Arch to nowhere
Remember U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and his infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, for which he secured millions in congressional funding?
That federal boondoggle comes to mind when we read about the Springs Redevelopment Advisory Committee considering the expenditure of yet more money on its infamous arch on Highway 12 in front of the Lazzarotto mobile home park, opposite Donald Avenue.
The arch and its attendant landscaping were an obvious waste of money in the first place. Not only did the installation fail to enhance in any way the quality of life in the Springs, but it also cut off a handy right-hand turn lane from Highway 12 onto westbound Verano Avenue. That one-block drive down Main Street – yes, that’s its name – had eased the southbound traffic flow by obviating the need to continue to the traffic signal to make the turn. Only someone who has not been inconvenienced – that is, someone who does not live in the Springs – would dream of doing more at the site, let alone giving more money away to the person who created the arch.
There are many, many better ways to spend redevelopment funds. To those who control that purse, it may seem like free money from the state, but that is our tax money, coming back to the community. Let’s spend it as if it were still our own.
Prevailing wisdom
We commend Sonoma Mayor Ken Brown for recusing himself from the Sonoma City Council’s deliberations at its meeting on Wednesday night regarding the proposed ordinance that would have allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to be located within city limits.
We had wondered how he would resolve the apparent conflict of interest, as his wife is a prominent member of the cooperative group voicing its intent to apply for a dispensary permit, had the ordinance passed. We could see no alternative other than recusal, and Brown’s action confirms our faith in his integrity and in the integrity of local politics.
The 2-2 deadlock among the other council members on the issue is a satisfactory outcome. While sympathetic to the cause of personal freedom and so to the decriminalization of victimless activities, the council was not deciding such principles. The ordinance would have encouraged local trafficking in a federally outlawed substance and, in the view of law enforcement, created myriad compliance problems.
Are there really 2,000 persons in Sonoma – 1 out of every 20 in the Valley – who need a local dispensary? Who are inconvenienced by a periodic trip to Santa Rosa or Vallejo to buy from dispensaries in those cities? While no one knows those numbers, we think it’s unlikely, in which case a local dispensary would end up providing marijuana to visitors from outside Sonoma Valley who would come here to purchase and, one presumes, consume the mind-altering substance.
Such a development would seem not to serve our local community and, in our view, the council reached the right resolution.
