Letters to the Editor

Movie-pitch article hilarious

Editor: Many thanks for sharing such a hilarious article about “pitching” a movie idea! I too, have an idea for a possible movie screenplay that could be great. (At least I think so!) Hats off to you, Lisa Summers, for making me laugh out loud reading your article.
Andrew Price

Sun’s logic ‘limp’

Editor: Every Thursday I am happy to retrieve the Sun from my driveway, and especially look forward to reading Joan Huguenard and Larry Barnett. Both write with a beautiful balance of facts and heart, and draw from their own lives and values in a way that is relevant to our Sonoma community and beyond.
I was particularly struck by their pieces on Feb. 1: Joan providing a well-researched expose on the connection of oil to the invasion of Iraq, and Larry offering a moving reality check on the tragic futility of war then and now. Two people, speaking and acting with the belief they have an impact – and they do.
What a contrast to the limp rationale of “Our View” and three city council members that passing a resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq won’t make any difference. That’s the poor excuse people give for not voting, and it’s appalling to hear our elected officials use it. I expect better from your editorial board, as well.
If individuals and groups take the attitude that “we don’t matter, so why bother,” then we truly are doomed as a democracy. Thankfully, Joan Huguenard and Larry Barnett don’t ascribe to that philosophy, and neither do many others in this small rural town. Change for the good of all starts with each of us, and yes, we can make a difference.
Carol Allison

Why $6 million for police station?

Editor: Why are we spending more than $6 million on a new police station after we moved to the sheriff’s services to save costs? What is wrong with the current police station? Spending millions on a new station just blows the savings we achieved by moving to the sheriff’s services right out the window. I agree with some of the councilmembers that the old downtown fire station should be used for the police station. The existing station on First Street West should be used for a community center and pool and tennis courts adjacent to the field of dreams. It could encompass a snack bar, pool, locker rooms, and possibly tennis courts. Another place for our youth to hang their hat. That’s where the $6 million should go. Then the high school pool would not be necessary.
Gardner G. Cook

Inconvenient truths affect Measure B

Editor: Strangely omitted from the Measure B ballot or any public discussion is the danger of default of the district’s 2004 bonds. Default would damage the district’s credit rating and makes prohibitively expensive future bond financing. This will affect ALL local agencies that operate in the same geographic area as the Sonoma Valley Health Care District. In order to avoid actually defaulting, we have to keep paying principal and interest on the 2004 bonds by passing Measure B. However, if Measure B fails it would necessitate the refinancing of the 2004 bonds with another bond issue in order to avoid a default. Evidence of reliance on the parcel tax for bond payment appears on page 14 of the 2004 bond official statement:
“The District will rely on revenues derived from the operation of the hospital and parcel tax revenues to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the hospital and to pay debt service on the 2004 Bonds and District Parity Debt. The parcel tax will be in effect only through May 2007 at which time the district will no longer receive revenue from that source.”
Since the hospital’s chief financial officer believes the hospital will run out of cash in June, he must also believe the same about the 2004 bonds. Why no public discussion?
Any new bond proceeds raised can only fund public purpose endeavors like refinancing existing bonds and/or building a new public hospital. This will present a new opportunity for the defeated former Measure C cheerleaders to take another stab at passing a huge hospital bond combined along with a new bond issue to rescue the 2004 bonds. Consequently, I think another sales pitch for a huge hospital bond by the former Measure C cheerleaders is likely. Passing Measure B will forestall that scenario and preserve all potential hospital options including the free hospital.
Also, the conflicts of interest continue. The Board never should have hired the person that they paid (through the coalition) to conduct an unbiased evaluation of all hospital options to be the new CEO. Why wouldn’t he favor a hospital option that insures his own high-paid, future employment? Ignoring the conflict won’t make it disappear and may contribute to Measure B losing.
Dennis Hipps

Opposing Measure B ‘short-sighted’

Editor: Penny Wise and Pound Foolish is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms (2003) as, “unwise because doing something small now would prevent much more trouble later.”
I appreciate the concern over keeping a $195 dollar-a-year parcel tax to maintain a hospital which appears to have offered a golden parachute to former CEO Bob Kowal. Many of us find it strange and unnecessary to offer such a substantial severance package to a CEO who voluntarily stepped down. However, a quick review of business news reveals this is not unusual, rather it’s the cost of doing business.
However, I strongly believe it would be short-sighted to vote down Measure B (the renewal of the hospital parcel tax) to express our displeasure at this or some other management decision that rubs us the wrong way. We can use the process of hospital board elections to fight the battles over public accountability and management.
We have a personal responsibility as members of the community to sustain a valuable community asset—a hospital that has committed physicians, medical personnel, and support people that saves lives and promotes health. They are there when we need them.
My daughter was hit by a car while on a bicycle on a day when weather limited both helicopter and ambulance transport out of the valley. In that terrible moment of seeing my daughter lying prone on the pavement with potential head and back injuries, a leg fracture and multiple abrasions and contusions, I didn’t think in terms of what I could have saved the last five years if I hadn’t had to pay that dang hospital tax. I was (and still am) so immensely grateful for Sonoma Valley Hospital and every one of you who voted for the tax five years ago. In the event I’m faced with a similar crisis in the future, my hope is that I will be grateful again for those of you wise enough to vote for an extension of the parcel tax.
Rich Gantenbein

(Editor’s note: The following two letters were received prior to Sonoma City Council’s unanimous decision on Feb. 21 not to raise the speed limit by 5 mph on several thoroughfares.)

Sonoma’s streets
dangerous for cyclists

Editor: Did I read the Sun’s Web site correctly? The city council is considering raising speed limits in Sonoma?
When I lived in Sonoma I rode my bike to work every day. I don’t think I need to inform anyone that the city’s streets are dangerous for both bicycles and pedestrians.
If anything, the city council should considering lowering the speed limits, not raising them. Look around — Sonoma is a beautiful place to ride a bicycle, but it’s rare to see anyone venturing off the bike paths. People drive far too fast.
Have some common sense, Sonoma, and send that proposal back where it came from.
Ray Sikorski
Bozeman, MT

Don’t raise speed limits

Editor: We were unable to attend the Sonoma City Council’s Feb. 21 meeting. So we wrote the following e-mail to city council to ask that it not approve the recommendation to raise the speed limits within the city boundaries.
As residents at 475 E. MacArthur St. (just west of Fifth Street East), we are particularly concerned about the idea of raising the speed limit on MacArthur Street. Also, we do not believe it is in the best interest of the citizens of Sonoma to raise the speed limits on any of the other streets.
We have lived on MacArthur Street for nearly 10 years. During that period of time, we have seen increased traffic as a result of the new housing growth that has been permitted on Fifth Street East and other areas on that side of town. As we are sure you can appreciate, this concerns us. To now raise the speed limit would compound the problem. As it is, too many cars regularly exceed the limit on MacArthur Street, putting the lives of pedestrians and pets in jeopardy. In addition, Prestwood School is located on MacArthur Street. It is a dangerous street for children to cross as it is – why would you raise the speed limit and risk increasing the chances that someone will be hurt or killed?
People exceed the speed limit as it is, posing a risk to pedestrians and bicyclists. The answer is not to raise the speed limit. If anything, we would urge you to lower it.
We simply do not understand why, considering the need for energy conservation and the desire to provide a safe environment to all of our residents and visitors, the city council would even consider raising the speed limits. We wish that we were able to attend the meeting tonight in order to hear the rationale and to voice our opinions. In any event, we urge you to do the right thing for the city of Sonoma and not approve the proposal.
Irene Gilbert and Rebecca Kuga