MENDOCINO CO., 5/28/26 — On May 19, the Mendocino Board of Supervisors voted to approve the use permit for the construction of a 10-pump Chevron gas station in Redwood Valley alongside U.S. Route 101. The controversial project is contested by groups like the Redwood Valley Municipal Advisory Council, which advises the board in unincorporated areas of the county, the Grassroots Institute, and the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians. Opponents of the project argue that it will alter Redwood Valley’s character, create traffic and noise pollution, and go against the town’s values. They also worry it may affect the welfare of Redwood Valley residents, citing the station owners’ past consumer and environmental violations.
The applicant, Faizan Corporation, headed by Haji Alam, has been pursuing the gas station’s construction for a decade. Faizan Corporation was first granted a use permit for a smaller, six-pump gas station in 2016. That permit expired in 2018 before any construction had been performed.
Faizan Corporation reapplied in 2021, this time with expanded plans, including four additional pumps and added parking spaces.
The new plans were brought in front of the planning commission in 2023. Caltrans recommended the project be approved only if a median closure was installed across from the station to prevent future customers from crossing the freeway to enter the gas station. The planning commission denied the project on the grounds that the installation of the median closure would negatively affect the community and be a nuisance.
Alam then appealed the planning commission’s decision. The appeal was first brought before the Board of Supervisors in 2024. A series of hearings and pushbacks in the form of applicant’s addendums, which attempted to avoid the median’s construction, finally led to the most recent hearing on May 19. Faizan Corporation conceded to installing a median and altering other parts of the plans to fit with Caltrans recommendations. After that, the Board of Supervisors approved the project.
The gas station has encountered public opposition since 2017, when the Redwood Valley Municipal Advisory Council first learned of the plans. Controversy around the project heightened in 2023, after Faizan Corporation, which operates gas stations at locations in Sonoma, Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, and Yolo counties, came under investigation by the Sonoma Environmental and Consumer Law division.
Faizan Corporation was ordered to pay a $500,000 settlement for failing to adequately install and operate equipment designed to detect petroleum leaks and failing to comply with laws regulating hazardous wastes and hazardous materials. Additionally, Faizan had falsely advertised the sale of lower-octane gasoline as higher-octane at certain stations.
This was not the Faizan Corporation’s first violation in Mendocino County. In 2019, the North Coast Regional Water Board issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order and investigative order against Alam’s ExpressMart in Ukiah after detecting gasoline in nearby groundwater. However, after pumping out groundwater for testing, the site was found to be uncontaminated, and the case was closed.
The Redwood Valley MAC has been a prominent opponent of the station. In 2022 the group recommended a denial of the project on the grounds that the nearby Coyote Valley Gas Station sufficiently met the fueling demands of the area.
The group has also held multiple meetings to discuss the project. Christine Boyd, a Redwood Valley MAC founding member, estimates dozens of residents have shown up to these discussions, calling it “kind of a big deal” in the small town.
In 2025, the Redwood Valley MAC adopted a resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors enact a five-year moratorium on gas stations in Redwood Valley. The decision was inspired by a 2023 ordinance in Sonoma County that prohibited the development of new retail gas stations in unincorporated areas. Boyd pointed out that Mendocino County has twice the number of gas stations per capita than Sonoma County.
She also noted that the gas station’s peripheral location meant its primary customers would be vehicles traveling through the town on 101, such as long-haul trucks. Residents are concerned about an increase in freeway traffic in the area, especially since the location is a block away from the public school.
“Every time the trucks go rolling down the hill…getting their fuel, stopping, starting… that’s more diesel fumes going into the atmosphere,” Boyd said.
The environment is a top concern to the project’s opponents.
“We have come to the conclusion over and over again that this project is a detriment to the environmental quality of Mendocino County…It would undermine the county and our state’s environmental goals to limit and reduce the negative impacts of global greenhouse gas emissions,” said Peter McNamee, representing the Grassroots Institute’s climate action group at the May 19 board meeting. The group has been present at past Board of Supervisor meetings to speak in opposition to the gas station.
Boyd concurs, arguing that the Board of Supervisors’ decision to allow the gas station was in direct conflict with their past resolutions declaring climate emergencies.
“There’s a climate emergency that gets declared every year by the BOS, but they don’t seem to do a damn thing about it,” she said.
The Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians represents another group opposed to the station’s construction.
Present at the board of supervisors meeting was Melinda Hunter, the vice chairwoman for the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians. She argued that new businesses in Redwood Valley should be ones that would help the community, such as health care-related services, rather than businesses aimed at visitors.
“The Chevron project would mostly benefit a large outside company, not local residents. Redwood Valley already has gas stations. Many people in the community believe there’s not another need for one,” she said.
The tribe, which owns the Coyote Valley Casino Gas station, would be in competition with the new gas station.
Supporters, however, see the gas station as a welcome development for the stagnant town.
“In my lifetime, say the last 50 years, there have only been four new commercial projects that have been constructed in Redwood Valley…In my opinion, Redwood Valley needs some commercial investment, or it’s likely going to decline,” said the applicant’s attorney Steven Johnson at the board meeting. Johnson grew up in Redwood Valley.
Installation of the gas station will clean up a derelict area, which now stands as an empty lot. The gas station is also projected to create 12 jobs.
Supporters point out that Alam’s willingness to build a median closure would fix a traffic circulation issue that Caltrans had not yet solved.
“Everybody with any brains can see that the current traffic situation is not even legal or correct. That anybody could cross the road and cause an accident… I don’t understand how Caltrans could allow this current situation to remain. And for him [Alam] to make a change is going to fix that unhealthy traffic situation,” said Memo Parker, a Ukiah resident who spoke at the board meeting.
Mendo Matters, an employer council that acts as a watchdog for proprietors’ rights, also backs the project, asserting that Alam is entitled to develop his property as he wishes as long as he follows proper regulations and code.
Kerri Vau, director of Mendo Matters, felt that the Redwood Valley MAC was unjustified in its criticisms of Alam’s record.
“Our group’s effort is to protect property rights. If they would have denied this project because of the person who owns this project, or they just don’t want new gas stations, that’s where we draw the line. That’s illegal,” said Vau.
Boyd disagrees with the assessment that Alam’s record should not be taken into consideration, instead arguing that his past violations should be what disqualifies him from receiving a permit.
“The code also says morality is an issue that can be considered. I think that is relevant and I think it applies,” said Boyd, referring to Mendocino County’s zoning code, which states that its purpose “is adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity and general welfare.”
“To me the morality issue comes from their serial violations,” said Boyd.
She believes these arguments could have held up in court, if the Board of Supervisors let it get to that point. Instead, Boyd speculates the board approved the gas station to avoid a lawsuit and reap the station’s future revenue.
Now that the gas station has been approved, Boyd sees no recourse for the Redwood Valley MAC.
“We have to kind of put up with it now that it’s a reality,” she said.
The organization will continue their work for a gas station moratorium on future projects, though Boyd admits they have minimal sway.
She still disagrees with the board of supervisors’ decision to approve the gas station.
“We’re not feeling represented, that doesn’t feel good,” said Boyd.
Omfg now I’m pissed
This is a very unfortunate decision. The BoS has thumbed its nose at the legitimate health and safety concerns of local residents, has rewarded an irreputable business, has embraced a dinosaur philosophy of encouraging fossil fuel energy sources and ignored its apparently just for show recognition of a greenhouse gas emission climate emergency. Shame!
LOL, “greenhouse gas climate emergency.”
“Dinosaur philosophy,” LOL. Was that actually a joke and not a serious assertion, you know, “oil from dinosaurs”? Nah, you actually believe that bovine excrement!
Your cult leader, Al Gore, insisted that we would be having a lethal catastrophe by now when he hawked his book/”documentary” (to promote the big money con-job of “carbon emissions trading”). His claims were false prophecies. 2046 will arrive and we’ll still be here, the environment will not be like Mars or Venus, and, hopefully, nuclear fusion will be perfected and EVs will be looked upon as one of the biggest jokes in the history of technology.
Redwood Valley didn’t have the right argument from the get go. They had no stats on how large gas stations impact communities with pollution, spills, noise, crime etc. Gas stations are basically hazardous materials handling facilities where the public is allowed to transfer and transport the hazmat. Any information on accidental spills? Traffic collisions? Vehicles running into pedestrians?
I think the answer was no, only “we don’t like that guy.” But RVMAC is full of Karens. That’s what the board heard, a bunch Karens.
Yes, people don’t like intelligent women speaking for some reason, it makes them feel emasculated.
Using intelligence would involve having an actual strategy. What I saw didn’t look like strategy. It took a couple years to get to that vote.
Not surprised. These Supervisors didn’t care about the corporation’s record of violations. It’s the same stuff different day in Mendocino. Not only the record of the property owner but the community was against it, I believe the next door property owner will lose some of his property. Exactly how many gas stations do we need in our rural area?
There are actually rules about what the board can consider when voting and the violations and previous record of the company cannot be a factor. It was stated clearly at the meeting.
Can’t wait for the transients to show up loitering around the station
I understand that the vote in support of this project was 4 to 1. In the future, it would be helpful if The Mendocino Voice would specify who voted for and against projects, especially controversial projects like this one. We need to know what our supervisors are voting for to be able to assess whether they deserve our support should they choose to run for office again.
Watch the YouTube video of the meeting. It’s all on video.
I am curious how the BOS voted. Who supported it, who did not.
It’s all on YouTube at the Mendocino county channel. Watch it and find out.
Only Ted Williams voted against the gas station.
Land owners in Mendocino County have the right to do with their land they pay taxes on as they wish. They shouldn’t even have to go before the board or the Redwood Valley “not in my backyard” Karen’s 😡 who opposed any development and make business hard for newcomers trying to progress the community. This is about landowners rights to use their land as they see fit, many of the same names opposed to this station are opposed to cannabis, and every other enterprise under the sun. Good Job on approving this project Mendocino County BOS ! Enough of the Nonsense!
There’s a reason everyone wants an acre in RV, and it’s cause it’s rural and spacious. What will have to happen now is major off/on ramp work. Because the school way/freeway/Northstate junction is already an accident prone hellhole. It’s not just ” not in our backyard” it’s, “kids walk across that intersection and someone’s gonna get killed”. Fine, a gas station, but make sure the surrounding infrastructure is up to speed.
If “land owners” want to have the same human rights as human beings, they should be full-liability sole proprietorships or partnerships. No more “limited liability” incorporation.
If you want government protection, then don’t whine about government oversight.
So once again our elected representatives voted against the overwhelming majority of their constituents. Wonder what the payout was. Guess it wasn’t enough for Williams.
Ms. Vau says her organization is protecting “property rights.” What about the local home owners’ property rights in a small community that has fought for years to preserve the natural beauty, history and simplicity of its rural way of life?
Do we really need yet another brightly-lit, asphalt-surrounded industrial complex that adds to the glaring light pollution at night around here? Could the County at least require that the lights be muted and pointed down? That’s the least they could do to mitigate one of the many negative impacts of that “newcomer” business. (BTW, Mr. Rumor Mill, is Faizan going to move up here and become part of the community he is supposedly “progressing”? Ha!)
Sonoma County and other forward-thinking counties have required noise and light-reducing mitigations and aesthetic parameters for decades in their small, rural towns, where tourists actually go to visit, not just pass through after buying gas.
RVMAC’s website’s homepage says that they’re trying to create ”. . . a situation where all the community STAKEHOLDERS—other businesses, Fire Department, local residents . . . would [be] involved in a more collaborative effort to create occupancies that address different stakeholders’ needs, not just those of a parcel owner,” a development plan that “embraces Redwood Valley’s history, community character, and our vision for a safe and sustainable future.”
What’s wrong with that? A “collaborative effort” with the County’s own civic-minded constituents–what a concept! The above quote describes the kind of place I want to live. Call me all the names you want, Karen gadflies. I believe in Nimbyism. Without it, we’d all be living in a barren, toxic wasteland, where the business owners live far away from the ugliness they created. If you don’t agree with our small-town, rural vision, move to Richmond. There you can appreciate close-up what the real effects of the fossil fuel industry are.
The Coyote Valley Casino Gas station is the busiest gas station in the county, with cars always waiting in line for a pump to open up. You don’t have to pay state taxes for fuel at the tribal gas stations so even trucks stop there for diesel. Another tribal gas station would be justified. On the other hand, Chevron has the brand name and is perhaps the most expensive fuel you can buy in the county. With gasoline expected to reach $8 a gallon by the end of this year which investment would best service customers and make the most sense? Using common sense in addressing these issues is expecting way too much from the people currently sounding off about it. No one cares about the local people who need to commute to their work. Do they?
True
Costco may still be selling more fuel than Coyote.
Since we need to phase out fossil fuels, it does surprise and disappoint me that another gas station was approved, and on a 4 to 1 vote at that. According to Caltrans, our county has roughly twice as many gas stations per capita as neighboring Sonoma County. At the very least, it seems that Chevron should be required to install an EV charging station alongside its antiquated pumps. Norway, by comparison, has nationalized its oil industry and funnels the profits into a government pension fund. 98% of their vehicles are now EV’s, and their government carries almost no debt. America isn’t so superior after all, by the look of it.
Fossil fuels will not be phased out in our lifetime, or the next 50 years for that matter. It’s a pipe dream.
Here in the real world some of us still commute to work, drop our kids off at school and go to doctor appointments in automobiles.
Oh, man, that’s hilarious! You actually believe the propaganda about “fossil fuels” and that they “need to be phased out.”
LOL, if you want to keep eating, you can disavow yourself of such nonsense now. Petroleum feeds the world, and this will not be changing for many decades. Electric tractors won’t cut it (80% of farmers worldwide can’t afford them anyway).
My opposition to the station is because:
1) it’s not needed there;
2) it’s going to be run by a corporation with quite the “reputation”;
3) that “reputation” includes the outrageous prices of the Chevron on Lovers Lane (always higher than the Redwood Oil Company-run stations).
Is this a case of “the best board of supervisors money can buy”?
We definitely don’t need a gas station there.
Hopefully the tribal gas station will put up plenty of advertising north of that location letting travelers know a better option is just about two miles south.
Does no one care about the freeway ramp situation? I’ve seen kids dart across the West Road Freeway shit hole junction and almost get hit by assholes going around other cars turning left cause they can’t wait a damn second. There’s an accident there several times a year. Will RV get any tax dollars from this station? Or just more convenient gas? Where’s our fire money? Our elementary school rots away, desperately hoping for a conversion. People are still rebuilding from the fire from nearly 10 years ago.
So you just said you have witnessed kids almost get hit by cars at a freeway ramp and you took the courageous action to stand up for your values by writing a comment here about the speeding drivers? And that’s it? Nothing more?
You didn’t speak to the kids or the police?
Ok Dave, easy boy, easy
Dave, many parents complained to the school. Many Karen type moms complained. For many years.
According to the California Air Quality Control Board, Electric vehicles are set to take over new car sales in California by 2035, when 100% of new passenger vehicles sold in the state must be zero-emission models. However, gasoline-powered cars will not be banned from the roads; residents will still be allowed to own, drive, and sell used gas cars.
What this means is that we will be dropping off our kids at school in an EV. Our climate crisis is the largest threat that we now face, and it would be wise if we were able to recognize this threat and take immediate action in every way that we can to protect ourselves and the future generation.
The operative word in this argument, as it applies to we the people, as tax paying Americans mind you, we will be “allowed” to keep our used gasoline vehicles in the future. That is exactly what is wrong with California today. It has become an administrative tyranny. It tells us how to live, what we are “allowed” to drive, a state government that has become a nanny state, without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed. California used to be a great state once.
The “largest threat we now face” is out-of-control government, from Ukiah to Washington, DC. This “decision” is just a small example.
The so-called “climate crisis” is a propaganda campaign cooked up by our rulers, who are instructing all levels of “government” to IGNORE the needs and wants of the People. Note how the major “climate crisis/emergency” “influencers” are ALSO pushing power-guzzling, carbon-spewing AI data centers (so they can have a planetary control grid watching us and second guessing EVERYTHING we do all day, every day).
Until government apparatchiks are AFRAID of the People, this sort of malfeasance will continue.
I actually have to agree with John T. and D. F. Club this time, at least their point that we don’t need another gas station here and that if we did, a different business with a better reputation and cheaper gas. But we don’t. I support “I. S. Karens” even more. Her arguments contain the best common sense of anyone’s. She obviously lives in the area and has first-hand knowledge of the traffic and town’s economic issues. The Supes’ decision is incomprehensible and unconscionable. Two are up for re-election. I don’t have time to watch the whole BOS meeting video. Would someone please tell us who the one No vote was?
Thanks Jack B, not only do I live there, I have kids that are learning to drive. I have warned them of that intersection repeatedly.
In response to Dave Fan Club. You’ll be able to drive your gas guzzler as long as you like, Dave.
Perhaps you are among the many, but thankfully not the majority, who do not worry about the pollution of the air that we breathe and the health impacts and cost of that. The damage to our water, our fisheries, and our coastlines is not of your concern either. Nor the high cost in lives and in bombs, with this continual series of Oil Wars that we are having to pay for. Or the fact that these oil companies buy off our politicians, and we have to SUBSIDIZE them to pervert our ability to govern ourselves. All of these negative impacts are expensive, but the real whammy will be the cost of damage from wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and sea level rise from the heating up of our planet due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Thankfully, the majority of Californians care about our future generations and do not have their heads in the sand. We are willing to connect the dots and accommodate these changing conditions to try to keep our planet livable. Let’s follow Norway and make some smart moves, shall we? We’ll be better off if we do, I assure you.
The war on Iran is obviously not actually about oil, but about what counterfeit “Israel” wants (and instructs Washington to do).
It would be a great day if people stopped believing in this “left/right” bovine excrement and realize that “both sides” are waging war on us, and “both sides” use customized propaganda to manipulate the majority of those who affiliate with each. As has been conclusively shown, “our” so-called “representatives” represent none of us, but are actually paid agents for a variety of “special interests” who couldn’t care less if any of us died right now. AIPAC and every major corporation in the lead of this payola-driven “government.”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
― H.L. Mencken
Actually I drive a 20 year old work truck. I take care of it and it takes care of me. What I drive or don’t drive has nothing to do with saving the planet. I’m pretty sure about that. I agree with you about one thing though, and no, I do not care a damn about all the stuff you are worried about.
However, I am concerned about one party political power in my state. That power is a threat to my freedom. Freedom to decide my own life decisions. Freedom to live my life without fear of the government. I am for “We the People” not big government.
In response to Shelia: You can take Norway, and any other European country for that matter, and shove it up your Ying Yang. I’m a proud American and I don’t speak kilometers.
Bjorn Lomborg, environmental scholar, recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex. Note that the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, and the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit. What we could have done for cleaner water and air with $16 trillion?
Sure Dave. Sure. You’re sooo American.
I knew that the BOS would approve that gas station because they consistently make poor decisions. Look at their track record…
Dave Fan Club. I’m a proud but also an embarrassed American these days. We can and should be doing better by making some smart, rather than so many dumb moves. The statistics tell the story of why so many Americans feel we are losing ground with dangerous, deadly, and expensive policies that are moving us in the wrong direction.
A few Stats will tell a lot of our real story:
1. Norway’s health system is publicly funded by the state, providing 100% of its citizens with universal health coverage regardless of income. In the USA, healthcare is primarily financed by private insurance, employers, and government programs like Medicare, with millions of citizens remaining uninsured or underinsured.
2. Norway has a vastly stronger national debt position than the United States. While the U.S. carries a massive federal debt load exceeding 120% of its GDP, Norway’s gross government debt is roughly 42% to 45% of its GDP. Furthermore, Norway is a net creditor with a massive Sovereign Wealth Fund, making it financially “in the black.”
3. The U.S. imprisons its population at a rate over 10 times higher than Norway.
4. Lastly, 98% of Norway’s cars are EV’s even tho they have less sunshine than Alaska. Climate collapse is not a hoax, as our current government claims, and we need to take immediate and aggressive action.
You: “Climate collapse is not a hoax, as our current government claims, and we need to take immediate and aggressive action.”
Uh, yes, it is. And no, I’m not MAGA. I’m sanity, I’m attuned to actual reality. I recognize both “MAGA” and “progressives” are the enemy of the little folks.
“Climate collapse,” LOL. We’ve had a variety of false prophecies over the last 25 years telling us that we would be experiencing this so-called “collapse.” We’re not.
“Climate collapse” fanatics are a dangerous cult who WILL kill people out of their unhinged fanaticism. Hence, sane folks are going to have to be prepared to employ defensive measures against the cult. These measures may not be “acceptable” or “legal.” That’s irrelevant. The fanatic cult is already waging war on us, but it’s going to get not just more uncomfortable, it will become more lethal. Every serious “carbon emissions reduction” proposal to meet the cult’s “goals” will lead to vast reductions in agricultural output, if not agricultural collapse. This means that millions are going to be hungry, if not starve to death. The fanatics do not care about this, because they are bent on doing “anything” to alleviate a supposed “catastrophe” which does not exist. It will be situational “ethics”: “we’re willing to sacrifice 50 million to save 8 billion.”
The same modus operandi of every “utopian” tyranny standing upon history’s worst body counts.
You: “Lastly, 98% of Norway’s cars are EV’s even tho they have less sunshine than Alaska.”
I checked another of your “facts.” You are either a liar or a benighted fool (one can never tell with an “environ-mentalist”).
Registered vehicles in Norway as of 12/2025: 32.5% all-electric and 12.4% hybrid. Less than half the number of vehicles.
Delusional “thinking” and blind faith are required to believe in “the climate emergency” / “climate collapse.” Facts are not only optional, they’re detrimental to “saving the Earth.”
Facts revisited for John:
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) account for approximately 98% of all new passenger car registrations in Norway so far. When including plug-in hybrids, the electric share climbs to over 98.5%.
https://www.gridserve.com/why-norway-leads-the-world-in-ev-adoption/
Facts are never detrimental.
THANK YOU for confirming you LIED.
What you said: “Lastly, 98% of Norway’s cars are EV’s”
NOW you change it to “all new passenger car registrations.” AFTER being called out.
You: “Facts are never detrimental.”
They are to liars and those who try con jobs on people. Such as your “climate emergency” cult.
NASA Science (.gov)
Between 97% and 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activity. This near-unanimous consensus is supported by multiple independent studies of peer-reviewed climate science literature.
HA HA HA HA HA
There’s that talking point again! And “climate scientists,” LOL.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair
It costs these “scientists” NOTHING to go with the flow, to “concur” with the mob preaching the party line. In fact, not going with the flow might end up with them losing grants, tenure, and their entire livelihoods. So, such “consensus” (LOL) is easy to achieve and maintain.
The Truth, based on facts, is not a popularity contest. It is not decided by majority vote. If one says 2+2=4, and 892 say 2+2=5 or whatever it wants to “identify as,” the one stating the Truth remains correct.
All of the “climate crisis” claims can be (and are!) easily accounted for by NATURAL factors in the environment.
Fact: There are roughly 20,000 to 25,000 actively working climate scientist world wide. There is nearly a 100% agreement within their ranks that climate change is real, is man-made, and caused by the burning of fossil fuels. And that it poses a threat to every living being on this planet.
Your conclusion that they are all only concerned about their paychecks is NOT rational, in my view.
Well, Miss Sheila, it’s your lucky day! You get a FREE lesson on argumentation!
First lesson: the Appeal to Authority Fallacy… (argumentum ad verecundiam)
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
You’ve already shown how fast & loose you yourself are with the facts, claiming that “98% of Norway’s cars are EV’s,” when you knew or should have known that was patently UNTRUE.
Likewise, your “climate experts” have similar “standards” for their “evidence.” Of course, the general public never hears about the reality behind this “consensus,” only swallowing, and then running with them, the headlines and “newsbites” intended to sensationalize the subject into “climate emergency” / “climate catastrophe” / “climate collapse.”
You: “Your conclusion that they are all only concerned about their paychecks is NOT rational, in my view.”
Your view carries the weight of used toilet paper.
Your own “conclusion” indicates woeful ignorance of how academia actually operates, or, you do know and, are, lying again.