Coffee with Kevin Crye – 1/30/26

Coffee with Kevin Crye at Kaleidoscope Coffee on Athens St

On many Friday mornings, Shasta County residents get the chance to sit and have a chat with former Chair and current County Supervisor Kevin Crye. At Kaleidoscope Coffee on Athens Street, Crye often holds court with concerned citizens at his Coffee with Kevin sessions. This week’s conclave featured a spirited discussion among Shasta County voters in attendance on the merits of splitting the conservative vote in the upcoming Board elections and how grievances with the Board should be handled. There was even an interesting sidebar discussion with a Democrat bystander who said that he would never vote for Crye but praised him for meeting with constituents. Several topics dominated the conversation and Crye was frank and forthcoming in the repartee.

The Alternative Custody Program:

The first question for Crye came from this reporter concerning the County’s plan to build an Alternative Custody Program (ACP) facility on the Eastside Road Corridor along the Sacramento River near River Ranch Estates. Shasta Unfiltered had previously reported that the residents felt strong-armed by the County, saying that the decision was made “without notice to or input from the public”. Supervisor Crye denied that the decision and planning process was done in secret. He maintained that

• Sheriff Michael Johnson brought Kevin in because he gets things done

• People in the jail are ready for release to the community and ACP will make their release safer for all inmates

• They spent over a year talking about it at the board of supervisors

• He talked about it on his radio show for over a year

• Mailers were sent out to homeowners in the area

• Neighborhood forums were held to address resident concerns

• He understands why people in the neighborhood are upset, but:

  • It reminds him of the Peaks project where the neighborhood needs an alternate fire escape route that necessitates a bridge but they don’t want the bridge, even though it has been in the county plan for years

  • Similarly, residents near the proposed ACP site like the idea, but they just want it someplace else

Crye maintained that the concerned residents around River Ranch Estates have not taken advantage of opportunities to give their feedback to the County. He believes that they may have been advised by their attorneys that talking to the County could compromise their legal position in a lawsuit. He is concerned that they might be getting milked by the lawyers. Instead, they could give their feedback during the planning process. He also questions whether they really have a valid concern in the first place. The area has been zoned for commercial/industrial use. They bought their homes knowing that a development could be there someday, but now they’re acting like this is government overreach to put a much-needed facility there.

According to Crye, the construction is still 18 months out, there are lots of options that can be modified to mitigate the impact on the local community. They have already changed the plan several times in response to resident’s recommendations. He is willing to modify the plan, but he doesn’t see any way to meet the needs of the county by moving the facility. The city site is available now. It is very affordable. It is by far the best of the available locations. The surrounding residential neighborhoods were built with the zoning for the site already established for development of a large project. He is confident the project will make the community safer and provide more opportunities for individuals reentering society after incarceration.

Ladd vs. Toller Lawsuit

In attendance was Dan Ladd who is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Tom Toller (the former Registrar of Voters). His court filing alleged that Toller did not follow California election law in the 2024 general election. Crye did not argue against the allegations, but he explained that the county is required to pay for the legal representation of Tom Toller. They don’t have the freedom to stop the fight against the lawsuit brought by Ladd and another Shasta citizen, Laura Hobbs. Their only choice was either to participate in the lawsuit with Toller and maintain some control of the legal costs or to hand Toller a blank check for his legal fees. Ladd still seemed frustrated. However, some of the other citizens questioned whether his lawsuit was really benefiting the goal of election integrity. They had already expressed appreciation to Supervisor Crye for his efforts to bring Clint Curtis in as Registrar of Voters and for other efforts to strengthen elections in the county. Crye stated that Shasta County is leading the nation for election reform.

The “Shasta Five” Lawsuit

Crye was also questioned about the Board’s decision to sue the self-named “Shasta Five”, a small group of citizens who sought to exercise their right to redress government. They had sponsored a ballot measure to direct the county to require voter ID and same-day voting with greatly restricted absentee ballots for all county elections. Crye first asked for clarification, claiming that he didn’t know who the Shasta Five were. He did not answer the question directly, and then the conversation moved on. He never really answered the question.

The Door is Open

Shasta county residents can be grateful that Supervisor Crye, along with Matt Plummer on social media, has made himself available for comment and dialogue. This meeting was brief but helpful. Any Shasta County resident who wants to connect with the County Board should consider coming to meet Kevin at Kaleidoscope Coffee on occasional Fridays at 8:00 A.M. To find out when these meetings are held, you can subscribe to Crye’s mailing list at www.votekevincrye.com.