Letters to the Editor

Honesty is healthy
Editor: Why would residents of our community support the hospital district when it appears that the individuals responsible for the planning and operation of our facility appear to act in the same manner as those who got us into the current mortgage fiasco? By this I mean that those who chaired the campaign for Measure F conducted a “targeted” campaign. I interpret this to mean they hoped or wished to get the required votes from a select few. This makes me feel like someone who plays cards using a stacked deck.  The fact that the hospital or any hospital is facing tough economic challenges began about the time that the government implemented Medicare. Health insurance companies then began to renegotiate reimbursements to healthcare providers. Quality of care and availability of services became harder to come by. Healthcare became a business. Therefore the fact that SVH is facing tough economic challenges as stated by hospital spokesman Bob Rice is certainly true today.  However, SVH Administration and the Board have known for more than 20 years about declining revenues, increased competition and maintenance/remodeling of the physical structure. The challenge I present to the Administration and the Board of Directors is to be transparent and honest with the constituents of the community.
Arthur Acosta
Sonoma
 
Let’s get the ball rolling
Editor: I am a Kaiser patient. I voted for the bond. I wavered quite a bit, but I did it! Don’t know what I’ll do next time. I don’t know if others feel the same. But bet some do.
Let’s just give up on the grandiose hospital.
Maybe it’s time to get the ball rolling on changing the zoning on the Eighth Street East property, to allow a hospital, related facilities and what ever else may be needed that will attract the first developer back or other developers. Let them build a for profit hospital. This should be put on the “fast track” just in case that’s the only option. It seems to be going that way.
Bill Roberts
Sonoma

Equal rights: the vote is on the table
Editor: The directors of the Sonoma Valley Sanitation District (sewer) must live in large houses! Then there are the low- or moderate-income property owners who are subsidizing those big house owners by being forced to pay the same for their sewer service! How unfair is that?  These owners don’t have the voice it takes to make someone care as to how unfair and inequitable the Sanitation District’s method of charging is.  These owners can’t take time from a job to protest at a public hearing held in Santa Rosa during the day and the authorities know that.  How opportune for them to hold a hearing on the day that Income Tax is due, further lessening the chance for protestors!  It really doesn’t need to be stated over and over how prohibitive it would be to (1) install meters on the sewer system or (2) track number persons on a property; everyone is smart enough to figure that out!
Don’t believe this Valley Sanitation District couldn’t get the database of the Valley Water District and use their meter measurements as an equitable basis for a fair method of charging; even the tiered method they use would more fairly affect the bottom line for each property owner’s sewer service usage.  It has been proven by mass mailings and telemarketing that anyone can get a database.  The Valley Water District users should be in public record and if it isn’t, why isn’t it?  Anyhow since these are all overseen by the County Board of Supervisors, there should be reciprocal access; right?
If these authorities have put up (insurmountable) blocks for access to a water, usage list, the County Assessor’s office should be a viable source of pertinent information. The assessment records show number of bathrooms on any piece of property; their records are updated whenever someone adds a bathroom, through the permit process. If there are 2 houses (2 kitchens) on a property, this information would also be available in these records. This source for usage calculations could be the fairest method of service charging of any!  Every year the Sanitation District service charge could be automatically adjusted too!  How could anyone disagree that this method of charging would be cost-effective and fair?
Once again we need those responsible for maintaining our equal rights to do just that!  Equitable fees! How many single senior homeowners do you know on a fixed (low) income? Just think of how two-sinks/1 toilet sewer usage compares to a property with 7 or 8 sinks/5 or 6 toilets!
The gas it took to go to this Tuesday public hearing in Santa Rosa was money well spent for supporting those equal rights that have been taken for granted until now.
 Jeanne Duncan
Sonoma