Letters to the Editor

Creek restoration in compliance

Editor: Since 2001 I have participated in many creek restoration projects in the Sonoma Valley watershed. I have worked successfully with hundreds of landowners, the Sonoma Land Trust, several County agencies and the Department of Fish and Game.
I am proud that during this period we have seen a wonderful resurgence of salmon and trout here in the Valley. With the rains, huge fish from the Bay can swim up to spawn in Sonoma Creek and its tributaries and their young once again can grow in deep pools the following summer. Seniors tell me it is like it was.
The goals of creek restoration are not primarily aesthetic. Creek restoration seeks to return the creek to its function as a habitat, to restore the full ecological system. The work of restoration focuses particularly on removal of barriers to fish passage and creation of deep pools for the young fish.
There have been some untrue allegations regarding the project I directed on Calabazas Creek. The plan was designed in compliance with Department of Fish and Game criteria to install boulders and logs to encourage deeper pools and provide shelter for juvenile trout. Consent of all landowners was obtained. When some of the landowners objected to the installation, we met and further explained the objectives of the project. They agreed to the modifications, which were subsequently installed.
I am committed to continue to bring sustainability – economy, equality and ecology – to all in our Valley.
Will Pier
Sonoma

Editor’s note: In the Tuesday, Oct. 28 edition of the Sonoma Valley Sun, the following letter was published with incorrect headline. The Sun regrets the error and the letter is reprinted in full below:

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 Calabazas 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 Calabazas Creek
Lauren Benward
Alex Benward
Art Ramirez
Andrea Perry
Blair Maus
Todd Maus

Editor: I was surprised by the attack on Will Pier’s reputation in a letter you published this week.
The first surprise is the subject itself, which is entirely new to me. The second surprise is the timing. If this matter has any significance, why am I reading about it only now, so close to the election? So close in fact, that it might be after the election before rebuttals can be posted.
The final surprise is who signed the letter, honest people of good character, and yet what they write is either incorrect (Calabazas Creek is not “pristine” – it has a dam on it), or simply incredible. (Could anyone seriously believe that habitat restoration was done in Calabazas Creek without permission of owners or Fish and Game?)
My vote for county supervisor is based on my perception of a candidate’s honesty and judgment, and on verifiable facts, not innuendo. My vote is for Will Pier.

Bill Crawford
Glen Ellen

Editor: To the person or persons who stole my Obama/Biden yard sign and my “SI En P” yard sign two weeks ago,and my “YES on 2” yard sign over the weekend, I would like to say:
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted by the first Congress on March 4, 1789. Amendment 1 states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
If you want to oppose my views (though truly, who wouldn’t want a local hospital or wouldn’t want to stop the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals), please purchase and display your own yard signs.
I promise I won’t interfere with your freedom of speech.

Jennifer Hainstock
Sonoma

Editor: Candidate for county supervisor, Will Pier, has served on the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission making county land-use decisions; has twice chaired the City of Sonoma Community Services and Environment Commission; was an employee for seven years at the Sonoma Ecology Center and currently serves in an advisory capacity; is a fellow of the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, where the interrelationship between municipal and county government is taught; and has years of business experience as a builder/contractor in Sonoma County.
Key to Will’s platform is his opposition to hillside development and to gravel mining in the Russian River. He supports a zero waste system and opposes the sale of the central landfill to outside private interests. The fact that he is endorsed by the Sierra Club testifies to his bona fides as a staunch environmental caretaker.
Experience in government, which encompasses planning, budget spending and revenue, and providing needed community services is important, and Will is not lacking in these capacities. While it’s true that he is not experienced as a county supervisor, neither was the incumbent before she became a county supervisor. If you want to see change in how the county is governed, vote for Will Pier.
Will Shonbrun
Sonoma

Editor: Renovations to our existing hospital are imperative to insure quality health care for Sonoma Valley’s future. A small group of volunteers is working diligently to pass Measure P on Nov. 4. One of the things our campaign is proudest of is the concerted effort made to inform and include the Spanish-speaking community. You have seen the “Si on P” signs all over the Valley. We think this is a first in our local politics to have campaign materials specifically for the Latino community. A big thank you goes to Siga Weber and Ana Byerly for initiating the outreach to the Latino voters. Our campaign wrote a letter in Spanish to the 1,300 Spanish-speaking registered voters outlining why it is important to go to the polls and vote to save the hospital and emergency room. We asked a few community leaders to underwrite this endeavor. We are pleased to say that several people stepped forward immediately and generously covered the cost of getting this letter out. Our heartfelt appreciation goes to Mike Benziger of Benziger Winery, Bill and Lori Hutchinson of Hutchinson Consulting and the board of directors of La Luz. Thank you so much. And remember to vote Yes on Measure P, preserve quality health care in Sonoma Valley.

Susan Lobsinger
Yes on P
Committee Member
Sonoma

Newspapers recommend No on 8

Editor: I am writing to ask you to reconsider your position on Proposition 8.
Over 125 California newspapers, including conservative icons like the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Stockton Record, Fresno Bee, Bakersfield Californian and the Orange County Register, 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, has refused to recommend a No vote on this proposition to eliminate the rights of people to marry.
We ask you to PLEASE rethink your position and strongly recommend a No vote.
Thank you.

Margot Biestman
Sonoma

Editor: I have just returned from a trip to a family reunion and found that “you couldn’t agree on this one,” in regard to Proposition 8. I am appalled at your inability to recognize equality for all in relation to personal relationships. You have decided to abrogate your responsibility as the so called “liberal” newspaper in this small town and I am sure that many will find that they no longer want the newspaper to be left at their doorstep  because of your shameful decision.
Somehow I find it very difficult to understand what your excellent writers such as Joan Huguenard, Larry Barnett and Kathleen and Gerald Hill will have to say about your regrettable decision.
As others have written to you, the “Sun” does have the opportunity to regain the dignity of your position by joining almost every major newspaper in the state of California in recommending a No vote on Proposition 8.

Richard Peters
Sonoma

Take a stand

Editor: You can’t arrive at a point of view on Proposition 8? Get real – you’re a community newspaper. The decision couldn’t be clearer: “Yes” is a vote to build discrimination against a small minority (7 to 10 percent max) into the very fabric of California society  – our constitution. A “No” vote is the exact opposite; it maintains, at today’s levels, the humanity and dignity of all Californians.
So, either you are for the status quo, which protects all of us, or you are for a constitutional change to discriminate against some of us. Which is it? It’s not that hard a call. The community you represent needs to know where you stand.

Hank Martinson
Sonoma

Editor: Your position on Proposition 8 is shameful and inexplicable.
I, for one, will no longer send any advertising your way until this “decision” is reversed and you become a grown-up editorial board, like the rest of the major newpapers in the state that support a “NO on Prop 8” vote.

Skye Hallberg
Sonoma

Editor: While the presidential race has garnered the most ballot attention this year, and for good reason, the benefits (or lack thereof) from the election outcome will seep into our Valley only gradually and indirectly. Whatever one thinks of the abilities of Messrs. Obama or McCain to handle the economic crisis, for example, the results of their handiwork will not be felt in this corner of the country for some time, if at all.
The same can be said for most of the other choices that voters have on this year’s lengthy ballot. For those looking for quick cures or impending disasters, there will be a time lag between the act of voting and the result of the vote and things won’t get better, or worse, very fast after election day.
With two exceptions. On the positive side is Measure P, the bond measure to upgrade our hospital so it can continue to function both physically and competitively. A “Yes” vote for Measure P will preserve our first-class emergency room and a critical medical facility for tens of thousands of us that demonstrates its value to our entire community countless times every day.
How valuable is our little hospital and the care it provides?  For newcomers to bucolic, historic Sonoma, finding a quality hospital here – one owned by the people – is like moving into a fine old Victorian house and discovering a Stradivarius in the attic. It is priceless and irreplaceable. Like that old Stradivarius, our hospital might have a few dings in the finish and a broken string or two, but no one in their right mind would throw it away. Measure P will provide the amazingly few dollars needed to restore our Stradivarius to top condition. As violinists would flock here just to touch it, so too will physicians come to our old Victorian for a chance to pick it up, and play. A vote for Measure P will preserve what in today’s world is a rare medical treasure literally minutes away from our front doors.
On the negative side is Proposition 8, a serious threat to the fabric of our community. It seeks to strip from our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors their constitutional right to marry. I can’t remember when Americans have been asked to change a constitution to deprive any group of a constitutional right.  In California, our gay and lesbian friends currently have a constitutional right to marry “for better or worse” – just like the rest of us.
No matter how its proponents spin it, Prop 8 is a despicable example of cross-burning fear, hatred and bigotry at its medieval worst, whose sole purpose is to frighten, insult, demean, degrade, shun and revile people “not like us” and make them feel less than American. Indeed, less than human.
And for what purpose? To “protect marriage?” Please – as the divorce rate and centuries of human experience prove beyond any doubt, nothing – least of all religion – can “protect” a marriage from the people in it, be they straight or gay.
Because Prop 8 would put into the constitution an exclusionary worldview that only the Taliban could love, its proponents might ask themselves: Are we really so pathetic, threatened and insecure in our own marriages, relationships, sexuality and place in society that we believe this hateful proposition is necessary or even capable of protecting us from ourselves?
More to the real point, our Valley is a welcoming home to a significant, caring and contributing community of gays and lesbians. They are doctors, artists, vintners, ministers, writers, shopkeepers and Joe the Plumbers. Some have chosen to marry – others have not. My wife and I – both shameless heterosexuals – count many of them among our best friends. One has to ask: If Prop 8 passes, what other insanity will next be visited on our community in the name of religious fundamentalism? Will we be asked to brand adulteresses? Stone heretics? Drown witches in the duck pond?  Putting into our state constitution a provision designed to vilify an entire class of people simply for who they are has no place in 21st century America, and certainly not in Sonoma.
Those leaning toward Prop 8 might ask themselves a simple and more familiar question as they pick up their ballot this year: How would Jesus vote? I certainly wouldn’t presume to suggest an answer. My two cents for Nov. 4 is more real-world, bumper-sticker simple.  To protect and preserve the quality of life and the fabric of our community: “Yes On P and No on Hate.”

Bob Edwards
Sonoma

Editor: What is the true cost of Proposition P?
The hospital bond (Prop P) requests approval of a 21-year bond. The projected cost – $13.96 per $100,000  assessed valuation – assumes a growing tax base. This is achieved by turnover of property and increased valuations based on Prop 13 rules.
With many homes in foreclosure, declining property values and slow real estate turnover, what will be Prop P’s real cost to property owners?  How high can it go?  Who has the crystal ball?

Andrea Perry
Glen Ellen

Editor: To Oprah, he’s The One. Louis Farrakhan hails him as The Messiah. No wonder people turn out in droves for Obama. But when asked what he’s done, supporters can’t come up with anything. Despite his truancy from Senate chambers the last two years, Obama has fingerprints on various issues. Examples:
He supports eliminating a merit-based point system replacing family-reunification as a basis for immigration policy. Europe reels from abuses spawned by family-reunification policies. When Norway’s liberal government implemented this policy, it realized a 1,300-percent increase in immigrants, mostly Middle Easterners. No pretense of assimilating. Norway’s caveat nowadays: “Integration before immigration.”
Israel no longer grants family-reunification rights to citizens of certain countries. Some 40 percent of Israeli Arabs involved in suicide attacks were naturalized Israelis. Britain is reforming its own laws. Newt Gingrich observes: “More people do Friday prayers than attend Episcopalian services on Sunday.”
Obama supports the “Employee Free Choice Act.” The so-called “card check,” would turn the workplace into a union shop with only the gathered signatures of a majority. No more secret ballots. Some choice!
Then there’s the (un)Fairness Doctrine. A major goal of the left-wing majority is to shut down talk radio and other expressions of political opposition. Hugo Chavez did it. An Obama administration could use its FCC authority to silence dissenters. His people threatened to do just that regarding a TV ad sponsored by an independent organization. So much for free speech!
With the troika of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, there will indeed be changes.

June England
Sonoma

Editor: Proposition 2 is an important measure that will insure that the animals who unwillingly give their lives to humans for food can at least have a decent life. It is not too much to ask to allow these beings without a voice to be able to walk around, stretch their wings if they are chickens, and do what comes naturally to them. They did not ask for their fate – we as humans decided it for them because of our appetite for meat and money.
To those factory farmers who say that they will leave the state – they cannot run and set up their inhumane conditions in another state because other states are already considering the same initiative, and many have already adopted it. The factory farmers use fear tactics to intimidate us into thinking there will be no more eggs. (Just like the smoking ban when the bars and restaurants threatened to close if they did not get their way.) And if they go out of business, then that’s one less torture chamber the animals have to live in. Egg-laying hens, by the way, end up in the food chain when their owners have deemed that they can no longer produce.
Common sense dictates to most of us that Proposition 2 is a step in the right direction. Since the factory farmers have decided that greed and profits rule, over the welfare and happiness of their animals, Prop 2 had to be created. Like the stock market, they have to be regulated because they have proven that they are not willing to do these things on their own. And since when does a farmer need to have 8,000 hens in the first place, unless there is big money in it for them? Farmers should give up the greed and return to small, local farming practices that supply their communities.
Battery cages are torture chambers and gestation crates are prisons of intense confinement. When the press tours these farms, they are taken on a milk run, and everything is nice and cleaned up.  It is not like that in the lives of these animals on a daily basis. There are plenty of videos on YouTube that show people the real conditions throughout the country.
California has always been a leader and it is time for us to lead the way again. Please be humane and vote Yes on Proposition 2.

Kass Callaghan
Sonoma

Editor’s note: In the Tuesday, Oct. 28 edition of the Sonoma Valley Sun, the following letter was published with incorrect headline. The Sun regrets the error and the letter is reprinted in full below:

No on P

Editor: In the Sonoma Valley Hospital bond measure there’s no mention of the interest rate to be paid on the bond (which is a loan) or the term (years for payoff). 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

Editor: I am surprised at how many people are against Prop 4. Whether or not you support abortion, I would think that parents would want to know if their daughter is getting such an invasive surgical procedure. This proposition is not requiring consent from the girl’s parents as some seem to misunderstand. It only requires the doctor to inform the parents of a minor daughter that she is planning on having an abortion. There is no other medical procedure a minor child can obtain without parental consent. Your child cannot even get his or her vaccinations updated without a parent signing off on it. So why wouldn’t abortion fall under the same category?
The argument that this proposition shouldn’t be passed because the girl’s parents might be abusive is a bit of a stretch. You should expect parents of pregnant teens to be upset, disappointed or even just angry. However, to assume all pregnant teenagers come from abusive families is just absurd. I was a pregnant teenager, and from personal experience and contact with many teen moms I know first hand that the majority of teen moms have at least one parent who very much loves them and wants to be there for their daughters no matter what choice they make.
Jessica Byerley
Sonoma

Editor: Most everyone will agree that maturity increases with age … with rare exception do you ever hear of someone becoming more immature as they grow older!  Time gives the experience of observing both the good and bad in our world and in people’s lives, and enables one to make intelligent decisions by learning from the successes and failures of others. Mature thinking allows you to succeed and not make decisions in life that you will later regret.
Teenagers are typically in the early stages of this process. It is frequently difficult for them to “think to the future” in making decisions. It is easy for them to “follow the crowd” or be swayed by peer pressure or media of the day. The older adults become, the more they realize that their own teen thinking was this way.
The fact that an unmarried teen becomes pregnant supports this concept, and is the exact reason they need guidance from parents who are legally responsible for them. Since parents are legally responsible for their children, then they must know about any changes that they too will be held responsible for.
Proposition 4 assures this, while providing more than ample alternate options for teens who simply cannot communicate with their parents to get the help they need.
Please vote Yes on Proposition 4.

Gary Germano
Sonoma

Editor: Recently an elected official, who was himself a neophyte not that long ago, wrote urging us to support the incumbent supervisor because of her “experience.” There are traits much more important than mere experience.
I want a supervisor who listens to his constituents. Supervisor Brown ignored the people of Kenwood and supported the Greywood Ranch development over their objections.
I want a supervisor who actually attends the Board of Supervisors and commission meetings. Supervisor Brown has by far the worst board attendance, having missed 26 meetings since 2004. Even worse, since 2005, she has made only one meeting of the San Francisco Bay and Development Commission.
I want a supervisor who honors previous contracts. Supervisor Brown had six years to initiate some action to deal with the county’s unfunded liability for the county retirees’ health plan. She did nothing until this year. Her response was simply to support draconian cuts, which unfairly penalize older retirees with serious health problems. She then blamed previous boards for this whole problem.
I want a supervisor with a deep understanding of the water and climate issues we will face in the coming years.
I believe Will Pier has the traits most important to effectively represent us as First District Supervisor.
Roger Bassett
Sonoma

Editor: Supporters of Proposition 8, which would become a constitutional amendment, believe that relationships between homosexual couples are aberrant, sinful and should not be legalized.
Many religious folks quote Leviticus and other biblical chapters to support their contention that homosexuality is a sin. Yet they do not believe that other chapters in the Bible, such as those dealing with “an eye for an eye,” etc., should be taken literally. Jesus Christ never condemned homosexuals. All he preached was love – that we love others as we love ourselves.
Our sexuality is not a matter of choice. Children, as early as age 3, have recognized they are not of the sex their outward appearance suggests they are. That anyone would choose to be vilified, shunned and deprived of their rights in order to live as gay or lesbian, is beyond comprehension. While some claim to have chosen to be homosexual there is a predisposition there in order to be able to make the transition from one sex to the other.
Contrary to common belief, Domestic Partnership law does NOT afford the same rights that marriage confers on heterosexual. To mention only a few differences:
• Domestic partners are not able to add their partners to their long-term care insurance policies.
• Under federal law, transfers of gifts between domestic partners do not receive the same tax exemption as between a married couple.
• Social Security benefits are not extended to domestic partners.
• Protection of property in Medicare considerations is not the same. Should one partner require Medicare benefits, such as long-term care, they could be in danger of losing their home.
• Domestic partnership has a residency requirement. Marriage does not.
Granting gays and lesbians the right to marry will not endanger heterosexual marriage – only divorce can do that.
This is not about religious marriage, but about civil marriage, which should be available to all citizens. Before the enactment of Civil Rights laws, it was illegal to marry members of another race. If we finally accept that we are all created equal under God, we will extend the rights of marriage to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Please vote No on Proposition 8.

Helen M. Rowntree
Sonoma

Editor: Your refusal to oppose Prop 8 is unacceptable to our community standards. Perhaps your motto, “Warmth Light Truth” should be changed to “Bigotry Inequality Injustice.” The Sun’s view does not represent common support for civil rights and is an embarrassment to our city.

Hugh Trutton
Sonoma

Defends stand
on Prop 8

Editor: I’m offended by Leslie Sheridan’s recent condescending letter toward St. Francis Solano Church and School; she decried the decision to hang a “Yes on 8” banner on church property. Ms. Sheridan – are those of us at St. Francis not entitled to have an opinion, simply because it differs from yours?  To claim that supporting Prop 8 teaches a new generation “hatred” is reckless, anti-Christian fear-mongering on your part. Your letter lambasted St. Francis by bringing up a former priest’s actions that have nothing to do with hanging a “Yes on 8” banner (a banner that was recently stolen, undoubtedly by someone as “compassionate” as you). You judge in exactly the same way you accuse St. Francis and the Catholic Church of doing, and your letter does nothing but expose your hypocrisy.
Well, I’ve just about run out of “cheeks to turn.” Stop your assault on Christianity/Catholicism.  St. Francis Solano Church is legally entitled to advocate positions on moral and ethical issues – we are protected, like you, by the Constitution. Please don’t tell St. Francis not to speak for God and then turn around and purport to do exactly that. And leave the parenting of the children at St. Francis School to the parents of those children. They don’t need your help or input.

Doug Nickle
Sonoma