Letters to the Editor

Wants NO on 8

Editor: Over 125 California Newspapers, including conservative icons like the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Stockton Record, Fresno Bee, and Bakersfield, have strongly recommend a NO vote on Prop 8. Not one single newspaper in California has endorsed the measure. Yet, our hometown paper, the Sonoma Sun finds it impossible to reach agreement on this proposition to eliminate the rights of people to marry. My marriage to Donald Clement is one of the most important things in my life and I am stunned and angry to find that the Sonoma Sun will not stand up to inequality and strongly recommend a NO vote. I hope that the citizens of this good town resounding defeat this vile proposition and I hope that they let you know that inequality will not be tolerated in our city. Vote NO on Prop 8.
Bob Powers
Sonoma

Editor: I was shocked to learn that you have not taken a position in opposition to Prop 8. My partner and I have lived in the Valley for nearly 15 years and would expect to be supported by our local paper.
This is a critical election both for our State Constitution and for the civil rights of LGBT citizens. Please reconsider and join practically every other newspaper in the State in opposing Prop 8.
Thank you,
Gary Shepard & Paul Besco
Sonoma

Editor: I used to believe that a gay civil union/domestic partnership was a fine substitute for gay marriage. I was just happy to have the civil benefits that those covenants provided. Besides, I had always thought of marriage as a religious ceremony anyway, and since I am not a member of any particular religious group, I really wasn’t particularly interested in participating in it.
I was nurtured in the Bible belt as a secular protestant and I attended a catholic high school. As a result, I had an opportunity to learn a lot about various religious faiths and their histories, but personally I never became a practicing member of any particular faith. In my mind, I thought of myself more as a Renaissance man and tended to admire the Sciences.
It’s funny, but as a Georgia boy living in California, I was happy to just add the phrase “Domestic Partner” right next to the single, married, widowed, and divorced boxes on an application and circle it. It is a heck of a lot better than anything the South has.
You know though, it wasn’t until I actually got married that I realized that a separate but equal arrangement wasn’t right for me after all. I suddenly realized that scratching in a little box and writing “domestic partners” next to it, isn’t equal. It’s funny, but once I saw this small difference between the two covenants, I suddenly saw all the other differences between them as well.
So, I want to let everyone know that regardless of how Proposition 8 turns out, I am married and I will always be married. (I will always check that married box on the forms I fill out instead of writing in domestic partner.) No one can take that away from me because it now lives deep in my heart.
Reed Peters
Sonoma

Wants NO on 4

Editor: After reading Our View (10/16/08) Of the People By the People there was so much I could disagree with. However one recommendation on your part was not only a mere disagreement of opinion it is dangerous.
Proposition 4 requiring the parental notification of minors seeking an abortion is a dangerous proposition and your argument is assumptive at best:
“This is likely the biggest decision a pregnant young girl ever will have faced, and she needs the love and support of her parents”
You assume every girl seeking the termination of her pregnancy HAS loving parents. That she is not abused or subject to abuse. That she has parents who would support her right to make her own choice regarding her reproductive rights. Prop 4 does make an allowance for that notification in the case of a girl that is being abused but in order to receive services she must turn her parents in for abuse and abuse must be proven. Most children who are abused will not feel inclined to turn in their abusive parents. It will not be an incentive for them to do so either.
The fear will remain and desperate young girls will seek dangerous alternatives to end an unwanted pregnancy in secret. Additionally, it will deny young women the option of less invasive termination options as they will first have to prove they are being abused before receiving services making the difficult decision to terminate even more difficult.
Additionally Prop 4 only penalizes the young pregnant girl. There is no parental notification requirement for the boy who has 50% responsibility in the conception. Proposition 4 is dangerous and a huge step backwards in the progression of equality for women. Your assertion that “This issue is not about abortion itself” is invalid. It is about ALL women having the right to make their OWN reproductive choices. Prop 4 would deny this right to young women under the age of 18 who cannot obtain parental consent (much less love and support) or are afraid to seek it.
I have spent a great portion of my life working with teens and I can assure you not all of them have “the love and support” of their parents. That many times is not an option for many youth who find themselves in a situation that would enact a law like parental notification of abortion services. I am a parent of a teen myself and I am a loving parent and I hope that my daughter would come to me for anything. However, I would never require all girls being legislated to do so just so I can ensure that my daughter does. It is my responsibility to be a loving and supportive parent so that my daughter can come to me for everything and anything and “that can’t be legislated.” For those parents who believe that Prop 4 will garauntee that they will always be notified then do you apply that standard to your sons as well? If so you will not be notified when your sons have a pregnant girlfriend.
Please Sonoma Sun: before making a recommendation do your homework. Look at all the potential consequences for the support or defeat of a Proposition. Do not base your endorsement on an assumption of love and support. In a perfect world all children are loved and supported but sadly this is not a perfect world.
Celeste Winders
Sonoma

Wants YES on P

Editor: In the Sonoma Valley Hospital bond measure’s there is no mention of the interest rate to be paid on the Bond(which is a loan) or the term(years for pay off). Conservatively, the actual total cost of the Bond(principal and interest) is somewhere between 55-65 million over the life of the loan. Considering the extreme adverse conditions for current market rates and given the low credit ratings for the state, general tightness in the credit markets and the near insolvency of the Hospital District it is highly likely that double digit interest rates may be applicable. So, the estimate given of $13.69 per $100k valuation is grossly underestimating the true cost to property owners. There are no specific projects included in the SVH bond Measure P so, there is no assurance of how the monies will be spent. The measure is so poorly and loosely written that the monies could be used for almost anything, including planning again for a new hospital off site. Vote no on Measure P
Vote no en Medida P. Stimmen Sie nicht auf P.
Bob Hughes
El Verano

3 For Hospital

Editor: BEST CHOICES FOR HOSPITAL BOARD: AGRIMONTE, BOERUM, HOHORST
Based on my eight years on the board and the need for the best board leadership possible, I strongly recommend a vote for Agrimonte, Boerum, and Hohorst.
Madolyn Agrimonte has the needed concensus building skills; twelve years as a city council member working with city, state, and federal agencies and bringing a much needed woman’s voice to the board.
Incumbent Boerum knows the issues, is sensitive to the community, and provides continuity.
Hohorst has earned his seat by his deep involvement in the coalition to save the hospital.
Mike Smith
First Vice President
Sonoma Valley Hospital Board

More NO on 8

Editor: Shame on you Sonoma Sun! There are three things the people of Sonoma hope they can always rely on: Beautiful summers, wonderful wine, and a common support for civil rights. As a result of your editorial board’s decision last week not to recommend opposition to Prop. 8, one has to question your paper’s commitment to continuing Sonoma County’s long history of supporting civil rights. Let there be no question, Prop. 8 will limit the civil rights of Californians by imprinting the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” into the state constitution. Whether or not one personally believes marriage can only describe a union between a man and a woman is of no relevance here. Opposing Prop. 8 does nothing to change the current status of married couples. If Prop. 8 fails, married couples will continue to be married. They can even continue to personally believe that marriage should only be a union between a man and a woman. However, if Prop. 8 passes, the right of same-sex couples to have equality under the law will be removed, and discrimination will be written into California’s constitution. A legal right does not have to be held as a personal belief in order to still be a right. In the 50s and 60s, the majority of citizens in many states did not personally believe that a black person and a white person should be allowed to marry. The courts, however, decided it was in fact a legal right. And it is worth noting the courts did not say that interracial couples had a right to only be Domestic Partners, but that they in fact had an equal right to be married under the law. Opposing Prop. 8 is not about changing people’s personal beliefs or religious practices, it is about ensuring the legal rights of all of Californians.
Sincerely concerned,
Bryan Anthony, Matthew Meiners, Paul Vieyra, Stan Abercrombie, Bob Rice, Ken Burnet, & Greg Nemrow

Editor: Regarding your decision not to support a NO vote on Proposition 8, I fail to see the difficulty in choosing to support basic civil rights and equality for everyone. If you cannot decide on your own, then I suggest you follow the lead of major newspapers all over the state, including conservative ones, who recommend a NO vote.
Janice Crow and John Curry
Sonoma

Editor: We are appalled by your inability to agree on a recommendation to your readers as to how to vote on Prop 8. Shame on you! The California Supreme Court has ruled that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. It is pathetic that the editors of a “liberal” small town newspaper are unable to agree on this issue!
Paul Vieyra, Stan Abercrombie, Sandy and Kent Larsen, Paula Wolfert,
Patricia Cullinan, Bryan Anthony, Matthew Meiners, Craig Miller, Tim Farfan,
Andrea Lazarus, David DeLong, Rob Iurillo, Prudence Dreyfus, Vickie and Don Jackson, Karen and John Glickman, Kate de Renuard, Skye Hallberg, Jane and Al Millertich, Carl MacPetrie, Laurie Tsurida, Amy Nielsen, Richard Schuh, Michael Dowdy, Lois Gordon, Nicole Lazarus, Karen Brown, Christine Murray, Bob Rice, Harriet and Randy Derwingson, Stan and Noreen Feig, Bob Powers, Donald Clement

Appreciates Barnett

Editor: I wish there were more responses and understanding of what brought on the financial situation we are experiencing as Larry Barnett so insightfully put in his article (The economy of my secret self). I didn’t think I would see this happen in my lifetime, I am sixty, but I knew we were on the wrong foot long ago, when we stopped listening to our elders wisdom, and just plain old common sense regarding the handling of our money. Weren’t we told long ago, to buy a house on one income only, and only at a certain percentage of our income, to pay off our houses as soon as possible, so that we ‘could’ retire, have allowances, you know, budget our money, etc. etc. We are not the victims of any of this. “We” made these stupid choices. Oh, and I almost forgot……when credit cards first appeared, we all justified them by saying they were for emergencies! Well here’s our ‘real’ emergency! But our cards are emergencied out! We all need some serious planning, sacrificing (oh no not the ‘S’ word), and a real looking at our motives, to climb out of this hole we’ve dug. But, I am hopeful we will. Now go find those marbles you lost, and get back on track ASAP and stop getting hooked by those that bait! With all love and respect, Diana Nieto
Diana Nieto
Sonoma

Wants NO on 2

Editor: I grew up on a small chicken ranch here in Sonoma. I have loved and kept animals all of my life and also have a degree in Animal Science. This combination has given me a unique perspective on Proposition 2. Prop. 2 is an emotional issue and most voters have no actual experience with either chickens or agriculture as a way of life.
With our chickens, each hen was individually identified and checked several times per day. Individual records were kept. Each hen was vaccinated and any change in appearance, food consumption, egg-laying, or general disposition was immediately noted and the hen would get immediate attention. The chickens were clean and healthy and all of this was possible because our hens lived in individual cages. My mother cared for one thousand chickens in this way every day and she knew each one and cared about each one. We never lost a hen to predators, wild bird borne diseases, cannibalism, or suffocation – grisly deaths that are a reality faced by cage-free chickens. Cage-free chickens have to compete for their food so they may not receive their daily nutrients. Their food and water is easily contaminated with manure and they are subject to internal and external parasites. For the health and safety of the hens, from my personal experience, I urge NO on 2.
I am familiar with the study on cost factors (D. Bell, U.C. – Riverside) used by Prop.2 proponents. What has not been told is that the report identifies 125 times more land required, 5 times more labor, 10% more wasted feed, and 5% more eggs destroyed in cage-free systems as well as increased medication costs. There are only two egg producers left out of 2700 once in Sonoma County. While they might be able to manage the other cost increases, certainly they could not afford to multiply their acreage by 125 in this county and California land values are such that producers outside this county would be forced out of business as well. Agriculture typically has the lowest return on investment of any business. California agriculture, in spite of higher costs to its producers, has implemented health and safety standards that do not exist in other states. For the health and safety of the consumers, from my educational perspective, I urge NO on 2.
Barb Doyle Roy
Glen Ellen

Wants Valerie Brown

Editor: It is difficult to imagine a creek “restoration specialist” supervising unnecessary damage to one of the most pristine creeks in Sonoma Valley. Without obtaining the land owners permission, Will Pier directed this publicly funded project on the Calabasas Creek in Glen Ellen. Boulders, logs, steel, concrete and rebar were imported and haphazardly piled in the creek. One inch steel rods were drilled through the middle of live redwoods and oaks. After reviewing the four impacted sites, State Fish and Game advised removal of approximately 80 percent of the materials to prevent further damage to a habitat nurtured by generations of private ownership. This unprofessional episode became a legal, fiscal, and environmental failure. Both the installation and removal came at the expense of taxpayers. Sonoma creeks need every penny of available funds to restore degraded habitat and raise fish populations. None of us want to see funds wasted. People who care about the environment need to know his record and question his competency.
Valerie Brown has proven her leadership though numerous projects protecting wetlands, water resources, open space and farming. She is experienced in getting what Sonoma Valley wants. Please vote for Valerie Brown.
Friends of Calabasas Creek
Lauren Benward
Alex Benward
Art Ramirez
Andrea Perry
Blair Maus
Todd Maus