Letters to the Editor on Election 2008

For SMART

EDITOR: As a kid growing up in a walkable Petaluma of 6,000 people, I witnessed the auto-dependent sprawl develop after World War II. Voters have now curtailed the sprawl with approval of three important land-use measures: urban growth boundaries, open space purchases and community separators.

Voters can again flex their power to pass Measure Q, the SMART train and pathway measure that will reinforce their ballot-mandated curtailment of auto-dependent growth in Sonoma County.

SMART will help Sonoma Mountain Village, a visionary zero-carbon project within an urban growth boundary near the Cotati train station, provide walkability between housing, jobs, services, recreation and transit. The transit-oriented development is predicted to have a 40 percent reduction in the use of the automobile, an efficient use of land and a profound reduction of greenhouse gases.

The train as a transit backbone will draw passengers to bus systems and they will both prosper. Measure Q, the SMART train and pathway system, will provide for both transit and land-use efficiency for the North Bay. Vote yes on Measure Q.

BILL KORTUM

Petaluma

Too much debt

EDITOR: I find your yes recommendation on Proposition 1A ill-advised and not compelling. Until we get Proposition 11 passed and active, where we can elect responsible people to the Legislature, who will work together to initiate permanent solutions to California's annual budget crises, acquisition of additional debt is fiscally irresponsible.

In your analysis, you did not state how much money is coming from the general fund to pay off bonds already placed. or the $68 billion in bonds authorized and not placed, or the cost ($647 million a year) of this proposition. This money, coming from the general fund could be better spent on restoring, or enhancing, those services that have eroded over the past several years, services that are of much more concern to most citizens than the need to get to Los Angeles in two hours.

JACK WADE

Willits

A bad deal

EDITOR: This presidential election is quite different from the norm. Polls are showing that for the first time in history we are about to elect a hard-left candidate and with that comes a hard-left majority in the House and Senate, which have approval ratings half of what President Bush has. A Pandora's box of pent-up legislation will be unleashed including a global warming tax, a health care tax, a UN poverty tax, an increased business tax and an increased capital gains tax just for starters. This just as our economy is trying to get out of a recession. Businesses of all sizes, including mine, will be responsible for paying this increased burden, leaving us no choice but to lay off good employees. Yes, 95 percent of Americans will get a tax cut, only after the 5 percent who employ them lay them off. Remember the Carter years?

BRUCE BAGLEY

Santa Rosa

Nix six when voting

EDITOR: As a former juvenile justice commissioner in Sonoma County, I've seen first-hand the devastating effects of oppressive sentencing rules as applied to juveniles. As it is, teens as young as 15 can be sentenced to life in prison, and thousands of teens are routinely sentenced to serve lengthy prison terms in California's overcrowded prisons.

On this year's ballot is Proposition 6 -- the deceptively named "Safe Neighborhoods Act." If enacted, Proposition 6 will increase penalties, lower offender ages and add nearly $1 billion in unfunded mandates to our overtaxed state. This is money that could be used for county and community-based crime prevention, education, mental health and drug-diversion programs.

Every major newspaper, liberal and conservative, in California has condemned Proposition 6. The Orange County Register calls Proposition 6 "a criminally bad anti-crime measure." Even The New York Times took the time in a recent editorial to criticize roundly the measure as "the last thing California residents need."

Proposition 6 will not make California safer. I urge you to "nix six" when you cast your ballot this election season.

ERIC J. ADAMS

Penngrove

Carrillo's advisers

EDITOR: Tom Lynch is concerned that 5th District supervisor candidate Efren Carrillo is being unfairly evaluated by the company he keeps ("Carrillo backer," Letters, Oct. 13). But how can voters evaluate a candidate who has never held an elective or appointive office and thus has never registered a vote on any critical issue?

Carrillo is a promising young man, but he is starting a political career by running for the highest office in the county. Since supervisors control land use, including the Open Space District and Water Agency operations, our quality of life is in their hands.

Given the impact of the office he seeks, Carrillo's positions are sadly vacuous. On forest protection, he will "bring in the experts." (Which experts?) He will help plant 5,000 trees (but Preservation Ranch will cut many more). His position on continued Russian River gravel mining remains a mystery. And Carrillo is the only candidate who has not answered the Sonoma County Water Coalition's questionnaire.

Since he apparently knows little about Sonoma County resource issues, it's natural to assume he would turn to his supporters for advice. Unfortunately, his advisers include a gravel industry lobbyist and a former supervisor who works for Preservation Ranch. Voters should be concerned about their influence and the advice they would provide.

JANE E. NIELSON

Sebastopol

Removing rights

EDITOR: Cal Thomas really knows how to slant a story. In Wednesday's column, he bombastically states, "The aim of the gay rights lobby is to destroy all remnants of biblical values and societal norms." The aim of the gay rights movement is that the government should treat all citizens equally.

His story quotes Focus on the Family, hardly a reliable organization for accurate information. Apparently a New Jersey association "affiliated with the United Methodist Church 'lost part of its property tax exemption for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property.'" Notice that the business in question was not a church but affiliated with a church.

The tax-free, nonprofit status of churches is not a get-out-of-taxation-free card for businesses affiliated with churches. They are responsible for following the same laws that all businesses have to follow.

Churches can limit the use of their facilities. For example, the Mormons do not allow non-LDS members into their temples. Churches can limit giving the sacrament to adherents of their faith. This is legal and remains so.

It is currently legal for same-sex couples to marry in California. Proposition 8 is about removing the ability of people to marry. Please vote no on Proposition 8.

KEITH BOULDIN

Santa Rosa

Who is intolerant?

EDITOR: Others have expressed their yes on Proposition 8 viewpoints, so I will not add my own reasons why I, too, am voting yes on 8. The opposition would have you think proponents are intolerant and that there are no consequences to changing the traditional definition of marriage. But there are very real consequences. The "live and let live" philosophy and keeping your head in the sand about the effects won't keep them from continuing. See a few examples at www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191.

Because my personal, moral, religious and free speech rights are being run over by so-called "equality for all," I, along with others, have walked precincts and phoned voters. We have been polite and respectful, yet have sometimes been called "intolerant," "discriminators," "freaks" and words I refuse to say and wish I didn't have to hear. And this was before they even heard the reasons we were out walking on a hot Saturday. So just who is being intolerant?

LINDA FREEBAIRN

Santa Rosa

No on Measure K

EDITOR: For more than 40 years, we have fed the "lower taxes and trickle down" theories of economics, in conjunction with less government. Toss in the word "socialism" a few times and you have a pretty effective campaign slogan. But how is that working for you?

Measure K is one of these issues. Voting yes would reduce water and sewer rates in Petaluma. That must be a good idea, right? It is if you can stand more services cut, such as fire and police. Petaluma recently built a new treatment plant that is efficient and environmentally sound. We must pay for it. To remove $1 million from the coffers by rolling back charges to 2006 rates would demand a reduction in services. There's no other way to pay for water and sewage treatment.

I know it's easy to think that a reduction puts more money in your pocket, but that has never worked. All those things that were almost free when you were growing up now have fees attached to them, to ultimately pay for "less government". There is no free lunch. Everything is degrading because we are expecting someone else to pay for it. Don't be conned any more. Yes on K is simply wrong-headed thinking.

BOB MARKETOS

Petaluma