Letters to the Editor

Thanks to Valerie

Editor: We at Meals-on-Wheels of Sonoma would like to thank Valerie Brown for her help with a county agency. Her intervention will save thousands of dollars for our program into the future. Because of this help, we will be able to direct these funds to what we are charged with doing – feeding our clients. Invaluable assistance, indeed, in this era of soaring food costs.
We have found Valerie to be responsive to our needs each and every time we have called. Let’s stay with an incumbent who is doing the job for her constituents. Please join us in voting for Valerie Brown.

Sue Holman &
Susan Weeks
Sonoma

Editor: For Valerie Brown Voters ONLY. When I moved to Sonoma, the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District fees for our home’s sewer connection paid on my 2000/2001 property tax bill were $377. They have been raised by supervisor vote every year for the past six years in a row an average of over six percent per year: $400, $427, $455, $486, $518, $549, $578.
At the April 15 board meeting, our current supervisor, Valerie Brown, was one of the two supervisors present (the third vote, Sonoma’s mayor, was absent) who again voted another rate increase for you, this time seven percent for the seventh year in a row! So your new sewer fee will be increased by another $40 this year, to $618, on your 2008 property tax bill.
Averaging six to seven percent raises every year for the past seven (or more?) years in a row is totally unacceptable! Has your income gone up that much?
Valerie has been your supervisor since being appointed by Governor Gray Davis in August 2002. Business as usual? Not for me. I’m voting for Dave Reber. I recommend you do too.
Gary Germano
Sonoma

Editor: Recently there has been a spate of letters concerning Joan [Huguenard]’s seemingly one-sided column regarding the long and ongoing dispute and warfare between Israel and Palestine. On May 15, there was a comment made concerning the lack of factual, historical knowledge about the many hundreds of years leading up to the current disastrous situation.
During the struggle for an Israeli homeland in the late 1940s, my father was a British soldier involved in the conflict and was given orders to “shoot on sight” if he ever came upon any of the Irgun, an organization striving to establish the state of Zion, especially after the bombing of the King David Hotel. Today the efforts and methods used by David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and the rest of the Irgun would be labeled “terrorist.” The members of this organization were wanted by the British and would have been hanged if caught. Of course, the “terrorist” label would only be used dependant on whether the USA and U.K. were supporting the other side. If those countries were supporting the Irgun, they would have been “freedom fighters.”         
Palestine existed under a British Mandate from 1920-48, after a treaty to assist in the overthrow of the Ottomans. After changes in British government and policy, that mandate was betrayed and the state of Israel was instituted the day after the expiration. Three-quarters-of-a-million Palestinians were expelled from lands they had previously been guaranteed.         
The conflicts in the Middle East have been continuing for millennia. There will never be an easy solution or maybe any at all. The early 20th century saw international meddling on a grand scale. Treaties and agreements were made and broken. Both Israel and Palestine were the victims of this selfish interfering.           
As to my earlier point, if we were supportive of the Palestinians, we would call them ‘”freedom fighters,” rebels in a noble cause. However, the sympathy is to Israel, fighting for existence. Everyone is free to have and voice his or her opinions. The facts don’t take sides unless they are ignored. It seems that the letter writers pointing to Joan as “one-sided” should assume that label themselves and maybe study history.

David Ian Robbins
Sonoma

Editor: Private property rights are coveted and almost absolute in America! What about societal rights?
Hopefully, society still has some rights in our country. If personal property rights were absolute, millions of people would be homeless and living as in third world countries.
In a TV show called “One vs. 100,” the 100 try to rid the one with as little money as possible. The one “Rancho de Sonoma Owner” wants to leave the game with as much money as possible. So the game goes on and the question is, who will prevail? The one or the 100?
I hope our Council in Sonoma will strongly look at societal rights when making their decision on the conversion ordinance and remember “the one” is not doing this because he’s not making money; he is doing it to make more money off the backs of a low-income society.
On March 2 a reader wrote in to the “Ask Marilyn” column in Parade magazine with this question: “Q: In your opinion, what is the best barometer of a county’s morality? A. The esteem in which society holds its elderly.”
Sam DiGiacamo
Sonoma

Editor: My two sons (one a freshman at SVHS and one a 6th grader at Altimira) attended Dunbar Elementary School from Kindergarten through 5th grade. I founded the Friends of Dunbar School/PTO in 2001. I am still involved with Dunbar as a Glen Ellen community member and with many of the parents of students there who are my friends.
As such, I have been party to many of the trials and tribulations Dunbar has been subjected to over the years. I am shocked and appalled by this latest in the long saga of “injustices” to the staff, families and, most importantly, students of Dunbar Elementary School.
There seems to be no regard for Dunbar from the SVUSD or the current principal! Dunbar is a valued asset to the school district, and now again there is uproar and confusion, causing yet another slew of families to choose to move their students from Dunbar and most likely to other schools outside of the SVUSD resulting in a great loss of funds. This does not only affect Dunbar but the middle schools and high school as well because once those kids are out of the district, they are often gone for good.

Consider these questions:
• How easy is it going to be to find a quality person to fill the principal’s position at Dunbar- and stay there – when it is only “part-time”.
• Why doesn’t Dunbar deserve a full-time principal?
• Who is going to champion Dunbar’s cause, our school board representative?
• When is Dunbar going to be recognized as the jewel in the crown of the SVUSD that it is and treated accordingly?
• What are you people thinking???

Kristi Hallamore Jeppesen
Glen Ellen

Editor: Your statements in the May 15 Sun editorial are misleading. You state: “Whenever we voters can rein in government power, that’s a good thing.” I was taught that we live in a democracy that is of the people, by the people, for the people. WE are the government. Checks and balances are essential, but to make a grossly generalized statement like the above implies that our government is a separate entity. You state: “In the local saga surrounding Rancho de Sonoma … the property owner’s returns have been held down by government rent control, which diminishes the owner’s incentive to reinvest in the infrastructure of the facility in its present use, leading to its deterioration.” “Government rent control” was created by, for and of the people who live in the City of Sonoma. The City Council listened to their community and approved moderate rent control to assist low- and fixed-income homeowners. The rent control contract guarantees an annual rental increase to the park owners based on the Consumer Price Index. This would not be given to a condominium park owner. The mobile home park owners are making a good return on their investment. Go look at the three parks in the city of Sonoma. They are not deteriorating because of rent control.
Your next statement is even more misinformed: “Conversion to condominium ownership is the common path to solvency…” No, conversion to condominium ownership is an obscene business practice, shamefully terrifying our elders who are trying to live simply in their final years. What are our priorities? Profiting off the old, disabled and vulnerable?
Finally, you say: “By voting to limit the power of government to take private property, we would show that a majority can, instead, protect the minority’s rights.” Mobile home owners ARE private property owners. They pay licensing taxes if the unit is a trailer or property taxes if it is a manufactured home. They pay homeowners insurance, are responsible for ALL their home and yard maintenance and are legally entitled to all the same rights, privileges and laws that any other private property owner can claim. Despite these responsibilities, they have less potential equity than regular homeowners do because they live in a mobile home park.
The fact that certain new park owners then threaten small towns like Sonoma with expensive lawsuits unless they get their way shows their priorities. They are the threat – what they are doing is a taking of those mobile home owners property and rights!
Please reconsider your position on Proposition 98. VOTE NO ON PROP 98. It is masquerading as a control for eminent domain, but includes the ultimate destruction of worthwhile rent control. If you are concerned about eminent domain but support rent control, VOTE YES ON PROP 99, which protects us from eminent domain, but also strengthens our communities. Let government do its job, including protecting us from those businesses that think they can manipulate or even change its laws to serve their special interests.
Lin Marie diVincent
Sonoma