Letters to the Editor

It’s not a jazz festival
Editor: I believe that the name of the Memorial Day weekend festival should be changed to “Sonoma Music Plus,” because a jazz festival it is not!
Don’t get me wrong. I do appreciate the substantial yearly donation that the folk from Aspen make to the arts programs in our local schools. I just have a real problem with the dumbing down of a truly American art form: Jazz.
In a letter I wrote last year, I made the absurd suggestion that we might have Metallica on the program this year. Boy, Oh Boy! I had no idea that the folk from Aspen could come up with something so absurd that it verges on surreal: LeAnn Rimes!
I implore the festival big-wigs to change the name of the festival to something less misleading.
By the way, I applaud, in advance, the only true Jazz musicians who will be playing this year: the Sonoma Valley High School Jazz Band.
John L. Campbell

‘Ratty’ remark on the mark
Editor: I had to laugh at the offense that a letter-writer took at Kate Williams’ description in Williams’ March 8 column of Boyes Boulevard as “ratty.” I would love to take offense, but the description is on the mark.
If one thinks the neighborhood behind the famous spa is anything else, take a winding walk on Greger, Mulberry and the others streets off Orchard behind the spa. We have no real roads, just lumps of asphalt and chugholes, no drainage whatsoever, and no sidewalks. The streets are the size of one-way yet must accommodate two-way traffic; few streetlights exist. Or wait until it storms and go watch the sewer trap on River Road as it spews toilet paper. Great fun, and, yes, ratty.
There are a number of committees and a coalition committee (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STFCC), not to mention the wonderful work of the Sonoma Valley Redevelopment Agency, trying to remedy the rattiness of that little patch behind the manicured spa wonderland. All who want this neighborhood to improve should join us.
Jan Mosgofian,
Member of the Mulberry Avenue
Committee to Upgrade

Shelter OK away from police station
Editor: Over the past five years, the Sonoma City Council has been working to meet its obligations to deal with homelessness. Recently, it successfully submitted a proposal to share the cost of building an emergency shelter on city-owned land. It is currently in the stage of obtaining construction bidding for the project, which will cost just under $500,000. The city will bear about 40 percent of the cost and the State of California will pay the rest as a grant, providing the facility operates successfully over a ten-year period.
This kind of project is being pursued by a number of cities throughout the state and is a reflection of the widely recognized need to provide safe emergency housing for people in crisis.
During the March 7 city council meeting, the council decided to take a brief look at the possibility of utilizing the current temporary Sonoma police facility on Patten Street as a permanent headquarters. The question was then raised as to whether the shelter project should be placed on hold if the location of the police facility was not to be at the same site as the shelter. After discussion, the Council voted to move the project onward.
Councilman Steve Barbose squarely addressed this matter, commenting that the emergency shelter was for individuals and families in crisis and not a halfway house for felons. In commenting for the record on this, I added that for Sonoma Overnight Support, Inc., the local non-profit manager of the shelter, the proximity of the police station was an incidental benefit and not an essential element.
It is important to note that this facility is planned to be a “clean and sober” shelter, and that we would not admit people who evinced substance abuse or psychological problems that could prejudice the safety of themselves or others. Having a resident manager on site would insure adherence to this policy. Having a well-managed, city- and state-supported shelter in operation would likely make it easier for law enforcement to deal with those elements whose actions are direct threats to public health and safety.
Sy Lenz

SOS Board President
Big hospital not needed
Editor: Congratulations to the Yes on B Committee! I appreciate the way they ran the campaign and that they did not predict dire results. I opposed Measure B so as to force a decision – because I fear procrastination will continue – maybe for years.
Instead of wrangling over Sonoma’s UGB, or urban growth boundary, and the need for a three-story parking garage and a medical office building, it is time to look at reality. The cost of any of the three proposals on the table is prohibitive. The hospital district with no money to put down and surviving off parcel tax money will pay in the range of 10 percent to 12 percent interest to sell the bonds to build a new hospital. That translates into $300 – $400 million dollars. This Valley should not be burdened with that kind of debt for a short-term solution.
It is time to look at the future and not the past.
Medical practice will change so much during construction that the new hospital will be obsolete by the time it is finished. The model that most thinking people see is centralized, specialized centers with mobile units moving about the various areas.
When you look at the medical wheel, this valley will never be a hub of specialists. We cannot support a general hospital because of the land-use decisions that have already been made. Sonoma Valley will always be a spoke. This is not bad. We can have as good medical care as any place in the country. But it requires planning now instead of listening to high-paid administrators and consultants who want to continue to protect their jobs.
When people look back 10 or 15 years from now, they will say what we really needed was a highly efficient first response and emergency facility in the center of town instead of a financially crippling general hospital that is obsolete.
Look to the future. Look what they are doing from Pennsylvania to Hawaii and you won’t waste any more time over the absurd local debate on current proposals. We have the location adjacent to the current hospital for the new emergency facility and the present hospital can be minimally upgraded for use during the next eight or 10 years.
Look to the future and not the past.
Bob Cannard