What is a
responsible council member to do?
Editor: First, let’s set the record straight. The council has a process for dealing with agenda items and this process was adhered to regarding the Dutra Haystack Landing Asphalt and Recycling Facility agenda item. I brought forth this item because I have both a regional context and a responsibility to do so. I am one of three representatives, voted in by the Mayors of Sonoma County, to represent Councilmembers on the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Advisory Committee. The proximity of this project to the land resource of Shollenbergher [sic] Park in Petaluma was an investment of taxpayers’ dollars by the Sonoma County Open Space and is relevant to Sonoma.
Why the need for the agenda item at this time? Discussion and any desired action was time sensitive. The Board of Supervisors vote was scheduled for June 9. The record will show that there was a majority of Sonoma City Council members interested in this discussion. Councilmember Sanders’ point was made when she voted no to bringing forward the agenda item, as did Councilmember Sebastiani.
However, a majority of the council voted to have the discussion, so their exit from the council chambers did not honor the majority council vote.
In response to Councilmember Sanders’ letter and her outrage at wasting public meeting time by putting out-of-town business ahead of city businesses, I wish to place this issue in context. Four other Sonoma County Councils had sent considerations to the Board of Supervisors concerning this issue, our Council voted to discuss it, and time was of the essence.
As a concerned Sonoma citizen and council member, I believe in doing due diligence for the community, by working with the community, and creating a better Sonoma for today and future generations. Ultimately, the public will decide if our priorities match their concerns and priorities.
Laurie Gallian
Sonoma City Council
Disappointed with Rancho decision
Editor: The following letter was sent to the Sonoma City Council regarding their recent decision to approve the application for converting the mobile home park, Rancho de Sonoma, to condominiums.
I was deeply shocked and disappointed by your decision on June 17, 2009, to accept Preston Cook’s application to convert Rancho De Sonoma Mobile Home Park to condominiums. While I do appreciate the lengthy amount of time invested by the council in discussion of this issue, I feel I still must point out several issues that were not completely addressed in the final discussions.
Although there was much discussion of Mr. Cook’s offer to continue to rent to present residents who do not want to or are unable to buy the airspace under their coaches, this solution does not address the probable loss of these residents’ ability to sell their homes at market rate. Since the condo conversion process began, it has been very difficult to sell homes in the city’s mobile home parks. Very few buyers are going to be interested in paying possibly $100,000.00 or more for an “airspace” plus the cost of an aging coach. In my opinion, for current residents who find they need to sell their homes, your decision amounts to a taking of property rights and will result in severe economic hardship for residents.
I also strongly disagree with your decision to give Mr. Cook the option of fixing the well system rather than hooking up to city water. It was very unfortunate that no public input was allowed before this decision was made. Although I appreciate your concerns about city water issues, the residents were given the right to city water when the park was annexed to the city over twenty years ago. That annexation took place to facilitate the construction of Maxwell Village (a shopping center) and the city has been reaping the tax benefits from that ever since. Mr. Cook will most certainly pursue the least costly water option, but who knows how long his repairs will last. If the well is “fixed” but then becomes unusable in the future, the exorbitant costs of city hookup will then have to be borne by the park residents, who are seniors mostly living on fixed incomes.
Finally, the issue of a 55+ overlay (limiting the parks to seniors) needs much more discussion. Many residents in our senior mobile home parks support this, not because they dislike young families, as one council member suggested, but because opening the parks to everyone will increase the demand for those homes and park owners will then be able to charge more rent. I believe this is why the park owners have tried to link together the discussion of rent control and the 55+ overlay. The council has recommended mediation to solve the 55+ issue, but I find it hard to understand how the mediation will be unbiased if the park owners pay a portion of the mediation fee, as planned.
While the pro-condo conversion decision may be shamefully unchangeable after your recent decision, there are still many issues surrounding it. Please consider my points above and do all you can to protect Sonoma voters from unfair exploitation.
Beth G. Hadley
Sonoma
Garage sale mania
Editor: Most every weekend (within the city boundaries) a garage or estate or rummage sale takes place. The marketing approach has been local newspaper advertising or word-of-mouth or e-mail messages. But this past weekend (June 20-21) reflected a garden of signs (of all sizes and colors) attached to city poles and or telephone poles especially on the east side’s major arteries.
The City of Sonoma has an ordinance that assesses penalties for doing such. Section 18.28.036 – “Sign posting in a public place” states, “No person, firm or corporation (except for a public officer or employee) shall paste, paint, nail, tack or otherwise fasten any card, banner, handbill, sign, poster or advertisement or notice of any kind on any lamp post, utility pole, hydrant, wall, fence or tree, upon any public sidewalk, street or public sidewalk except as may be required by ordinance or law.”
At the corner of Fourth Street East and Napa Street, there were six signs and a sidewalk sign including one indicating a sale along Arnold Drive. How many of these signs will come down by the putter-uppers by Monday? If you were visiting our fair city and noticed the proliferation of these sale signs, what would be your thoughts? The city is not a neighborhood. The city size would be a neighborhood in Chicago, or L.A, or New York City. But this is a rural agricultural city that we say we need to protect as such.
I have asked the city manager to meet with the chief of police and the public works administrator to discuss my concern. Posting these signs (whether it is an individual or a non-profit organization) is in violation of the laws that city council members have approved over the years and should be enforced.
Stanley Cohen
Sonoma
From Brazil with love
Editor: My team and I had a wonderful time in Sonoma.
Sonoma is an amazing city. I loved to learn about the history. I had opportunity to walk around the city and I appreciated the climate, the green, and everybody who I talked was so lovely with me.
We visited a Rotary meeting where we met many members of Rotary (who are now our friends), we visited some places where the wine is made, museum and receptions.
Unfortunately, we had a short time in Sonoma. Sonoma was the last city that we visited before we came back home. I never will forget anyone in Sonoma and I intend to keep in touch with (everyone).
I would like to exchange ideas about Rotary projects. Now, I can do it in (with) Sonoma.
Congratulations for the nice city to live and for the warm receptions you did for us.
Best regards.,
Simone Araújo, Team Leader
Rotary Group
Study Exchange
Brazil
Star Spangled Banner
Editor: I agree with Michael Kinsley and others who claim that the “Star Spangled Banner” is a bit difficult to sing, but to substitute another of our national songs would be a great loss.
Remember the conditions under which it was written. We were at war for our independence from a powerful nation that had denied us many of our civil rights. Those brave patriots who signed The Declaration of Independence did so with the knowledge that “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” were at stake. This national anthem was born of a struggle that has given us our heritage of freedom. The United States of America did not evolve from a dictatorship nor from hundreds of years of monarchy. It was born within a generation, and endures today.
Other songs are beloved and worthy to be sung, but they do not have the significance of “The Star Spangled Banner.” “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” has great dignity and a reverent mood. However its melody is derived from the British national anthem, “God Save The King.” “America The Beautiful,” written in 1893, describes the great and varied beauty of our country and celebrates American values.
“The Star Spangled Banner” honors the spirit of America.
Carolyn King
Sonoma
July 4th parade
Editor: Two years ago (2007), I made a decision as parade chair of the July 4th parade (not as Mayor of the City of Sonoma) to not allow fire engines to participate due to several safety issues. I was accused of not understanding that the parade was to celebrate our independence and to honor and respect our fire personnel.
The safety issues dealt with an incident from the prior year’s parade in which one of the volunteers was hit on the side of the head by a water-filled balloon as he was driving one of the fire trucks. Such distraction or temporary blindness could have resulted in the fire truck hitting a young child who had run in front of it. The second issue dealt with the intent behind throwing the water filled balloon. Was that intention to cool down or to hit our fire personnel as though they were part of a game at a circus or county fair. When thrown hard and fast, and having a substantial weight to them, a water-filled balloon not only stings, but also soaks the uniform of the on duty fire personnel.
Ultimately, the fire engines were reinstated but again were the target of the barrage of water-filled balloons, causing the Sonoma Valley Fire and Rescue Authority and the Schellville Volunteer Fire and Rescue personnel to state they would not return for the 2008 July 4th parade. Effective with the parade of 2008, the parade committee approved a rule stated as, “Any and all fire trucks are required to have a volunteer escort at each corner of the truck.” Such action is meant to keep young children (who were not being supervised by their parents) out of harm’s way.
Last year both the SVFRA and the Schellville Fire District personnel were not inclined to participate in the parade. They had been working many hours dealing with an early fire season fighting fires locally and elsewhere in our state. They were overworked, exhausted and stressed out. In addition, they were wary of the public; would they once again be assaulted with water-filled balloons?
Yet, they felt an obligation and participated. Regrettably, they once again were PELTED WITH WATER FILLED BALLOONS.
Ninety-nine percent of the 12,000 people in attendance look forward to the end of the parade and the fire trucks. But the parade committee and the fire personnel are skeptical about their present and future participation due to the crowd’s behavior. It is my opinion, if the fire personnel participate and again become the target of water balloons, you will not see them in any future July 4th parades.
Everyone along the parade route needs to treat all fire personnel with respect and appreciation. Everyone along the parade route needs to be a deputized sheriff and stop the balloon throwing before it begins. If we do not enforce the rules, YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY.
Stanley Cohen,
Parade Chair
Sonoma