Editorial: Going to the ballot?

‏Historically, Sonoma’s city government has placed measures on the ballot infrequently, and almost exclusively for matters of revenue or taxes; for instance, to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax or increase the sales tax. Only rarely, and then in cases of annexations (Maxwell Village Shopping Center), has the city council chosen to let the voters decide. Accordingly, we find the recent decision by the City Council to place regulation of leaf blowers on the ballot misguided.

‏The brilliance of our democratic system is that matters come before the council for a vote. Council members often disagree with each other, and a 3-2 vote happens frequently. In this way, closure on every agenda item requiring a vote is assured; the business of government must be conducted despite difference of opinion; this fulfills the legitimate expectations the citizenry have of representative democracy.

‏When citizens disagree with the direction or decisions of the council majority, they may organize and using the legal framework provided, place a measure on the ballot for a public vote. This is what happened in 1994 to prevent the development of a hotel on the hillside above Mountain Cemetery, in 1999 to establish Sonoma’s urban growth boundary, and in 2013 when Measure B to limit the size of hotels was placed on the ballot.

‏The City Council should have made a decision on the matter of leaf blower regulation; in fact, we thought it had. But a change in sentiment is not the issue; the issue is that no closure was achieved and representative democracy has failed to fulfill its mandate. Had the council made a decision – in favor or against – citizens could have then decided whether or not to make the effort to use the ballot box.

‏Collecting signatures on a legal petition to place a measure to the ballot is in itself a gauge of community sentiment. Ten percent of the city’s registered voters must properly sign a petition, and the signature gatherers must themselves follow a prescribed set of legal requirements. Once completed, the signatures and petitions must be examined and certified as valid by the registrar of voters. The language of the proposed measure must be vetted for legal conformance, be unambiguous and is subject to legal analysis. The process is rigorous because making law is serious business.

‏When the city places a measure on the ballot, it need not collect signatures, but the council majority must vote to approve the language and nature of the proposed measure. It’s clear that the three women on the council agree that some regulation of leaf blowers is a good idea, and it’s likely they will agree on the language of a ballot measure. There’s some strange irony in that.

‏We wonder what’s next? When the council is again split 3-2 will the issue be placed on the ballot? Does the city council now feel that vigorous controversy and difference of opinion constitute valid reasons for letting voters decide? We’re concerned that “let the voters decide” will become the solution for any controversial decision rather than our elected leaders making the tough choices their service requires. Moreover, the business of the city must proceed. We do not find this latest decision bold or courageous; rather, it’s “kicking the can down the road” and subverts the proper role of elected government.