Letters to the Editor

Keep your kitties inside
Editor: My condolences to the recent letter-writer whose pet cat was hit by a car. Sadly, keeping his cat inside or otherwise under control could have prevented this loss. Cats should no more be allowed to roam than dogs are. The reasons are numerous, including sanitary issues (wandering cats often use neighbors’ gardens as bathrooms) and safety purposes, and not just the safety of the cat itself: cats kill 568 million birds annually in the U.S. alone. Again, I’m sorry for the cat-owner’s loss and I certainly don’t intend to add insult to injury. I understand that many believe they are doing their cats a kindness by letting them wander. Perhaps this loss can be parlayed into a positive event, saving the lives of other cats, if it stands as a reminder that only wild animals should roam free.
Ann Clark
Sonoma

Editor: First I want to compliment Richard Spencer on the article he wrote (11.22.07) regarding the two solar “green” buildings now nearing completion at 645 Broadway, next to the post office and 10 Maple St., behind the Chamber of Commerce. It was a very accurate and thorough article but unfortunately no photographs were included. But seeing is believing, so I invite you and the public to come and see the buildings and the fabulous sculpture and murals by John Curry at Maple and First Street West.
One minor clarification though, the article title indicated that an award was given by a historical society. There is the very fine Sonoma Valley Historical Society but the Special Recognition Award was given by the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, which supports not only preservation but also new construction compatible with the built and natural environment, among many other things.  Check them out at www.sonomaleague.org.
Adrian Martinez
Sonoma

Get with the picture
Editor: Joanne Sanders thinks the City of Sonoma is always paying for services that benefit the folks in the County? How out of touch with the big picture can a City Council member be! The City couldn’t afford to exist without the County. Plus Sonoma would be broke and have no economy if it weren’t for the people and businesses located outside the city limits.
I hope Valerie Brown will straighten Ms. Sanders out, but in the meantime, I’ll provide just a few examples of expensive services the City receives from the County – the court system, the jail, the programs of the County Departments of Health Services and Human Services, restaurant inspections, the dump, the operating of the County library, and the operating of general elections.
Then there is the revenue in sales taxes the City of Sonoma receives from all the folks who live outside the city limits, but shop in the City. I wonder what the loss to the City budget would be if all the outside-the-city-limit residents boycotted for one month all the businesses inside the city? Besides the loss of tax revenue, I’m sure several businesses would go broke.
Also, the City of Sonoma wouldn’t have the revenue from the hotel tax collected from tourists, if it weren’t for that major outside-the-City industry, which is the reason most visitors come to Sonoma.
The idea that the Springs redevelopment project should help fund the Sonoma Valley Hospital’s request to the City is out of touch with reality. The Springs redevelopment project funding is committed to a long sought-after sidewalk and highway improvement project, whose costs have been skyrocketing due to delays caused by Cal Trans. To expect county redevelopment to take money from that project, thus delaying it further, when the City is perfectly capable of funding the hospital’s request, is like robbing the poor to give to the rich.
Gina Cuclis
Sonoma

Editor: Much time has passed since the Hospital Coalition Steering Committee was tied in their vote between the in-town Andrieux Street site, which included the reuse of our present hospital, and the Broadway site on the edge of town, but within the city’s Urban Growth Boundary. The 16-member Steering Committee agreed to pass on the decision to the Hospital Board after first agreeing on certain requirements that each site needed to meet.
• Both sites required a minimum of 10 acres.
• Eminent Domain would not be used.
• The City’s Urban Growth Boundary would be upheld.
The last two requirements were considered important by the Coalition because of the difficulty in getting a two-thirds vote, which will be needed to pass a General Obligation Bond.
At the Oct. 10 Hospital Board Meeting the Board finally voted and approved the in-town option (ITO). This approval came for the following reasons.
• The ITO had over 10 acres with 4.5 acres already owned by the district, while the Broadway site had been reduced to 7.5 acres from its original 17.5 acres.
• The landowners in town had timely and binding agreements with the hospital, while the Barry Swenson developers representing the various Broadway landowners had nothing binding and asked for further delays that the hospital could not agree to.
• The ITO allowed for a phased project and the reuse of the present hospital thus saving the Hospital District considerable costs, while the Broadway site would require a large bond all at one time. A bond that would have a strong chance of failing. 
• The developer also planned to charge large rents to the district for outpatient space and other uses. With the ITO the hospital district would be the landlord and make money off leasing part of the existing 120,000-sqare-foot facility.
• The ITO would be finished a year sooner thus giving the district and the voters additional savings.
These are the facts that seem so difficult for some of our local press to state, and why many in the community are tired of the endless spin. It is time for the coalition, the community and our local papers to support the Hospital Board and the new CEO in this difficult time of keeping our small district hospital open and running.
There are many other crucial decisions to be made and these dedicated Hospital Board members and our talented new CEO need our help, not our disdain. 
As many of you may know, I have worked to keep our hospital in town. Before Measure C I gathered over 1,000 signatures of citizens who supported keeping our hospital where it is; this location offers good land-use planning, city-centered growth and reuse of our existing facility. The Board has been more than fair, and at this late date one would hope they’ll stand by their decision to keep the hospital campus where it is. 
Marilyn Goode
Sonoma