Letters to the Editor
‘Obstacle’ tree killed Sharpe
Editor: Not to take away from your March 1 editorial, but the piece you did on David Sharpe’s accident contained some information that I don’t feel is correct.
My friends and I witnessed that accident, and we don’t believe he did “veer off the road.”
The tree that he hit sits right on the road. You have to veer away from it not to hit it.
Thirty-five years ago, my father-in-law tried to get the county to remove that tree from the road. “Someone’s going to get hurt,” he said. He was told removing the tree would tear up the road too much.
David Sharpe didn’t have to die. Like you stated, “You have a mere moment of distraction and your life can change.” But who expects the road to have an obstacle like that on it?
After seeing that accident, I feel so bad my father-in-law’s prophecy came true. Maybe now they’ll remove that tree before someone else gets hurt!
Diana Perez
Enjoys everything Williams writes
Editor: I wanted you to know just how much I enjoy reading anything written by Kate Williams. She makes me laugh (and cry) every time, even when the subject matter is intense. What an entertaining, clever, and insightful writer she is. She hits on interesting issues that I don’t see in print every day. She writes in such a way that it is a pleasure to read. Please continue to feature her articles in the Sun, and I will continue to read her column first.
Cindy Hurley
Williams’ ‘ratty’ adjective just rude
Editor: I found one line in Kate Williams’ March 8 Springs page column “Brunehilda and Grace get spa’d” offensive. I realize this is only a sentence, but it makes a powerful statement: “Up ratty Boyes Boulevard we tottered, making our way to the granddaddy spa of them all: Sonoma Mission Inn.”
It is rude and I’m surprised that the editor let that through. She could easily have dropped the word “ratty” and lost zero content. Or if she wanted to show the difference between the road and the spaworld, she could have talked about driving through the heart of the Springs into a spa oasis that is Sonoma Mission Inn. Whatever. But “ratty” is just plain rude.
Jeannette Mammini
Against shelter near Depot Park
Editor: I am against having a homeless shelter adjacent to Depot Park. The police have been unable to contain the illegal activity already going on there.
My young child got the full benefit of viewing the dead body of a homeless man in front of the Depot Park bathrooms two weeks ago.
Our children playing at the playground get to enjoy second-hand marijuana smoke wafting from the gazebo.
These precious young people get a full earful of expletives that are yelled as the inebriation continues in full view of everyone. Sometimes the inebriated simply approach the bathroom, and because they can’t find it in their drug-induced state, defecate by the side of the building.
The council members already know that many of these people are not all homeless, and some come from neighboring towns to conduct their “business” under the posted sign at the park: “Drug Free Zone.”
A byproduct of this activity is that fighting breeds of dogs accompany these visitors, often running off leash.
If the council members are sold on this idea, I would challenge them to spend two full days at the park (yes, spend the night) to appreciate the full weight of the decision.
I vote to take back this public space and return it to the citizens of Sonoma!
James Crutcher
Harris Road hospital not likely
Editor: As co-chairs of the Sonoma Valley Healthcare Coalition, we want to again thank the Sun for its excellent coverage of hospital issues over this past year. You are at most major events and you have become well-informed on the topic. Your coverage has been superb and your support has been invaluable.
You might consider using the nomenclature we use when we identify the alternatives under consideration. That is: the Broadway option, the in-town option, the small, 25-bed option, and the Cirrus option. It will help reduce confusion going forward if we all use the same terms. We acknowledge two of the option names cite the location, one describes the size and the last identifies the sponsor. With apologies for the inconsistency, these have become commonly accepted.
In that same context we want the community to know that while Marilyn Goode and Lu Benson do deserve credit for helping raise consciousness about an in-town option, the two of them have certainly not been alone in that effort. Quite a few coalition members have worked with them and with the architecture firm of Jennings Ackerly, and our consultants, Healthcare Financial Solutions (HFS), to develop the proposal. (By the way, Rich Gianello, Carl Gerlach’s former boss at HFS is now the lead consultant since Carl took over as the Sonoma Valley Hospital’s CEO.) Together, they have come up with a viable approach which does not require eminent domain. Whether or not it will be the preferred option remains to be seen.
It may also be helpful to indicate that none of the options is perfect. Each has significant uncertainties yet to be resolved. But if those uncertainties can be resolved, all of them may work, albeit with different economic consequences. We will have more to say on all that in the coming weeks.
Finally, the new property which you mention on Harris Road must be acknowledged by the board of the hospital since it was brought forward by its owners as a site of adequate size which could be acquired and would not involve eminent domain. It is our understanding that this site was looked at some years ago. It was not adopted for a final review by the land-search committee then because it was in active agricultural use with serious flood plain issues and it is outside Sonoma’s Urban Growth Boundary. Thus while the owners may want to sell it, it does have constraints that will likely cause the board to not pursue further inquiry and at this time, the Coalition has no intention to do so.
Again our thanks for your interest and excellent coverage. Please stay tuned.
Bob Edwards and Steve Pease
