Vote no on
‘narrow’ beliefs
Editor: I was distressed to read that the local Catholics are spending their tax-free money to impose their narrow religious beliefs on everyone else. Please vote for freedom, not repression. Vote for equality, not discrimination.
Dan Jones
Knights
exercising rights
Editor: In response to the inaccuracies contained in a recent news story published by the Sonoma Valley Sun, the following clarification is issued:
Knights of Columbus Council 7951 in Sonoma, California furnished election materials free of charge for parishioners of St. Francis Solano Church again this election year. No parish moneys were spent in the purchase of the booklets. This is contrary to the published article.
The Order has a strong tradition of speaking out in the public square on important issues. The Order is responsible for inserting “under God” in the pledge of allegiance and is honored to be the lead defendant in the resolutions opposing abortion, euthanasia, cloning, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research. The Order, like the church, has no objection to adult stem-cell research as it does not involve the destruction of a human life. The Order’s official website is http://www.kofc.org.
The Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics was suggested for its conformity with the teachings of the Church’s magisterium. The information present has been approved as appropriate for distribution by non-profit agencies as it does not endorse or condemn any specific candidate, but only repeats the teachings of the Catholic Church on various moral points of interest to Catholic voters.
The Knights of Council #7951 chose to simply place the booklets on public display, allowing parishioners to exercise their own judgment in selecting reading materials. The Guide for Serious Catholics was never included in the parish bulletin.
Thomas B. Keaney, Sr.
Grand Knight, Knights of Columbus #7951
Fool me not, hospital
Editor: Last November, Sonoma Valley Hospital signed a 42-month agreement with Blue Cross that boosted its reimbursement to the hospital by $1,976,000, annually.
The hospital’s chief financial officer, Jim McSweeney, stated at the time that if the parcel tax was done away with – now that Blue Cross is paying more – the hospital would come out ahead by $1,189,000 annually.
This month, Mr. McSweeney states a parcel tax is necessary if, for no other reason, than because of inflation.
You know what’s coming.
I’m going to take the high road and just say: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Bill Ferranti
Street contractors slow
Editor: Do any of the contractors working on the multitude of our city’s streets have to put up performance bonds? Why does it take so long to finish even one project? I live on Patten Street, which is today and every day inundated with the cars and trucks that normally used to take East Napa Street. The East Napa Street project started over three months ago. When is it going to be finished?
The bridge has been out of action over one year. I hope these contractors have some sort of penalty they have to pay for being so slow. And our infamous duck pond has been taking nearly a year. Half the time no one is working on these sites.
Not to mention the condition of the curbs at corners which are being worked on, and left with not one person working at some times, and other days a glut of workers standing around looking at one another.
I think it is like being in the Baja race, just to keep yourself in one piece to navigate the streets of Sonoma.
Why doesn’t our Department of Public Works light a fire under some of these contractors?
Maureen Schmidt
General plan
gone wild
Editor: Are the voters of this town really clamoring for more high-density, three-story, 100 percent lot-coverage development in areas that already have the worst traffic? That’s what the Sonoma City Council just approved.
Under the 1995 General Plan, the potential for new residential units to be built within the City of Sonoma was 1,445. Thanks to the council’s adoption of the revised General Plan that number now stands at over 3,300. Where did the additional 1,900 units come from? The council voted to approve the units in the form of higher densities in a number of zoning districts. For instance, the old definition of mixed-use zoning permitted a maximum of 12 residential units per acre, while the new general plan allows 20 units. Multiply those eight additional units per acre by the 321 acres zoned mixed use, and it is clear the new plan holds the potential for 704 additional units in that zone. Do this for all of the changed zones, and the total increase is 1,908 units. And that’s in addition to the 1,445 already allowed by the 1995 General Plan.
Why was there not a larger public outcry before the council voted unanimously for this massive increase in density? It could be that I’m the only person in town who thinks this is a really bad idea. Or maybe it’s because the public was misled. The City’s “General Plan Public Review Draft 1.3” (the final one) states on page 7 “… total buildout capacity is 77 units higher (net) than under the 1995 General Plan.” This falsehood was repeated in a front-page article in the Sonoma Index-Tribune shortly before the council vote. It’s understandable that 77 more units isn’t a noteworthy change, but 1,900 more seems worthy of some attention. Yet when I pointed out this huge discrepancy to the planning commission, and later the city council, it got almost no attention at all.
I, for one, will not vote for the continued tenure on the council of either of the two members now running to retain their seats, based on their recent votes to approve this potentially massive increase in density, population, and traffic.
Tom Perot
Open space
taxes poor
Editor: The open space tax is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. The poor get disproportionately taxed to pay for the land of the rich. Then the poor get the added insult of not being able to use the land taken out of circulation. To say nothing of the effect of the open space policy on prices of the remaining land in circulation.
It is disappointing to read your pragmatic opposition in editorials to issues like the SMART silliness rather than writing an opposition based on sound moral principles, like the protection of property.
You could really use a writer that is a counter-balance to the collectivist claptrap espoused by Barnett and joan and others.
Phineas Worthington
Sun’s SMART
editorial
disappointing
Editor: Your editorial against Measure R was not only disappointing, it was strewn with errors and misinformation.
In your calculations, you incorrectly divided SMART’s annual operating cost by the number of daily passengers to conclude that the annual cost per passenger would be $12,500 — enough, you cutely point out — to buy each rider a Toyota Prius. In fact, you should have divided the annual cost by the number of annual passengers. That would have given you a correct figure of about $43 a year per passenger. But even that fails to recognize the fact that the annual operating cost includes the bicycle path, which will carry in excess of one million riders a year. Add that in, and the cost per each rider and bicyclist is closer to $20 a year, which wouldn’t even pay for a single tank of gas.
You argue that SMART isn’t an “organic” proposal, that it instead came from the state legislature. Wrong again. I’m not sure if you have an opportunity to drive on Highway 101 during the week, but I can’t think of anything more “organic” than the frustration that Sonoma County commuters feel as they sit idling in gridlock every day.
You also take issue with the train schedule and frequency of operations. You’re correct that the train initially will operate only during the heaviest commute times, which makes good sense. What you failed to mention is that the train schedules are not static. The current schedule is extremely preliminary and certainly not fixed. As demand increases, SMART has the flexibility and ability to expand service to other parts of the day and even to weekends.
Vote Yes on Measure R.
Rufus Jeffris
Enthusiastic for Aug
Editor: It is with great pleasure and confidence that I cast my vote for August Sebastiani for City Council. As someone who was raised in Sonoma, moved away for school and moved back by choice, I am keenly aware of the similarities and differences between the Sonoma of “then” and “now.” I appreciate that the historic flavor has been consciously preserved and that the sense of “community” is still a core value. I love being surrounded by vineyards, neighbors who know me and familiar places and spaces. At the same time, I am deeply troubled by some of the obvious differences, notably congestion that makes a trip across the Plaza to buy groceries an extended excursion using secondary routes. I am concerned about high-density housing that brings a sense of urban sprawl to the heart of our rural community. I worry that our city, with a well-intentioned focus on affordable housing, has addressed the high cost of land in Sonoma by compromising on commonsense housing in authentic neighborhoods – affecting especially young families and those who historically have lived within walking distance of the schools, restaurants, fire stations, police departments and stores where they worked. I endorse a fresh perspective on city council and a person who can rethink challenges with a new approach. I enthusiastically endorse August Sebastiani.
Elena (Berto) Toscano
Commissioner
supports Barbose
Editor: I have had the pleasure of working with Steve Barbose on the Sonoma City Planning Commission. This has given me the opportunity to observe first-hand his skill as a negotiator and problem-solver in a group decision-making process.
What has made him particularly effective is his appreciation of the value of being a good listener and giving a fair hearing to diverse points of view.
He has an awareness and working knowledge of the critical issues of growth, traffic congestion, strained infrastructure and environmental degradation that threaten the small-town charm that is Sonoma.
Steven has been an active participant in and a contributor to community life in Sonoma over many years and has the track record and credentials to be an excellent member of the council. I strongly support his candidacy.
Roger Heigel
Kirk, Hardy for
hospital board
Editor: We are replying to your incredibly naive editorial endorsing Mr. Riebli and ruling out Dick Kirk and Lisa Hardy. You fail to recognize that the process determines the outcome. When the process is a secondary consideration it can become dysfunctional and the outcome the kind of divisive fiasco we faced with Measure C. From our perspective, Dick Kirk’s strength lies in the fact that he recognized how dysfunctional the process has been, and he wanted a positive process that produced an outcome reflecting the needs and interests of the community.
You say that Lisa Hardy “has relevant care experience and would bring a welcome sincerity and frankness to the board” but lacks knowledge of the financial situation. From our perspective, the current board tilts towards finance/business types, and we need relevant care to the care experience. We have also been impressed with Lisa’s common sense and determination to represent the needs and interests of the community.
Other candidates seem to have “an axe to grind,” and we’ve had enough of that. We do think the process matters if we are to have a hospital that truly serves this community in a fiscally responsible way. That’s why we are voting for Lisa Hardy and Dick Kirk.
Steve and Linda Cederborg
Kirk approachable, listens
Editor: The Sun’s “Our View” on Oct. 12 stated that Dr. Dick Kirk “seems more concerned about process than results.” But that is what the Sonoma Valley community clearly wants – to be a part of the decision-making process – thus achieving results. Kirk was the only member of the Board who was approachable by us “No on C” voter to help bring the community together. He founded, along with others, the Plan B Health Care Coalition. The Coalition, with community input, is considering alternative sites, the size of the new hospital, and financing and maintaining/improving our health care delivery system.
Dr. Kirk wants the community, including our devoted health care workers, to speak out about what is needed.
Vote for Dr. Dick Kirk. He listens to your concerns. He has been a member of this community since 1952 and a practicing physician who is a reliable, trustworthy person, who is familiar with and knows the healthcare needs of the neighborhoods – the unincorporated areas and the city of Sonoma.
Joanne K. Hurley
Kudos to Barbose
Editor: Kudos to Steve Barbose, candidate for Sonoma City Council!
First, his campaign is clearly addressing important issues facing our city and its future. Of all the campaign literature, only Steve Barbose’s campaign literature is detailed. He has both general statements and specific positions. One knows where he stands!
Secondly, since July, Barbose has been going door-to-door to learn what the citizens of Sonoma want and to discuss his positions. He’s also at the Tuesday Farmer’s Market. Barbose is very approachable, and he wants to dialog with Sonomans about our issues.
Third, Steve Barbose has been attending the city council meetings since last November, except for meetings when he was on vacation. He knows what the council does, and he knows about the issues. Steve Barbose is indeed very serious about representing the people of Sonoma.
Zanne Clark
Vote Edwards,
Barbose and Barnett
Editor: I am a 38-year resident living in Glen Ellen. I cannot vote for Sonoma City Council members but I can endorse candidates and voice my support for them.
I recently met Gary Edwards at the Farmers’ Market in Sonoma. If I could vote for him I would. He is several shades of green which, to my way of thinking, we need more of. He is a member of the Slow Food organization, he worked hard to pass Measure A, which stopped the building of a too-large spa resort on the hillside overlooking Sonoma. He supports sustainable development.
I also had the pleasure of seeing Steve Barbose. I have known Steve for 25 years. He is, hands down, one of the most responsible, level-headed, and honest people I know. He will make a terrific councilman.
And then I met Kathy Barnett. She is running for the Hospital Board and I can vote for her. I am voting for Kathy because she promises to demand any new hospital or retrofit of our current facility is the size and scope our Valley needs. This is being fiscally responsible and I like that. She also worked hard on the No for C Committee.
Vote Edwards and Barbose for Sonoma City Council and Barnett for hospital board.
Justine Ashton
Aug a fresh face
Editor: With his campaign for the Sonoma City Council growing momentum every day, many Sonomans have become enthusiastic about voting for August Sebastiani – for several reasons.
It seems as though the most frequent one is family heritage, and his own association with a highly successful local wine company. But, while those are great reasons to vote for somebody, the most compelling reasons may be slightly overlooked.
First of all, many Sonoma voters may not realize something a little alarming – that Sonoma’s “Urban Growth Boundary” allows expansion for high-density government subsidized housing, but not for a hospital!
When asked at a recent candidate’s night forum about their willingness to amend the UGB, Aug was the only one who responded “yes.”
Second, when it was proposed that the solution to our hospital problem was to take part of Leveroni ranch by force, against the family’s will, three of the five council candidates agreed. I’ll let you guess which ones. Meanwhile, Aug was one of the leaders of the opposition – he wants better healthcare, not more eminent domain.
And finally, Aug is the candidate who is championing the cause of our local small businesses and shopkeepers – asking questions like what is the effect of large plaza events on traffic, parking and retail activity.
We need a fresh new face at city hall. Vote for Aug!
Frank Wood
Stop Sonoma Mtn. development
Editor: I wish to express my strenuous opposition, along with scores of fellow residents of Sonoma County, to the proposed Settlement Agreement between the Maris Hansen Trust and the Sonoma County Open Space District. If passed by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, this agreement would allow commercial development on Sonoma Mountain.
Commercial development would create fire and safety access issues with liability and environmental impact problems unacceptable to Sonoma residents.
The Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission met with all concerned and heard the pros and cons of the proposed settlement. After much deliberation, they voted unanimously to reject the proposed agreement.
If the Board of Supervisors votes to ignore the will of the people and the strong recommendation by the advisory commission, inquiring minds might wonder what “special interests” they may be indebted to.
Roberta Isgreen
Sledgehammer
creates camaraderie
Editor: Having grown up in California and served in the military, I find that this “zero-tolerance policy” brought forward by a previous letter to the editor to be somewhat uncomfortable.
Taking a sledgehammer to a donated car does not make a person a criminal, nor does it create violence in our youths. This is another way that organizations create camaraderie between teammates.
Unless you have ever been part of a team, squad or served in the military, you wouldn’t understand the importance of how groups of individuals (all different from one another) need something (sometimes unique) to bring them together as a team.
Michael Donegan
El Mo fans started it
Editor: I am writing in reply to Breanna Lee’s Oct. 19 column (School Pride Gone to Far). I attended the homecoming game and got in the spirit cheering for our team. When it came time to walk with our class floats during halftime, I did, but I was dismayed to find some “spirited” El Molino fans on the way back. The only way to get back to the Sonoma side after exiting the field was to go under the El Molino bleachers. They knew this in advance and their jayvee cheer squad and a few students had lined up, yelling anti-Sonoma chants that are unfit to print. The other students had lined up at the top of the bleachers, and proceeded to start spitting at us and tried to get Sonoma students to fight. This greatly angered all the Sonoma students, and we started the chant that upset the El Molino fans so much. I am not trying to justify what we did, but I am just saying that there are two sides to every story. We didn’t go complaining to our teachers or the league, and for that I am proud. And before my school gets blamed for the whole incident, I just wanted to clear that up. We won our homecoming game, and that night, I was proud to be a Dragon.
I am also writing in response to a recent letter to the editor. The car-bashing at Float Fest has been going on for years. It is a safe, supervised activity organized by the leadership class and teachers. This was not a random act and is a tradition that the school embraces. Our school is definitely not promoting violence, and if this were not a planned event then I’m sure there would be a large penalty for it. One last thing: Go Dragons!
Hannah Bragstad
Class of 2009, SVHS
Boosters had no role in homecoming
Editor: I believe a letter published in the Oct. 19 edition of the Sun inaccurately implies that the Sonoma Valley High School Boosters Club had some role in choosing homecoming activities. The boosters club has not been involved in any decisions related to homecoming. Such questions or concerns should be made directly to the school’s administration.
Barbara Clementino
President, SVHS Boosters Club