Unlock the
tennis courts
Editor: When I moved to Sonoma Valley five years ago with my wife and young son, I chose a home near the Sonoma Valley High School. Having lived in close proximity to public schools my entire life I knew the benefits of being able to jog the track, shoot some basketballs and play tennis, far outweighed the downside of noise and traffic.
We used the tennis courts often and my son was quickly learning the game and honing his skills. As a young boy I too learned to play on public school courts and continue to play and enjoy the game. Tennis is a great game for young and old and you don’t need to round up two teams to play.
Shortly after moving to our home in Sonoma Valley we noticed the high school courts were locked up. When I called to find out why I was told it was due to the vandalism inflicted on the courts. While I did not personally see any vandalism I know this certainly can be a problem with children these days, who are bored and have nothing better to do. When I asked the athletic director if it would be possible to get a key he indicated it would not. With no other public courts on the entire east side of Sonoma, the only alternatives would be Maxwell or Larson Parks, which incidentally are not locked except at night when the majority of vandalism takes place. I was told our children could walk over to Maxwell Park if they wanted to play so bad. These are 7- and 8-year-old children and Maxwell is on the other side of town.
I was amazed when I later learned the high school tennis coach was not even given a key to the courts. He was forced to rent court time at Maxwell Park during the off-season for the high school players. He further indicated this is the first year he can remember that not one freshman tried out for the tennis team – maybe a result of the tennis courts being off-limits to aspiring players.
With after-school activities being cut back and few other options for children not living in close proximity to public parks I feel the school board should be more willing to make the courts available. While chaining and locking the facilities down or filling in a swimming pool is one easy option, I feel the school board should do their job and look for alternatives for our children and our community.
As a property owner I pay a huge amount of tax to support our schools. It is time the school board realized the high school is a valuable asset to our community. Someone needs to remind the athletic director and the school board that Sonoma Valley High School is a “public” school, not a private school or their own private club.
Ron Pfleger
Sonoma Valley Resident and Parent
No bike bridge at Newcomb
Editor: I am writing in response to the account of the Sept. 16 city council meeting. The petitions containing 127 signatures were gathered in reply to the planning department’s neighborhood mailing of 163 notices concerning the building of another bike/pedestrian bridge.
The petitions containing the 127 signatures were presented to the city council and planning department in a timely manner. When we arrived at the meeting that night we asked if we could distribute additional copies of the letter/petition to each of the council members. We were assured the council members already had the information.
Council Member Joanne Sanders acknowledged four letters from mothers in favor of the Newcomb Street site reading them into the city council’s official record. She chose not to mention our petition opposing the proposed building project. The official record of the city council Sept. 16, 2009, meeting should have included our petition of 127 signatures which is a 78 percent response against the construction project.
Safety and ADA access are our main concerns. There will be no ADA access to or from the Newcomb Street site from the eastside of the creek. Cyclists, pedestrians, i.e. moms, dads, children and handicapped persons will be “deposited” onto the Newcomb Street stub without benefit of sidewalks, and handicap curb access. Children on their bikes exiting from the eastside of the proposed Newcomb Street location will have to watch out for 14 “directions of traffic” during their first 300 feet of travel. These “directions of traffic” include 10 driveways and 4 stop signs as well as the necessity to watch out for what is traveling behind them.
In order to save construction costs, not reflected in the estimate, some council members prefer not to upgrade Newcomb Street to accommodate the bike/pedestrian bridge and path. This construction savings creates a dangerous environment that has “predictable and harmful consequences” for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using the unimproved Newcomb Street stub. All of us will suffer if the council decides to go forward with the building of the Fryer Creek Bridge at the Newcomb Street stub. This dangerous environment opens up the neighborhood and the City of Sonoma to personal injury lawsuits that are inevitable in a location that has “predictable and harmful consequences.”
Additionally, tree removal has been underestimated. At the very least, on the eastside of the Newcomb location, 10 mature oaks, ash and conifers will be removed. On the west-side the number of mature trees removed will be high in order to accommodate the placement of the bridge and to provide unobstructed sight lines for cyclists.
The alternative site, Pickett Street, proposed at the city council meeting does not have the problems associated with the Newcomb Street location. The planning department confirmed construction of another bike/pedestrian bridge, at the Pickett Street site, is less costly and less problematic than the Newcomb Street location. The Pickett Street location has traffic calming devices installed, is ADA compliant and exits onto the existing bike path delivering pedestrians and cyclists to the corner of Cox and Newcomb Streets.
Maryann Foley
Sonoma
Defend Proposition 13
Editor: We as a tax group don’t support most public officials. Why, because when we get new ones in, they end up like most others. More taxes, less benefits.
We found the Howard Jarvis Tax Payers Association when it was organized, and have been with them ever since.
Proposition 13 is 1 percent of your property tax bill each year. Everyone gets the same. If you sell your property you take your present tax bill to the new sale for the first year only, then you pay 1 percent of the price you paid for the house or property. Always watch your tax bill, someone might add to it.
How would you like to see your tax bill reduced to half of what it is now – one half of 1 percent? The county has plenty of money.
Too many fat salaries, and too many high-paid pensions. They also get Social Security.
William W. Pisenti
Santa Rosa