Letters to the Editor

Marchers should aim anger at Mexico
Editor: What’s the matter with Mexico?
Why do her people flee as though from a sinking ship?
All the people marching on May Day that I saw show that it’s not just an immigration issue; it’s all about Mexico. Hearing Spanish slogans shouted and all the Mexican flags flying, it’s clear they’re not trying to secure more immigration spots for Lithuanians. So in order to get closer to a solution, let’s get clear on the actual problem: It’s Mexico.
The Canadians aren’t flooding the northern border forcing us all to learn French in order to get along in our own communities. Thank God.
Why do the Mexicans think it’s their right to be here? I think as our next-door neighbors they deserve some kind of special deal, but really ought to tell the folks back home to stay put or they’ll ruin it for everyone already up here.
Using the force of their great numbers to protest just underscores how out of hand the problem is. Not very many years ago, when my kids went to El Verano elementary school, it was approximately 15 percent English as a Second Language (Mexican) kids. Now it’s 85 percent. Any child who is not Mexican there is now a minority. Is there a sociologist out there who can tell us why this huge migration occurred in the last 10 years? Again, what’s the matter with Mexico? Maybe the passion and anger displayed at the marches is misplaced and ought to be aimed at Mexico.
Anne Tobin

Iraq War costs more than ‘illegals’
Editor: California does not have an immigration problem. The administration in Washington has a scare-tactic problem.
Notice how the words “illegal” and “invasion” are so often invoked, even though nothing has changed substantially with respect to immigrant workers in decades. This promotion of xenophobia is used to mask the real invasion of Iraq (and who knows where else?) that is costing taxpayers infinitely more than schools or medical services. The bloated size of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is masked by fear of “illegals” who have never been a threat to national security and actually help support the economy.
The real invasion of California by foreigners began with the founding of the San Diego Mission in 1769 and was ongoing until the next invasion under President Polk in 1846, as part of the illegal war on Mexico. Therefore, it would seem that all residents of this state, except for native Indians, are to some extent illegal. A little humility and historical perspective might be in order.
Pat Spicer

Cirrus sought $50 million tax subsidy
Editor: The Sonoma Valley Health Care (Hospital) District has been working for many years to plan for a new hospital. Recent negotiations have been held with Cirrus Corporation and several points of clarification are needed.
1. The district has focused first and foremost on providing quality health care and hospital services to all residents of the Valley.
2. We, in the district, the coalition and results of several public surveys have agreed we need a replacement hospital, due to aging, inefficiency and seismic requirements.
3. As its second focus, the district has worked hard to respect the urban growth boundary and the principles of “green hospital” design, construction and location.
4. We want to minimize expense to the public and have sought public/private partnerships to do that. A new hospital, designed for efficiency and future alterations, will likely be self-sustaining and not require continuation of a parcel tax.
5. We have negotiated with Cirrus for many months, and respected their initial request for confidentiality in those negotiations.
6. We informed Cirrus that we thought the Eighth Street proposal would not achieve public or county support, and asked Cirrus to consider partnering on the In-Town or Broadway sites.
7. Nevertheless, Cirrus, on April 19, through its president, John Thomas, demanded a board resolution supporting their Eighth Street proposal. They ignored our inquiry of partnering on the In-Town or Broadway sites.
8. Furthermore, in that April 19 e-mail, Mr. Thomas required at least $50 million in financing from the Sonoma Valley Health Care District. This clearly was the end of any “tax-free proposal” from Cirrus. Mr. Thomas also wanted the district to publicly support their Eighth Street project and UGB amendment, which we could not legally do. (The law prevents the district from endorsing any political campaign).
9. Nothing in the board’s recent vote on working with Cirrus prevents continuation of our negotiations with Cirrus.
10. The Sonoma Valley Health Care Coalition is nearing completion of its study of site options and will likely make recommendations to the board this month.
11. The district board remains open to all options for sites within the UGB, and is open to partnering with any private entity that will provide assurance that the district’s health services and resources will be protected.
Richard F.H. Kirk, MD
Chair, Sonoma Valley Health Care Distict Board

Cirrus a ‘pig
in a poke’

Editor: I commend the hospital district boardmembers Riebli and Nugent for their correct and responsible refusal to further consider Cirrus’ proposal for a so-called private-public hospital.
Two expressions come to mind regarding the Cirrus sideshow. Cirrus thought Sonoma would be a patsy that would immediately buy into its flashy, glib promises. Too many Sonomans, on the other hand, wanted the district to buy a pig in a poke, unaware that Cirrus’ dangle of $100 million concealed not only many financial and legal uncertainties, to say the least, but would inevitably bring self-serving corporate control over our own hospital. The board demonstrated fiduciary seriousness. I’m a Kaiser patient, but I want a hospital that is good for the health of our community, and controlled by the community.
Dave Henderson
Overpopulation the problem
Editor: An unmentionable truth. Al Gore couldn’t tell you. It’s too sensitive to talk about. No one has the audacity or courage to tell you. Pundits, politicians and prelates will not broach the subject. Their livelihood depends on it. What could it be? It is the single most important contributor to global warming. The answer, my friends, is written on the wind. The answer is population. Six-plus billion humans and more coming cannot sustain our lifestyle based on consumption. Even including the Third World where people are reduced to decimating forests to sustain life’s basic needs. Industry can cut back on CO2 emissions but will be overwhelmed by the needs of an ever-increasing population.
Population must be limited using modern medical methods. The alternatives are genocide, wars, disease, floods and starvation. Traditional religious beliefs are obscuring the struggle for survival. So far, only China has made an attempt to face this extremely sensitive topic.
Fred Burger

Thank you, Michael J. Kelley
Editor: An Open Letter to Mijo a.k.a. Michael J. Kelley. Thank you for allowing a conservative opinion into the very liberal “center of the universe” studios at KSVY. I enjoyed every one of my 237 hours we hung out together (minus 3 hours when you left us on our own, with Joe Pantoliano… your loss!) at the luxurious and spacious studio which looks out over Napa Street.
Your patience and kind words made the experience at the local community radio station palatable. You knew what you would get when you approached me and asked if I would like to hang out with you in the mornings and chat a bit. I didn’t know what I would get when I started that four-and-a-half-month gig. My first (of many) negative calls and e-mails left me in tears one day. I came in the next day… why? I came in because you said that every call or e-mail, negative or positive, meant that someone was listening and that was a good thing. I trusted you.
I want anyone who is reading this to realize that this community is losing someone who has a true passion for Sonoma and who could connect at any level. Preconceived notions seem to get lost in the shuffle of friendship, and I am glad that I didn’t let that get in the way of my newly found friendship with Michael.
 “In everyone’s life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being. We should be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit.” – Albert Schweitzer.
Last, but never least, I appreciate you and consider your friendship to be a lifelong challenge.
Cheers m‘dear… and tons of love to the Kelley family,
Liz MacDonald
Sonoma democracy dealt a blow
Editor: Much thanks to Larry Barnett for bringing to light a questionable and dangerous precedent for city councilmembers bringing items for discussion to council agendas.
By devising a two-step process to deal with a controversial item – the Iraq Resolution – whereby the council would first decide whether it wanted to address the issue on the agenda, before engaging in a formal discussion and vote on the matter, and therefore let the public discuss and debate it. As Barnett points out what this did was change a long-standing policy that a councilmember could bring any item to the agenda for discussion without question or prejudice. If a councilmember disagreed or objected to the item then a “no” vote or abstention was his or her prerogative. Barnett rightly warns that by interjecting “a new ingredient” into council process – first approving discussion of a specific issue – the democratic process for open discussion/debate by local government and the public was short-circuited.
In my estimation the council, with the willing assistance of the city manager, wanting to duck out of voting on a hot-button issue, cooked up what they must have thought a clever way to avoid taking a position on the matter. It worked to curtail and in effect shut down the discussion process, but at the same time it robbed the public, and the two members of the council in the minority, of the opportunity, and I would maintain, the right, to a debate on an issue of vital importance and measurable effect on this and every community in our nation. This kind of civic process is the foundation upon which a democratic and constitutional form of government was established in our country unique to the world at its time.
If this kind of a process of dealing with controversial and difficult issues is left to stand then the council is held hostage to the purely subjective judgments of a 3-2 majority that may not want to take on items like climate change, or immigrants’ rights, or Constitutional provisions protecting privacy or other such matters that affect and impact our citizenry. As Barnett states, “This approach is more than a slippery slope; it is a greased flagpole.”
Democracy in Sonoma was dealt a crippling blow by a slick administrative procedural gimmick, and we were all cheated by it.
Will Shonbrun