Letters to the Editor

Police ignore driving laws already on the books
Editors: Some time this year, the new law regarding cell phone use while driving will be enacted. There is also a law regarding text messaging while driving (which boggles the mind) in the works somewhere. My question is simple, what is the point? How much time and manpower will be involved dealing with transgressors? Driving around on a rainy day, it’s easy to observe, at my count, about a quarter of all vehicles headlight-less while wipers are swiping furiously. That law was passed three years ago. Living next to a stop sign on Railroad Avenue, I observe a ratio greater than half failing to stop, sometimes not even slowing down. I’ve had fantasies of Star Wars style vaporizing machines destroying the offenders.  
Blowing through red lights at the corner of Verano and Highway 12 is so commonplace that not even an eyebrow is raised anymore. Dangerous lane changes on Arnold Drive, tailgating on Highway 116 and peeling out from stop signs, often in the rain. The point being that, for whatever reason, the current laws, designed to keep roads safe, are unenforced. Why do we even bother passing new laws? Shortage of resources? Maybe. Years ago, when I would drop off my children to cross Broadway and go to high school, there would often be a SPD officer car parked near the crosswalk. And I mean a real, live officer leaning on his Crown Victoria. It became a humorous pastime to observe how many cars would drive through the crosswalk, while people were on the black and white lines, and while the member of our “finest” would do absolutely nothing. Why even bother wasting time, money and the public safety with new traffic laws when the current situation of enforcement is pitiful? Budget cuts, apathy and posturing politicians are causing a greater danger to the public than any new law can hope to address.
David Ian Robbins.
Sonoma

Why we should join the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau 

Editor: The two-and-one-half-year-old Sonoma County destination-marketing agency: Sonoma County Tourism (SCTB) is doing the substantive, professional work required to bring tourists and groups to our county. As our town has not “opted in” we risk declining TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax), the only part of Sonoma’s revenue that is increasing. As we now face the likelihood of some sort of economic slowdown, we must put aside our parochial attitude and join Sonoma County Tourism Bureau. 
The Sonoma Valley Visitor’s Bureau marketing efforts are effective in the Bay Area, but we need the addition of SCTB to reach statewide, national and especially international markets. Sonoma County Tourism Bureau’s budget now exceeds five million dollars a year, which enables them to send staffers around the globe and also bring destination professionals here. Just last week, SCTB staff hosted qualified meeting planners from Dallas, Seattle and Chicago for a three-day tour of Sonoma Country. The planners represent clients like Moss Adams, Phillip-Morris USA, Helms Briscoe, as well as private clients throughout Texas, Arizona and the Midwest.
They stayed at member hotels, tasted wine at member wineries, and ate at member restaurants.  They will go back and recommend these places, because they have personally visited them.   
And they didn’t come to our town.
I will disclose that as an owner of both a tourism and meeting business in town I have a personal interest in our town joining SCTB: I need the referrals that SCTB sends properties and attractions like mine in the rest of the county.  And I’m not alone.  Joining me in this desire for SCTB referrals are many others in our town: restaurants, hotels and attractions.
Sonoma County Tourism Bureau requires 2 percent of a room stay as their price of inclusion.  Some people in town are afraid raising the TOT amount will put us at a competitive disadvantage and also are concerned that we may need to use that money to balance our City’s budget two to three years in the future.
I believe this is a wrong way to look at the situation, that it could be called: “penny wise/pound foolish.”
After all, on a $200 per night room the added 2 percent amounts to $4.  I don’t believe anyone will be dissuaded from staying in one of our fine hotels by such an increase. Our TOT now stands at 10 percent, and as many towns in Sonoma and Napa are already at 12 percent if we join SCTB we will simply remain at parity.  If in two or three years the town of Sonoma needs to increase TOT for additional revenue, and takes an additional 2 percent, competing towns will probably be at 14 percent too, as all municipalities are facing the same problems.
 I believe, therefore, that not joining SCTB is against our own best interests, and could be the result of lingering feelings of resentment created by previous countywide marketing organizations.  In the past countywide tourism organizations took our money but never seemed to give us our fair share of marketing. But SCTB is not like previous county marketing organizations.  I can personally attest to their professionalism, their dedications, and their desire to have the town of Sonoma, which they acknowledge as one of the jewels of Sonoma County, join them.
Finally, over the last few years destination marketing has become hugely more professional and competitive.  Our town isn’t competing against Napa, or Santa Rosa, or Healdsburg.  We are competing against Palm Springs, San Diego, Monterey, Tahoe and Oregon.  Without SCTB to help us compete with those markets we will soon experience an even worse downturn than we experienced last summer, when wineries in the Sonoma Valley experienced “flat-to-down” visitor numbers, case sales, and wine club memberships. 
Our town is one of the pre-eminent destinations in California, but we risk being forgotten if we don’t compete for that business, and to do that we need to join Sonoma County Tourism Bureau.
George Webber
Sonoma