,” he said.

Meggin Harmon, a Bonny Doon native and active volunteer, vividly remembers the overcast sky that day and how “you could see the ash coming down. It was pretty scary.”

But Warrenella Road’s fuel breaks allowed her family to escape the flames.

But building a fuel break isn’t cheap. Funded by homeowners’ associations and grants from federal, state, county and city governments, the labor costs for fuel breaks run $2,000 to $3,000 per acre. All told, Bonny Doon spent about $150,000 on its past fuel breaks and will spend another $640,000 on its upcoming projects.

In addition, there’s the time and effort from volunteers who will be needed to write grants, solicit landowners and secure legal permission to grant access to private property and manage the projects. And fuel breaks must be regularly maintained because vegetation grows back.

Saving lives

But the tab is a fraction of the cost of fighting fires to save precious homes and loved ones.

“The rule of thumb is it costs about a quarter as much to prevent a fire than to fight a fire in the same area,” Ciesla said. Grant funding from state and federal agencies, however, is in short supply and is fiercely competitive, she added.

“There’s not enough money going around, and it’s not in the right places,” she said. “We have unlimited money to fight fires in this state, but there is not enough money to prevent them.”

Fuel breaks aren’t panaceas. They usually don’t help when winds are fierce because embers fly right over them. And their construction may change a habitat by creating room for invasive species such as French broom. They also may become new corridors for unwelcome wildlife such as coyotes and mountain lions.  

Some private landowners refuse to give their permission to construct breaks because of concerns about the loss of privacy or possible damage to their property. Others, particularly if they live elsewhere, simply ignore the permission requests.

But after Paradise was lost and videos of the leveled town circulated on the internet, two dozen neighbors walked the length of Bonny Doon’s McGivern Way, identifying ways it could be cleared for safer evacuation and a firefighters’ fuel break.

“People are realizing what the situation is — and how it’s changing,” Christy said. “And they’re getting together to do something about it.”

Now look at the August, 2020 image of Warrenella Road and the Molino Creek Farm:

Molino Creek Farm Fire Recovery Fund, organized by Mark Lipson

What went wrong?  How could the Warrenella Fire smolder slowly for two days, encompassing 120 acres by August 18, with a CalFire Incident Management Report claiming at 6:30 pm that day the fire would be out by Sept. 1? 

Where was CalFire when that same night, a fire on China Grade reported at 6:45 pm exploded to cause the town of Boulder Creek to be ordered evacuated at 10 pm? 

Bonny Doon and Boulder Creek volunteer firefighters worked tirelessly to save homes, with CalFire engines nowhere to be seen.  


CZU Fire Recovery Fundraisers
Please share with your network and donate if you can to help these local permaculture folks and farmers rebuild their homes and livelihoods:

This Thursday, the new Aptos/La Selva Fire District Interim Fire Chief Jarvis will present a schedule for the consolidation of that District with Central Fire District.  There is a town hall meeting planned for September 30, but the people will have NO opportunity to vote on whether they want the consolidation to happen or not.  Instead, there will have to be a protest effort scheduled to occur during the busy holiday season that would bring the matter to a vote only if 25% of the combined District affected population were to protest.  That does not seem right to me.  Why does everything have to be a negative protest action, rather than a positive and transparent voter confirmation action?

Write or testify this Thursday, and make your thoughts known.  How much will the assessments be???  How will the consolidation affect levels of service???  No one has provided this information to the affected public.

09/10/20 Board Meeting

I could not participate in last Thursday’s Planning Commission hearing on the Front Street project, but read in the Sentinel’s Government Corner (9.6.2020, page A2) that the Commission approved the project application and an EIR.  The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval to the City Council, with Commissioner Christian Nielsen opposed and Peter Spellman absent.  “The Commission modified the original staff-proposed approval by requiring the developer to involve the city Arts Commission in plans to paint a mural and to increase the proportion of income-limited units in the project.”

You can listen to the proceedings here, beginning at about minute 8:00:


Cheers, Becky Steinbruner
I welcome your discussion 

Becky Steinbruner is a 30+ year resident of Aptos. She has fought for water, fire, emergency preparedness, and for road repair. She ran for Second District County Supervisor in 2016 on a shoestring and got nearly 20% of the votes.

Email Becky at


September 5
#249 / Beguiling The Butterfly Of Change

I like the image above. It accompanied a long article in the “Review” section of The Wall Street Journal, published in the February 22 – 23 edition. The article, by Jonah Berger, was titled, “How to Change Anyone’s Mind.” The advice contained in the article reminded me of one of my own blog posts, “What I Learned From An English Teacher,” published in February. That blog post was all about the wisdom of making concessions – but only to strengthen your own argument. 

Here are a few excerpts from Berger’s article (since the entire article may be paywall protected): 

When trying to change minds, organizations or even the world, we often default to a particular approach: pushing. Boss not listening to that new idea? Send them another PowerPoint deck. Client isn’t buying the pitch? Remind them of all the benefits. When people are asked how they’ve tried to change someone’s mind, my own research finds that the overwhelming majority of the answers focus on some version of pushing.

The intuition behind this approach comes from physics. If you’re trying to move a chair, for example, pushing usually works. Push it in one direction and it tends to go that way. Unfortunately, people and organizations aren’t like chairs; they often push back.

It helps to look to chemistry, where there’s a proven way to make change happen fast: Add a catalyst. Catalysts convert air into fertilizer and petroleum into bike helmets. But most intriguing is the way they generate change. Instead of adding heat or pressure, they provide an alternate route, reducing the amount of energy required for reactions to occur. Rather than pushing, they remove barriers.

Again and again, the same approaches emerged. Instead of giving people more facts, figures or reasons, smart change agents find the hidden obstacles preventing change and mitigate them. Instead of asking what might convince someone to change, catalysts start with more basic questions: Why haven’t they changed already? What’s stopping them?

People like to feel like they’re in control—in the drivers’ seat. When we try to get them to do something, they feel disempowered. Rather than feeling like they made the choice, they feel like we made it for them. So they say no or do something else, even when they might have originally been happy to go along. Psychologists call this negative response “reactance.” Decades of consumer behavior research shows that people have an innate anti-persuasion radar. They’re constantly scanning the environment for attempts to influence them, and when they detect one, they deploy a set of countermeasures.

Berger says that people tend to be “over-attached” to the status quo, so those wishing to stimulate change need to make the cost of the current situation clear. Berger also recommends that those advocating for change propose gradual change. He says those wanting to motivate change also need to reduce the risk, and that there needs to be a lot of corroborating evidence that a change would be positive, and that providing that kind of evidence is vital in efforts to induce people to change. 

Berger’s conclusion and bottom line is simple, and he makes an extravagant claim as he states it – the same claim he made in the title to his article: you can change “anyone’s” mind:

It’s not about pushing harder or exerting more energy. It’s about reducing barriers to action. Once you understand that, you can change anything.

I think that fundamental changes absolutely must be made in the way we organize and operate our politics, our economy, and our social relationships. Because I do believe that so strongly, I put a real priority on working for change. Because I do believe that change is such an urgent necessity, my first instinct is to “push.” Maybe, though, I need to think about this need to “push” in a different way. Maybe we need to focus most on pushing ourselves, so we never decide that we can give up on the need for change. If we do that, and never stop pushing ourselves, we may be able to stop trying so hard to push others, and can then use some of Berger’s observations and techniques to help others make the changes that we know are so absolutely necessary. 

Gary Patton is a former Santa Cruz County Supervisor (20 years) and an attorney for individuals and community groups on land use and environmental issues. The opinions expressed are Mr. Patton’s. You can read and subscribe to his daily blog at

Email Gary at


EAGAN’S SUBCONSCIOUS COMICS. View classic inner view ideas and thoughts with Subconscious Comics a few flips down.

EAGAN’S DEEP COVER. See Eagan’s ” Deep Cover” down a few pages. As always, at you will find his most recent  Deep Cover, the latest installment from the archives of Subconscious Comics, and the ever entertaining Eaganblog


“The irony of life is that those who wear masks often tell us more truths than those with open faces.” 
~Marie Lu, The Rose Society 

“Don’t you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?” 
~Søren Kierkegaard 

“I believe in my mask– The man I made up is me
I believe in my dance– And my destiny”
  Sam Shepard 

COLUMN COMMUNICATIONS. Subscriptions: Subscribe to the Bulletin! You’ll get a weekly email notice the instant the column goes online. (Anywhere from Monday afternoon through Thursday or sometimes as late as Friday!), and the occasional scoop. Always free and confidential. Even I don’t know who subscribes!!

Snail Mail: Bratton Online
82 Blackburn Street, Suite 216
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Direct email:
Direct phone: 831 423-2468
All Technical & Web details: Gunilla Leavitt @


I have a grandson who is 5. This means that I am now familiar with things like StoryBots… and StoryBots are great! Catchy music and lyrics, both educational end entertaining. Check out this compilation of songs, and then get lines like “1, 2, 3, check out my horns!” and “The moon is kinda like my hula hoop!” stuck on your brain! You’re welcome…


Posted in Weekly Articles | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.