Letters to the Editor

Crying wolf

EDITOR: While I agree with the assessment of the state’s spending problem summarized in the Jan. 10 editorial “Wolf attack,” I was dumbfounded by its summation: the governor’s state of the state speech was an “honest overview of California’s challenges.” The governor’s familiar talking point, “... we do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem,” is hardly honest and certainly sugar-coats a one-sided state fiscal problem: spending. Just read Dan Walters’ Jan. 7 column, “A road map to state’s fiscal mess,” to understand the other half of the state’s fiscal mess: lost revenue.

The state’s revenue problems began 30 years ago with the likes of Proposition 13 and unclosed state tax loopholes, up to recently with this governor’s repeal of the car tax depleting state revenue $6 billion. And economists are still counting significant tax revenue shortfalls from the state’s withering housing market bubble. I agree with the governor, let’s fix this state’s fiscal mess by ending deficit spending, heck, I can’t do that at home, but let’s at least be honest and sober about the state’s other problem: revenue. Wolf attack. Hardly. The governor is crying wolf.

JON HENDRIX

Fort Bragg

Raising fees

EDITOR: Hal Beck and Tom Meredith’s letters regarding raising vehicle fees or the cost of gas at the pump are a good start to the discussion. But why do either? Is this unavoidable?

Another point: Some lower-to-middle income people have jobs that require that they maintain their own vehicle and travel, thus making the purchase of a lot of gas necessary. For example, tow truck drivers, itinerant teachers and paraprofessional social workers. Speaking for myself and my work cohorts, most of us are not in a position to purchase gas-saving vehicles, although we are philosophically behind the idea. And a fill-up at the tank is costing double, nay triple, what it used to.

TONI CHANDLER

Santa Rosa

Animal stereotypes

EDITOR: I’m a veterinarian who has worked in the animal health profession for over 30 years. A few comments about certain “breed stereotypes”:

When I meet an eight-week-old pit bull puppy, I see a puppy — playful, wiggly, sweet. If that puppy is raised by a responsible person, trained in basic obedience, treated as part of the family (rather than being chained in a yard with no socialization), played with, and not taught to be aggressive, it will be like any other family pet dog. This breed (and others — Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc.) has gotten a bad reputation because of what certain people do with the individual dogs.

Take that same puppy, leave him tied up on a short leash in the yard with no human companionship, use live kittens or other small dogs to “taunt” him, dangling them just out of reach, and then, within reach, and congratulate him (or give him any kind of attention, that is what our pets thrive on, pleasing us), and you’re on your way to teaching that dog to attack/kill. The people who do this to certain dogs are the problem, not the dogs themselves. The breeds these sick people choose are capable of growing into big, very muscular dogs; notice they don’t train beagles or cocker spaniels to fight. However, some of the worst bites I’ve received have been from little Chihuahuas who haven’t been socialized, their owners constantly carry them around so they don’t get used to other people. If Chihuahuas grew to be 80 pounds, they’d probably be right in the fighting ring with these other breeds.

Nature versus nurture? Some breeds are predisposed to be trained to fight, that’s why the people who hold dog fights choose those breeds. They certainly don’t look at them as “pets” or companions. They are neglected and abused to “toughen them up.” The dogs shouldn’t be held responsible for their owner’s behavior.

PAULA T. LONIAK

Sebastopol

Historic cycle

EDITOR: Let them eat cake. Spending $550,000 on a design for Old Courthouse Square is over the top arrogant, wasteful and an example of abuse of the public trust. Focus, people.

There are way too many problems that require resources. We have a growing water shortage and we need a place for the lunatic fringe, the homeless, the run-away teen, the abused and beaten. The hospitals are bulging, city payrolls are top heavy, our roads are a mess and the city is having trouble balancing the budget. Could it be that the comfortable have become complacent eating cake while the unfortunate displaced and downtrodden are at the gate ready to rebel?

The historic cycle goes something like this: bondage to courage, courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to selfishness, selfishness to apathy, apathy to dependency, dependency back to bondage. The demise of our liberty will be the frivolous use of our tax dollars.

RICHARD PAILLE

Santa Rosa

Progress report

EDITOR: It has been six months now since Council on Aging moved into our new offices and Meals on Wheels Kitchen, and we’d like to report to the community how their generosity has assisted our senior nutrition program. We are now serving vegetarian meals, thanks to a generous partnership with Amy’s Kitchen. We will start serving special menus for seniors with renal disease as well as nutritional supplements for cancer patients. Next month we will begin a new outreach program for seniors with diabetes that will provide them with teleconferencing support groups. We now have the capacity and equipment to make our own frozen meals, which saves us about 31 cents per meal.

Recently our county was pounded by storms that threatened our rural areas with flooding. Our kitchen is available to prepare up to 10,000 meals a day in the case of any emergency disasters. The back-up generator that was purchased so we can provide this service was partially funded with the assistance of Rep Lynn Woolsey. A new agreement with the local Red Cross Chapter will assist us in providing these emergency meals.

We thank the community for all of their support and celebrate these new opportunities to serve our precious seniors.

SHIRLEE ZANE,

CEO, Council on Aging

Santa Rosa

Negative experience

EDITOR: Both Dillon Crossman and Ron Barz wrote about their negative experiences with the parking authorities at Santa Rosa Junior College. I had one even more frustrating and disappointing. I received a parking ticket at the Petaluma campus and complained because the area was not well marked for parking restrictions. I took my case to a hearing, along with photos to show how incorrect the signage was. The hearing officer agreed and said the fine I had paid would be refunded.

After waiting a decent period of time, I contacted the SRJC police, twice. Both times the person with whom I spoke was unfriendly and said I would hear back in due time. After two calls I gave up, and the $35 fine has never been refunded.

Not a good way to build support for our junior college.

RALPH MELARAGNO

Santa Rosa