More online-exclusive political letters to the editor

Vote for Rohnert Park Measure “L”

EDITOR: Over the past several weeks I have received several political pieces in the mail mostly with misleading or plainly inaccurate information. As a voter, I try to check out the accuracy of such information, but in the case of the city of Rohnert Park, I found it difficult to obtain accurate information on this issue. The political pieces are more scare tactic than fact. Here is what I have found in the city’s records.

The city sold the stadium land (40-acres) to a developer(s) and expects to receive about $4-million. That money has been budgeted to be included in the general fund. The proper place for the money would be the sewer fund as the stadium lands were part of the old city sewer farm, an asset of the sewer system. This appears to be a gross hidden sewer tax on all of the sewer ratepayers.

A revision in the general plan included a number of annexations. As part of the annexations, certain sewers must be increased in size to handle the additional sewage. The city made some sort of a deal to have the sewer ratepayers’ share in those costs to the tune of $13.5-million out of a total of $52-million. If the annexations had not taken place the ratepayers’ share would be none thus avoiding the huge sewer rate increases that we have seen. The sewer ratepayers are subsidizing the developers.

I asked the city council about this and about the stadium land deal. Their surprising response was the same on both questions: We are not here to answer questions. I wonder what they are hiding? It appears that the city, while suggesting the possibility of bankruptcy if measure “L” passes, went ahead a spent $8.3-million purchasing and rebuilding a old dilapidated building into their new city hall without any public input as to the location nor design. I do not think that the city’s money problems stem from the lack of money coming in rather, how the city spends the ratepayers’ money.

Certainly we all must be responsible for our obligations, but I see no need to waste millions on unrelated projects. There are provisions in the law to allow the ratepayers to vote on the sewer rate increases. Vote yes on Measure ”L” and keep our sewer money where it belongs.

Robert Grundman

Rohnert Park, CA

EDITOR: It seems that every time I pick up the Press Democrat there is another headline and story warning of the dangers of Labor and Union influence in our local elections. I find it a bit disconcerting that this paper and the politician it supports are so casual and comfortable with bashing unions. Here's an experiment for you: next time you read the words "Labor" or "Unions" substitute "working families". It really clarifies the situation.

Last Friday's (Oct.10) headline would read: Pro-Working Family Campaign Pledges Draw Fire. Instead of the Press Democrat's aim to discredit the pro-labor position of SR City Council candidates Michael Allen, Marsha Vas Dupre, Gary Wysocky and Judy Kennedy, I want to vote for them. (City Council incumbent Lee Pierce also gets my vote). While I'm at it, I'll vote for that other champion of working families, Shirlee Zane for Supervisor.

Anna Givens

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: Your editorial “No on 8” is a voice of reason while Cal Thomas’ article, opposite, reflames the debate with wrong facts. The Connecticutcourt did not “deprive” citizens of the “right” to limit marriage because there is no “right” to limit Constitutional rights to a certain segment of the population. Constitutional rights in Americaare ‘blind’.

He also argues that, under an Obama administration judges might one day be taking away the Church’s tax exempt status for not allowing same-sex marriage. He gives the citizenlink.org example of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association losing its tax exemption because it refused to allow a same-sex marriage on its property. In fact, the organization had agreed to make a section of its boardwalk property accessible to the general public in exchange for a property tax exemption. When it refused to comply with state law on the property, the property reverted to private status and the organization lost the tax exemption.

Our founding fathers were wise to be wary of mixing Church and State, and we the people should be too.

Susan Rose

Petaluma

EDITOR: My vote is for Shirley Zane who understands retirees' problems and will work toward reopening the County Health issue when elected. She knows its not easy trying to make ends meet on a retiree's check and the longer you are retired, the harder it gets. That's when you need your promised Health Care the most. I'm a second time breast cancer survivor so I know all about the cost of health care. I also know that the local Doctors are not paid the same by Medicare as San Francisco Doctors. Also Sonoma County allows Blue Cross (Anthem) to charge retiree's a $20 co-pay while Blue Cross pays zero. What kind of Co-Pay Plan is that? Any other County would sue Blue Cross if that were the case but for the past two years, Sonoma County has agreed to it in their yearly Contract without question. The yearly deductible also goes up every year and at that rate pretty soon Blue Cross will end up paying nothing, but we will be paying more. Rather than the County attempting to straighten this out, they prefer to let the sick and elderly straighten out our Insurance problems that they have allowed to happen.

Mary E. Anderson

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: The central argument of “marriage equality” as endorsed by the Press Democrat’s opposition to Proposition 8 on Sunday, October 19th is at best bogus. In reality, just laws do not treat all people the same. The truth is same-sex couples already can enter committed relationships and enjoy the privileges of married couples. It is called domestic partnership. What is it that gays want? Because, simply put, same-sex “marriage” is not the same.

Marriage between a man and woman is unique and its success requires community support. Society cannot have it both ways. We either act to empower the nuclear family, upholding the rights and responsibilities of parents and children, or we chip-away at this family structure. All of us benefit when original family units are encouraged, nurtured, and successful in the first place.

On Election Day, your votes for Proposition 8 and Proposition 4, as well, are two ways to empower families. A vote for marriage between a man and woman is not a vote against gays. A vote for family notification is not a vote against abortion. Your votes for Props 8 and 4 are votes for the value and role of husbands, wives, and their children.

Paul Troppy

Santa Rosa

Editor: In regards to your editorial on October 13th, No on Prop2. I am very disappointed that you did not endorse Prop2. Your opening paragraph, quote "no rational person favors inhumane treatment of animals, including those raised for food." That being said, why does the rest of the editorial shoot down this proposition? Prop2 is a moderate reform, that will allow the animals that sustain us, to be allowed the room for natural movements. The victims are the animals, egg-laying hens, calves and pregnant sows, not the factory farmers.

You also state that the farmers say "hens are not stressed by the cages, which have gotten larger over time." You are taking their word on these conditions. How have you confirmed this? It is not stated in your editorial.

In a recently released report, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production concludes.

Farm animals, when treated well and given minimum accommodation to allow them to engage in their natural behaviors and satisfy their physical needs, are healthier and safer for human consumption.

Due to the large number of animals confined in close quarters in typical factory farms, there are many opportunities for animals to be infected by several strains of pathogens, leading to an increased chance for a strain to emerge that can infect and spread in humans.

Practices that restrict natural motion, such as sow get crates, induce high levels of stress in the animals and threaten their health, which in turn may threaten human health.

The review has been completed. Prop2 has also been endorsed by the Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Union of Concerned Scientists, Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club and United Farm Workers.

Congratulations Press Democrat, yet another misguided editorial, on a very important issue.

Kevin N. Hornick

Petaluma

EDITOR: The campaigns both for and against Prop. 8 have been generating much debate in this election, and both sides have equipped themselves with respective support: proponents utilizing general opinion polls and religious doctrine, while opponents turn to the state Constitution and national civil rights.

To address the argument that a ruling of the Supreme Court judges shouldn’t overturn the popular consensus of Californiavoters (i.e. Prop. 22 of 2000, where voters approved a ban), let’s also consider Gov. Schwarzenegger’s vetoes of two bills in 2005 and 2007, where he struck down Legislature-approved efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. The governor acted (hopefully) in what he felt were the interests of the people, as did the judges more recently. Also, it’s been eight years, and perhaps many people feel differently about the issue now in light of the growing discourses about homosexual civil rights and liberties.

Regarding the traditional and religious definitions of marriage as only to be between man and woman, it seems that we’re allowing our personal beliefs to stray from the private sector in such a way that the ideologies of the majority become the impositions upon the minority. To some this issue may be a matter of personal righteousness in the home, but to all it’s an issue of civil righteousness in the public arena, and our laws ought to reflect what we believe to be right and just for all, not just some; so let’s vote!

Jeremy Gillette-Newman

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: If it’s wrong for straight couples to live together or have children out of wedlock, why is it okay for gay couples? Proposition 8 won’t stop families with gay partners or parents from being created, they are here--always have been and always will be. It just forces them to live without the rights and responsibilities that only marriage can give. We all benefit when adults make legal as well as emotional commitments to themselves and their children. Vote no on 8.

Lesa Tanner

Graton

Editor: I want to thank all of the volunteers who have worked so hard on for the David Glass for Petaluma City Council campaign and all of the people of Petaluma who have chosen to display our campaign signs on their front yards.

It is a good feeling to know that many people appreciate the work and accomplishments that occurred during my four-year term as Mayor.

Although we got off to a late start thanks to many hard working volunteers the campaign has been gaining momentum from day one.

Recently new signs from a new grass roots group have popped up in Petaluma and they have a nice ring to them. They are the Tiffany Glass signs. This is a play on words indicating support for Tiffany Renee and David Glass, the two candidates this group has endorsed.

It reminds me of politics at its best when the local residents and local business decide they have had enough of machine politics and turn out in force for the grass roots candidates.

Soon we will know the results of the election. So let me just thank all the fine people of Petaluma that have made the campaign so enjoyable regardless of the final vote tally.

David Glass

Candidate for Petaluma City Council

EDITOR: I’m writing this letter to let Windsor residents know

that they have an opportunity to elect to the Town

Council a person who has already proved herself to be

an effective leader with the community’s best interest

at heart: Cheryl Scholar. First elected to the

Windsor School Board in 1988 (as Cheryl Ziff), Cheryl

served for 18 years before stepping down as her two

daughters became teachers in the Windsor School

District.

Cheryl has been my neighbor for more than 20 years;

our children have grown up together. When I heard she

was running for Town Council I was delighted. I know

from experience that she takes her role as an elected

official very seriously, carefully weighing

information from all sides before making a decision.

One of her strengths has always been her openness to

new ideas that can have a lasting positive impact on

our community—a shining example is her support for the

program that is now the Cali Calmécac Language

Academy.

Cheryl's many years of involvement in the Windsor

community has given her the experience necessary to be

a viable leader in local government. At the same time,

earning her the lasting respect of the community which

she has served so willingly.

It is with great pleasure that I wholeheartedly

endorse Cheryl Scholar as my representative for the

Windsor Town Council.

Kathy Hickey

Windsor

EDITOR: NO on Proposition 4

Amending the California Constitution to restrict teens' access to reproductive health services would put millions of young people at risk. It would also create permanent barriers to counseling and care for pregnant teens. Vote "No" to defend teen safety, especially for young women who are vulnerable to abuse at home.

NO on Proposition 6

This dangerous initiative would deepen the budget crisis by diverting billions of dollars annually from schools, hospitals, and violence prevention programs into the criminal justice system. It is a misguided effort to incarcerate more and more people, including youth.

NO on Proposition 8

The right to marry is a fundamental freedom - not one for the government to grant to some Californians and deny to others. Prop 8 would amend the California Constitution to exclude a single group - gays and lesbians - from the right to marry the person they love. Vote "No," to take a stand for basic fairness.

NO on Proposition 9

Proposition 9 is a well-intentioned but poorly written and truly dangerous initiative. It will negatively impact California's most vulnerable residents - our children - by diverting hundreds of millions from schools and education to spending on prisons and jails. It puts huge burdens on local law enforcement and creates more red tape but does not provide new services to victims.

Yes on Proposition 5

Proposition 5 offers common sense solutions to prison overcrowding by providing drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration for non-violent offenders, saving California taxpayers billions of dollars.

Be sure to vote November 4th.

Steve Fabian

ACLU of Sonoma County

Santa Rosa

Editor:

As a fourth generation Sonoma resident, Mother, business owner I would like to take the opportunity to share the experiences I have had with Supervisor Valerie Brown. I first met Valerie Brown when she was on the Sonoma Valley Farmers Market Board and have watched her continue to serve our community as she sat on the Sonoma City Council and now as our current Sonoma County Supervisor.

Valerie brings a strong voice for Sonoma Valley. She is present in the community, listens to our needs and acts at the county level to represent the First District of Sonoma County. I truly appreciate the economic sense Valerie brings to the table when the county is looking at finances, including how funds are spent equally in the county on many issues including Highway 12 redevelopment, , Sonoma County Transit, Sonoma County Agriculture and Viticulture, and bringing dollars to our nonprofit community through Transient Occupancy Taxes and the Community Development Department. She has elevated the First District in Sonoma County through her roles in the California State Association of Counties and the National Association of Counties bringing attention to the needs of the district and our county. The role of a supervisor is a big commitment and requires full time attention to our needs, and it is clear to us that she has proudly represented us. Valerie works tirelessly on our behalf. In addition to her civic service, I see Valerie on a regular basis within the community at local events, including speaking at the Sonoma Valley High School Leadership, landscaping at the new Valley of the Moon Teen Center, supporting our Fire Department fundraisers throughout the Valley and other non-profits.

Sonoma County District needs someone capable and qualified to lead with a reputation of getting things done for the First District. Please join us in voting for Valerie Brown on November 4th.

Sheana Davis

Sonoma

EDITOR: My wife, Caroline and I both support Gary Plass for City Council. Caroline has worked with Gary on several projects including the Annual Foss Creek Cleanup and Healdsburg Relay For Life. You could not ask for a more dedicated councilmember when it comes to matters of civic involvement.

As a member of the Healdsburg Airport Commission I have worked very closely with Gary on many projects to bring the airport and associated infrastructure up to current standards making it safer for both pilots and neighbors. Because of his tireless efforts and endless commitment to make Healdsburg a better place for all of us, I hope you will join Caroline and me in voting for Gary Plass on November 4th.

Rich Marker

Healdsburg

When we moved our family to Rohnert Park in 1971 we found a growing vibrant community. We quickly became a part of the community as our children started school, started playing sports, and joined scouting. The people who ran the city in its early days were also heavily involved in the community. We saw them at Youth Baseball, Pop Warner Football and at Scouting. There were 4th of July celebrations in the Park and Founders Day celebrations as well. Now our City Council wants to ban fireworks of any kind and there hasn’t been a Founders Day celebration in years. The only time we see our current city leaders is when there is a Photo Opportunity.

Our children are now raising families of their own here in Rohnert Park. We want our grand children to experience Rohnert Park as it used to be and can be again. The City Council needs to find ways to create more activities for the youth of Rohnert Park, not talking about closing swimming pools. It is time for a change on the Rohnert Park City Council. Only three of the candidates have been involved in the community for many years. They are not politicians but people who are truly interested in creating a better Rohnert Park. Please join our family in voting for John Borba, Joe Callinan and Gina Belforte for Rohnert Park City Council.

Wayne and Roberta Thomas

Rohnert Park

The California Supreme Court gave gays no new rights—they already had "the same rights, protections and benefits" as married couples (CFC 297.5). Prop. 8 won't change that. It has nothing to do with equality.

But it has everything to do with tolerance, and religious and parental rights. The court gave them license to graphically indoctrinate children in homosexual practices, to force people and churches to not just tolerate but to embrace their lifestyle, even if it's morally unacceptable to them. They claim it won't happen, but it already is (see massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html, CAprop8yes.blogspot.com). That's not tolerance of other people's moral choices, is it?

If you support tolerance and rights, vote "YES" on Prop. 8. If you're unsure, prevent what a dissenting justice called "cataclysmic transformation" of society and vote "YES."

Dan Brinton

Automobiles are nearly as numerous as people in SonomaCounty. That’s a serious problem both for traffic congestion and the environment. The SMART Train and Pathway offers alternatives to cars and important incentives for walkable lifestyles.

Those who suggest a bus tax instead of SMART miss the point. Caltrans studies tell us that buses get caught in stop-and-go traffic. That's one reason why buses can't equal SMART in taking 1.4 million car trips off the highway each year. Bus riders often shift to their own cars and routes are eliminated making buses less convenient, causing even less patronage. Golden Gate Transit's Route #75 express bus between Santa Rosaand San Rafaelfaces cancellation next year because it isn't attracting enough riders.

Other studies show how buses can gain riders if they have train connections. For example, Sacramentowas able to double its transit ridership after the light rail system opened. By contrast, ColumbusOhioexperienced a 25% decline in transit ridership due to its inability to get trains running.

SMART will provide fast, comfortable and reliable transportation, making walkable communities, bicycling, and buses more attractive, improving both our economy and our environment. Vote yes on Measure Q.

Steve Birdlebough

Santa Rosa

As one who has been involved for more than 20 years in the planning of the County's transportation system, I'd like to mention a couple of points about the proposed Measure Q that appear to be somewhat underappreciated in the debate so far.

1. Much has been made about the seemingly low projected ridership. I can tell you unequivocally that standard traffic modeling programs that attempt to predict future vehicle trips are not very good at predicting the number of trips that will take transit. This is important in the SMART debate simply because the real ridership benefits likely won't be realized until well after the date of the SMART forecast, when traffic on the road systems is so bad that you just can't drive most places without hours of delay. If there isn't a good transit infrastructure (rail and bus) in place by 2020 or so, it will be years more of unmitigated, unacceptable congestion way worse than it is today. If there is a good system in place, ridership will eventually be substantially higher than currently projected.

2. The growth concerns that have been raised are absolutely legitimate, but are misplaced in this discussion. If congestion gets bad enough, and a good transit system does not exist, land use decisions will be made with far greater pressure for quick fixes. In turn, that pressure will result in the diversion of potential transit funding to road improvements that are much more likely to lead to unwanted urban sprawl, rather than city-centered, transit friendly development. The availability, even prospective availability, of a viable transit system helps assure that land use decisions are not growth inducing...and new residents downtown will be able to make better use of the system.

3. While understandable, the argument that an improved bus system is a preferable alternative to a passenger rail system is faulty. It is quite evident from numerous transportation forecasts that buses won't be able to move people on the road system due to the same congestion problems facing auto travelers. Yes, you could argue that a bus-only lane might help that scenario, but where is it going to go? The existing 101 right-of -way has been used up for the current construction. It's also unlikely that the State would take away the new HOV lanes. Developing a fourth lane is flat-out infeasible. Many businesses and residents would have to be moved, requiring substantial use of eminent domain at prohibitively high cost. It is abundantly clear that we need both buses and rail to make this work.

So, what do we do? In the County's new General Plan 2020, recently approved by the Board of Supervisors, is a Circulation and Transit Element that lays out a "Strategy for the Planned Circulation and Transit System" that voters should take a look at (see www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/gp2020/adopted click on Circulation and Transit Element page 10). It consists of 11 provisions that the County believes are important in resolving our transportation woes. This strategy relies upon the coordinated efforts of all of the affected local governments, the State, SMART, NCRA, and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority to develop a system that is convenient to use, relatively cost effective, supportive of good land use planning, and environmentally superior. But, make no mistake about it, we are talking about a strategy that will take some time to accomplish. Hopefully voters will begin on November 4.

Greg Carr

Comprehensive Planning Manager for the County Permit and Resource Management Department

Editor,

A lot of commotion has been made about the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe. So what? The Republicans paid for it. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was a non-issue. No mention has ever been made about who picked up the tab for Obama's trip to Hawaii to see his grandmother. Did the DNC pay for it? And I would bet that the taxpayers picked up the cost of the Secret Service that were assigned to accompany him.

Art Hackworth

Petaluma

Editor:

David Rosas' letter October 25, 2008 further validates my concerns about Rue Furch's leadership skills. Organizations supporting her are mailing negative and inaccurate (often times spiteful) campaign flyers supporting her for 5th District supervisor. The fact that she has not spoken out against this negative campaigning only highlights Furch's misplaced ethics that first came to light over her not paying property taxes for five years. David Rosas was willing to accept responsibility for his supporters and clarify the inaccuracies. This shows strong leadership and integrity. I expect this in my county supervisor. Rue Furch has not demonstrated these qualities, Efren Carrillo has. I will cast my vote for Efren Carrillo on November 4.

Sue Laliberte

Sebastopol

Editor:

I have voted Democratic for president ever since I could vote, but this year I am voting Republican because Barack Obama is scary. He has too many radical friends. If we elect Barack Obama to lead our country, I fear we would be voting for a socialist. God help us. If he wins the election, we would gradually learn the truths about all the untruths he has told, but it might be too late.

Glenna Morris

Santa Rosa

Editor:

The Constitution of the State of California describes the duties, powers, structure and function of the government of California.The California Constitution has been amended over 500 times, and has gradually become increasingly bloated at more 1100 pages. This is because many initiatives take the form of a constitutional amendment. That's why I should vote NO on Proposition 8.

No matter how one feels about the nature of marriage, reasonable people will agree that Proposition 8 should be defeated because it adds another unnecessary amendment to the Constitution. If it is desired to describe a valid marriage, it should be done in some way other than by burdening an already overly long constitution.

Anthony Silva

Sebastopol

Editor,

Sonoma County voters face some clear distinctions in the supervisor

races. In the first district, challenger Will Pier proposes numerous

“pie in the sky” solutions to our county’s woes, be they reclaiming

the county hospital, 100 percent recycling, or fully funded retiree

benefits. A quick reality check will show these to be unattainable,

particularly in light of current economic conditions. Having no

record to run on, he can make these campaign pledges, but they will

never be realized. We need a supervisor with experience and a sense

of reality. Valerie Brown is that person.

Third and fifth district races also have clear distinctions. From the

Oct. 24 Press Democrat, we learned that Rue Firch and Shirlee Zane

together received about $150,000 from “unions, chiefly the Service

Employees International Union.” A little math shows this amounts to

over 45 percent of the total campaign funds for these candidates.

Without going any further, let me ask the voters, are your votes for

sale? If these candidates are elected, who will run the county,

elected officials or the SEIU?

My supervisor choices are clear, Valerie Brown, Sharon Wright, and

Efren Carrillo.

Norm Yenni

Sonoma

Editor: The current economic times are very difficult on all of us. However, it is important that we support our local city government. If Measure L passes Rohnert Park will face an additional fiscal crisis. Public health law requires the City to provide adequate sewer services. Rolling back the sewer rates in Rohnert Park will cause the city to make unwise cuts to necessary citizen services. Someone has to pay the cost and the money will have to come from services that we need. Vote NO on Measure L.

Bob and Jane Ginn

Rohnert Park

EDITOR: As the mother of two daughters, I am alarmed that the Press Democrat did not take a position on Proposition 4, the parental notification initiative which is on the ballot for the 3rd time in four years. This dangerous initiative has been defeated twice by voters and was opposed by the Press Democrat in 2006. Laws like Prop 4 cannot mandate family communication and I’m afraid that this initiative would put the health and safety of our teens at risk.

As a mother, of course I want to be involved in my daughters’ lives, but not every family can talk about an issue as sensitive as a pregnancy and teenagers who live in troubled or abusive homes would be forced to go to court for a drawn-out, humiliating process called “judicial bypass.”

The real world is not black and white. The real world contains lots of “daughters” who for whatever reason can’t go to their parents and won’t go to court. We’ve got to keep those teens safe. That’s why I’m voting no and asking the Press Democrat to endorse No on Prop 4.

Pamela Harrington

Sebastopol

EDITOR: Let me get this right now according to the Press (New York Times) Democrat. McCain is “a superior” Republican candidate because of his “respected foreign policy experience, his centrist voting record approach and his independence on various political issues”. But, his choice for vice president negates him as President because Sarah Palin is unqualified for the post. Dismissed is the fact that Sarah Palin has more executive experience as a governor than Obama has either in private or public life. Palin needs to and is getting up to speed on the issues, but every candidate who takes an oath to office is faced with this problem in one degree or another. NO ONE has all the answers. So the Press Democrat’s conclusion is the McCain/Palin ticket is bad for the country.

On the other hand, we have the PD endorsing Obama for Presidency. Why? Obama has stood by his principles and has been unwavering. But the main reason I could find in this editorial was Obama’s ability to speak to the people. So, we should vote for Obama because he is an eloquent speaker and he has a gift for it. I get it now. The better you are at selling yourself, distortion and deflecting issues the more qualified you are for being the President. Let’s disregard the fact that Obama has no executive experience, has only served less that two years in Congress, and only ran for one term as a state senator. I can overlook some of his platform agenda, but there is nothing new here. It’s the same ole Democratic ticket. What really concerns me is his inability to be honest about his present and past mentors, his friendships, his associations and the fact that he can’t give straight answers to these issues.

The only change we need is for Congress to do its job and not blame the president. Failed attempts at bipartisan legislation, failed oversight policies and pork barreled budgets, finger pointing and no accountability don’t get it done. We should be voting for people who care about people, not party politics.

Think for yourselves about the values that really count when you vote on November 4th.

Arnold Krause

Santa Rosa

Editor: Why vote for Janet Orchard, Mike Kurvers and Susan Harvey? Cotati, like other cities across the nation, is facing difficult challenges ahead. On November 4th, Cotati citizens need to think carefully about who will lead Cotati to economic stability, smart growth, and community preservation.

Cotati needs reasonable, forward-thinking, positive individuals, with a proven track record of problem solving, in their careers and in government. We need strong leaders that will make decisions that are economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially equitable - both for the residents and the business community. We need councilmembers that will listen to the community, collaborate with regional leaders, and work with the Chamber of Commerce to improve economic development and create jobs. We need council members that will protect our Urban Growth Boundaries and promote economic and environmental sustainability. We need councilmembers that can work as part of a team to create consensus, come up with workable solutions and get the job done.

The three candidates most qualified to tackle the tough job of Cotati City Council are Janet Orchard, Mike Kurvers and Susan Harvey. Join me in voting for them and ensuring the financial stability and community vitality of Cotati.

Suzanne Whipple

Cotati

EDITOR: I’ve been married for going on ten years now. In that time Britney Spears has been married and divorced twice, once for only a few hours. Another idiot got married on a game show. I’m happy to report that my marriage is strong as ever. People who think that their marriage can be threatened by the marriages of others and feel the need to ‘protect’ their marriage by keeping people they don’t even know from getting married, could probably stand for some couples therapy rather than voting for Prop 8.

Michael Olson

Cloverdale

EDITOR: I am moved to write a letter in support of Sharon Wright after reading Bob Higham’s negative remarks. I lived on the same street for many years as Bob Higham of Urban Growth Boundaries. Bob Higham originally supported my family building a few homes on our property within the urban boundary. That is, until his group decided against our homes. Bob Higham’s obstructionist position devastated my family, left our property in ruins and continues to harm others in our community. Sharon Wright has never wavered in her support our community and I support her for County Supervisor.

Belinda Andrews

Santa Rosa

Editor: I am voting for Robert Coleman for Cotati City Council and I urge the

Cotati community to do the same.

Robert Coleman has contributed his time and talents and proved his

leadership in this community in many ways over the past 30 plus years-as

a well-respected professor at SSU, as a coach of youth soccer, and in

his tireless and innovative approach to problem-solving as a member of

the Cotati Planning Commission.

He brings a practical, common-sense, yet innovative approach to the

city's problems and challenges. Cotati's small town atmosphere needs to

be preserved at the same time its fiscal shortfalls are addressed. Bob

will provide the strong and focused leadership needed to achieve that

fine balance. He will protect the welfare of the city while thoughtfully

considering the concerns of all its individual citizens to ensure that

policy serves people rather than the other way around.

I believe one of the most important leadership benefits that Bob Coleman

offers Cotati is his inclusiveness. He values Cotati as a community and

he knows that community is only as healthy as its embrace of all its

members. There are underserved citizens in our town with voices that are

often unheard-our Hispanic and elderly neighbors, as well as those less

fortunate economically. Robert Coleman will be a council member who will

listen carefully and thoughtfully to all perspectives as he has done

over the past several years on the Planning Commission. He will be the

representative of the whole of Cotati and lead with integrity and

effectiveness. For all those reasons I am asking you to please join me in voting for

Robert Coleman.

Dana Jacoby

Cotati

Editor: As a lifelong practicing Catholic I take offense at the position the Catholic Bishops of California have taken for Proposition 8. The problem that the bishops have sanctifying same sex marriages could be rectified without taking away rights from loving committed couples and would be much more in line with the teachings of the loving and compassionate Jesus Christ they are supposed to be representing for.

The middle way that could be pursued is actually very American, to separate the sacrament (or sanctification) of marriage and the state’s contractual joining of estates and granting of tax benefits. Why has no one looked at this state/religion conundrum before? And why don’t they start now and leave our friends, neighbors and relatives to their loving committed relationships and families.

What would Jesus do? Vote no on Prop 8!

Melissa Hatheway

Petaluma

Editor: Once again, an anonymously funded group “To Tell the Truth” has tried to manipulate our Petaluma voters. This time the mailer targeted Petaluma City Council candidate Tiffany Renee (www.votefortiff.com). Famous for their out of context, hit pieces on independent, progressive, environmentally backed candidates like Tiffany Renee, this group attacks candidates all over Sonoma County. The amount of money these “anonymous contributors” spent to deliver this attack to your mailbox must have cost approximately $9,000.00.

Evidently, whoever these contributors and special interests are, they have a lot at stake in what decisions are made at Petaluma City Hall. These unidentified people must think spending $9,000.00 to influence the Petaluma City Council race is a good investment to insure their interests are protected. “To Tell the Truth” has never told the whole truth, but their distortion of the public record. Two years ago, during the Mayor’s race the same group used this tactic against me. I am honored that you, the Petaluma voter, were not swayed by these attacks and elected me the Mayor of Petaluma. You proved that shared values, hard work, dedication and running a positive campaign will earn a candidate a seat on the Petaluma City Council. Those are very reasons I am voting for Tiffany Renee.

I hope you as a Petaluma Voter take this opportunity again, to send a message to this group and their anonymous contributors that Petaluma will not tolerate this type of campaign in our city. We are not for sale or vulnerable to manipulation. You can tell them with your vote, Petaluma will elect people to our city council that will protect the public’s interest not just their interests. Please consider sending this message loud and clear and join me by voting for Tiffany Renee on November 4th.

Pamela Torliatt

Mayor

City of Petaluma

The people of the North Bay made the commitment to build the Golden Gate Bridge during the worst times of the Great Depression. Frank Doyle, who was Chairman of the Board of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, crisscrossed the North Bay to get the financial support of the citizens of the North Bay to build the bridge.

This November, we’re facing a similar challenge to make an infrastructure investment for the 21st Century by approving financing for SMART passenger rail (Measure Q). Even in the midst of this economic crisis, we need to rise to the Challenge of investing in our future. In the spirit of Frank Doyle, the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce urges voters to show the same courage that our grandparents had by voting for Measure Q.

Carl Campbell

Chair, Advocacy Council

Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce

EDITOR: "Accident causes traffic standstill on 101" - How many times have you read or heard this, or better yet been in one of these frustrating traffic messes? All it takes is one reckless driver, and there are loads of them out there every day, to bring everyone within miles to a complete stop (not to mention the even more unfortunate innocent drivers often killed) because of an accident. People against the SMART train often talk about buses being the answer, but don't buy it. Buses travel on 101 and so get just as stuck as everyone else in the all too common 101 traffic logjams. That's why we need an alternative to 101- the train (and ferrys) will be flying along regardless of what's happening on 101. There also will likely be many more riders than projected because lots of people who don't commute on 101 now would be willing to work along the 101 corridor IF they could commute by train and avoid 101. Don't doubt that lots of people who already live in Marin & Sonoma counties will focus future job searches around where the train can take them IF we have a train. We badly need an alternative to 101 and this train makes sense - vote Yes on Q!

Trina de La Chapelle

Santa Rosa

Editor: The first question you need to ask yourself is: "Will I ever use it?" Are you really going to drive your auto to the station, take the train, then a shuttle, then the ferry, then walk, cab, bus or trolley to your destination in the City? Please. It will be much faster, more convenient and, even with the bridge toll, less expensive to drive a car. Even if the ridership numbers pan out, any "savings" of greenhouse gases will be offset by cars trying to get cross-town idling while the trains pass through. More CO2 would be eliminated if we all replaced 1 regular incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent bulb. And I must say that I'm glad I don't live near a station because the whistles will be frequent and loud.

I would be the first to line up if this was an extension of BART or something that made sense. Sadly, this is truly a "train to nowhere." I say do it right or not at all and SMART just isn't. No on Q!

Peter Johnson

Petaluma

Editor: The Press Democrat endorsed the incumbent for the Board of Supervisors. But Sonoma County Conservation Action rated Valerie Brown for the last year with a D+ on Environmental Votes and a D- on Listens to Citizens. Their written comments are: Advocated/voted for hillside resort and unprecedented use of package treatment plants. Chronically absent. At times publicly berates those who oppose her.

Sorry guys, this time I'm not going along with your advice,

Lauren Ayers

Sonoma

This is the best time to invest in our transportation infrastructure. Now

more than ever we need jobs, cleaner air, reduced dependence on oil, and

faster and inexpensive travel options.

Opponents to SMART seek to defend the status quo that is rapidly crumbling.

Sadly, some of the opposition comes from people who recognize the benefits

of adding another corridor to our overstrapped highways, but think we cannot

afford it now. They argue that we would save money by not building SMART.

That reasoning ignores important facts:

- Most important public works projects have come in times of economic

distress -- and they have been crucial elements in our recovery.

- Building costs will never be lower

- SMART will bring many jobs to the local economy for construction and

maintenance

- SMART will save commuters thousands of dollars per year which will

get put back into local economy

- SMART will result in HIGHER home values and lower costs of doing

business here

- SMART will reduce our emissions by 31 million pounds per year,

saving us substantial health care costs attributed to air pollution

- SMART will reduce our dependence on oil by over 2 million gallons

per year

In short, the cost of not building SMART is not zero. In fact, in order to

meet our growing transportation needs, the cost of continually building and

expanding our roadways is at least three times more, and the environmental

toll is daunting. Don't surrender to a timid faith in a status quo that is

no longer sustainable. Join the League of Women Voters, Climate Protection

Campaign, local Chambers of Commerce and vote Yes on Measure Q.

Jeff Clark

Novato

I read that a number of elected officials in SonomaCountywere opposed to Proposition 8 and wanted to weigh in. I have a number of friends and co-workers in same gender relationships that I have a great deal of respect for, but I do not feel that changing marriage from its traditional definition is a prudent course.

Traditional marriage and the family has been the fundamental unit of our society for all of recorded history. We have seen ridicule aimed at those that put forth the family being defined as a mother, a father and children, only to be refuted – statistically, children are much better off with a mother and a father.

Civil unions allow for same gender couples to commit to a life-long relationship without changing the definition of marriage. It is naïve to think that changing that definition will not have a tremendous impact on our judicial system, our schools and our religious institutions. Just watch the lawsuits bloom if Prop 8 fails.

I love and respect the institution of marriage. I am supporting Prop 8 so that marriage will be what marriage always has been…not a completely different idea with the same name.

Steve Allen

Windsor Town Councilman

In reply to your Recommendations for voters, I am writing about your reasons for voting No on prop 2.

You state that those opposed to battery cages can buy cage free eggs already.

But the whole idea in this proposition, is not if we can buy cage free eggs, it’s to legally require factory farmers to make the necessary changes to improve the hens' comfort. It does not say they can't be in cages.

It says to allow the hens to move around freely, flap their wings, and stretch their legs and lie down.

It gives the egg farmers 9 years to do this.

Arnold Reibli has already been working on better accomodations for his hens. This is a step in the right direction, but it shouldn’t stop there.

It's being done, see Oakland Tribune May 28, 2003, "How one egg farmer has gone cage free for 20 years". He switched from commercial to sustainable egg farming. Everyone should read that article that has any interest in Proposition 2.

Please vote for humane treatment of farm animals, in particular, battery caged hens.

Doreen Proctor

Sonoma

Growing up in the 50’s and 60's, I learned that homosexuality was a shameful condition and that discrimination against homosexuals was the inevitable consequence of their immoral nature. My religion backed me up on that. Today, I have dozens of gay and lesbian friends, family members, and acquaintances and I know from experience that what I learned as a youth was wrong.

The same-sex couples I know are every bit as loving, healthy, and committed to each other as heterosexual couples. Those raising children are every bit as capable as parents, and their children thrive no less well than children raised in heterosexual households. The only extra burden these families suffer is the prejudice exerted by people who refuse to open their minds and hearts. Fortunately, that kind of prejudice is diminishing.

Any anthropologist will tell you there has never been a universal kinship system. Cultures evolve the rules of relationships in ways that benefit survival. I believe our culture will benefit greatly, will be a better culture for all of us, when we recognize and protect the right of same-sex couples to marry. I’m voting NO on Proposition 8.

Jerry Lyman

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: On November 4th, we will vote in an historic election involving many issues and the choice of numerous candidates for office. One initiative that we believe is particularly critical for the state of California is Proposition 8 which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Although we cannot go into great detail here, we ask you to consider some basic reasons for supporting traditional marriage.

First of all, we want to make it clear that we have no vendetta against the gay community or any people groups. We admit that Christians are imperfect and fall short in many ways, just as all people do. We struggle to love our neighbors even though that is our goal. We are not proud of many shortcomings in the Church in America and hope to do better. We believe in the dignity and value of all humanity. We also believe that Biblical Truth provides us with the framework through which we can live our lives.

Our faith tradition (as well as other major religious creeds) has for millennia held that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. The Biblical creation story in Genesis tells us how God brought Woman to Man and mandated them to “multiply and fill the earth.” In this act Family was established as the nucleus of civilization which gave rise to all other human institutions.

Today, the institution of marriage is facing many challenges. The prevalence of divorce and broken, dysfunctional marital and family relationships has contributed to many recognized societal problems. Perhaps this breakdown has given strength to a mindset that thinks less seriously about the implications of redefining marriage. We do not believe that changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will be in the best interests of current or future Californians. Instead, we see that affirming a re-definition like this would contribute to further social chaos in our culture which already shows significant fraying. Despite all of its weaknesses and failings, the only basic family institution that has survived intact over time is the traditional nuclear family. It has always been the building block for strong societies.

To sum up, rather than seeking to fashion another risky social experiment (1) we encourage local voters to restore the traditional legal definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman by supporting Proposition 8. And, (2) we challenge ourselves and the community at large to find and implement strategies to strengthen and equip the nuclear family to function better in the difficult, stressful times in which we live.

The Pastors’ Prayer and Ministry Alliance

The Pastors’ Prayer and Ministry Alliance is a gathering of Christian leaders from Santa Rosa area congregations and ministries committed to investing in our community through united prayer and service.

EDITOR: As a diverse group of interfaith religious leaders in Sonoma County we are appalled at the misinformation being perpetuated regarding Proposition 8 that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. This misinformation directly impacts the people of our congregations whom we love and serve.

Make no mistake about it: Proposition 8 does not affect our pastoral authority regarding which couples we choose to marry. Some of us are in traditions that permit us to preside at same-sex weddings. Some of us are not in such traditions but are working very hard to create more inclusive faith communities. But regardless of the stance of our individual traditions, Proposition 8 will not force us to marry a same-sex couple. The Supreme Court decision very clearly states that no religion will be forced to change its practices and that no religious leader will be forced to preside at a same-sex ceremony: “Affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

There is also misinformation that refusal to allow same-sex marriages in our facilities would result in lawsuits and potential loss of our non-profit 501(c)(3) status. This is simply not true. We have separation of church and state in this country. This misinformation is being intentionally used as a scare tactic to coerce votes to deny marriage equality.

We honor the diversity of religious beliefs both within Sonoma County and the broader community. Since the California State Supreme Court’s ruling this past May, over 11,000 same-sex couples have been married. Many of them have waited decades for the right to marry the person they love. Many of them are members of our religious communities. Can you imagine waiting decades or more to marry your spouse? Everyday we minister to couples such as these. This is not about giving same-sex couples the right to marry. The right to marriage was legalized by the California State Supreme Court this past May. Proposition 8 is about taking away a law that makes all of us equal. It is cruel. It is insensitive. It is mean spirited. It is unjust.

We fully support the freedom of religion that is the basis of our American society. But this freedom is jeopardized when one religious viewpoint attempts to become the sole authority and voice for us all. It isn’t right. It isn’t democratic. And it isn’t American.

Shouldn’t everyone have the right to enter into a marital relationship with an adult of their own choosing? Isn’t this a right that you value for yourself? As interfaith religious leaders we have experienced the joy of celebrating same-sex relationships in our congregations. We have also shared in the anguish of discrimination and intolerance experienced by some of our same-sex couples.

It’s time for the discrimination and intolerance to end. In Micah 6:8 we find these words, “What does the Lord require of you? To do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God.” Doing justice requires action. It requires saying no to anything that disrespects and diminishes another human being. Together we must say no. We must say no as Californians. We must say no as people of faith. We must say no as Americans. Please join us in voting no on Proposition 8.

Rev. Kimberly Willis, Santa Rosa

Rev. Blythe Sawyer, Petaluma

Rev. Leanna Hamilton, Santa Rosa

Rev. Pam Cummings, Sonoma

Rabbi George Gittleman, Santa Rosa

Rev. Mary Beard, Santa Rosa

Rev. Nancy Taylor, Sonoma

Rabbi Ted Feldman, Petaluma

Rev. R. Timothy Carnahan, Santa Rosa

Rev. Carol Carter, Forestville

Rev. Tim Kellgren, Petaluma

Rev. Susan Fleenor, Santa Rosa

Rev. Peter Schwabe-Fry, Petaluma

Rev. Nancy Schwabe-Fry, Petaluma

Pastor Kathy Mahoney, Windsor

Rev. Dennis Taber, Rohnert Park

Rev. Chris Bell, Santa Rosa

Rev. Lynda Hyland Burris, Cloverdale

Rev. Amy Seymour Haney, Windsor

With the current economic and job insecurity for families, working people and businesses of Sonoma County, it is imperative we elect the strongest possible Board of Supervisors. Shirlee Zane, Candidate for the 3rd District, is the most decisive and experienced leader. She understands the needs of working people, and she knows first-hand how the health and human services operate in Sonoma County. She has a proven track record in working with and advocating for families, elders, women, the disabled, and youth at-risk. She speaks out for Social Security, Medicare, Medi-CAL and long term care. She understands transportation, energy, and affordable housing problems. She has 10 years experience as CEO of a multimillion dollar nonprofit and demonstrated success in negotiating and managing contracts with the county in addition to union contracts from the management side. Experienced as a grass roots organizer, policy advocate, and as a trained counselor, she listens to people. Shirlee Zane is the new leadership and voice that people need for the 3rd District on the Board of Supervisors.

Carroll L. Estes, PhD.

Healdsburg

Editor: I have been dismayed by the recent letters in your paper, attacking the SMART train (Measure Q) These folks are coming up with grab-bag statistics, trying to make this sound like a dumb idea.

I think we should put in perspective how much a 1/4 cent tax increase will actually affect us. This represents 25 cents per hundred dollars! So if I spend an average of 500 dollars a month on sale items (groceries, dining out, clothing, etc...) then it's going to cost me $1.25 more. If I spend extravagantly... say $1000.00 a month, I'm looking at $2.50 more. I could save that on one days worth of parking fees alone.

While the SMART train might not solve all of our traffic or pollution problems, it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are all going to need to work towards creating alternate forms of transportation in the coming years, and this is a great way to start. It will also serve as a great learning experience

So be SMART next Tuesday and vote YES on Q

Marc Groah

Healdsburg

Editor: Twelve years ago I ran for 5th District Supervisor. When I decided to

run I made myself a promise, I would wage a campaign that I could be

proud of, and I waged that campaign, and I lost, by a large margin.

Needless to say the current tone of the race between Efren Carrillo

(whom I plan to vote for) and Rue Furch is less than uplifting, just

based upon my pre-election mail. Now I’m all for appropriate

communication when it comes to the issues but candidates should take

responsibility, not just for their own materials, but also for those

sent for their benefit. By far the worst offender is the “West County

Labor, Environmentalists and Democrats for Change a/k/a the Service

Employees International Union), I’m referring of the inappropriate use

of pictures of overweight felines or ‘fat cats.’ I can only hope that

PETA and the ASPCA will take action. Over feeding cats and then

posing them belly forward, tail out, wearing a homburg may be amusing,

but it is the moral equivalent of force-feeding ducks for foie gras

and must stop. Rue Furch really should disavow the SEIU’s cat abusive

activities.

Laurence Sterling

Sebastopol

Editor: As a 19-year old college student and a first-time voter, I am shocked and saddened by the intolerance displayed by those who oppose Proposition 8. My family has had five “Yes on 8” yard signs stolen and one vandalized.

Is this what it’s come to in this state, where we are harassed for expressing our free speech? Do opponents of traditional marriage fear democracy so much so that they are unwilling to let us simply vote on the issue?

I believe firmly in the value of protecting traditional marriage, and will vote “yes” on Proposition 8. I ask only that the other side respect my rights, as I respect theirs.

Erik Bjornstrom

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: In 1945 my white mother and my black father crossed state lines to marry in Illinois, because interracial marriage was illegal in their home state of Missouri. These two people were motivated simply by love for each other. The struggle for racial equality had barely begun.

Last week I sat with my 92 year old mother as she signed her absentee ballot and voted for an African-American man for President. She also voted NO on Prop 8.

Sixty three years ago my parents courageously claimed their right to marry. For my mother, protecting the right of same-sex couples to marry is the civil rights struggle of today.

Vote NO on prop 8.

Cathy Burgett

Santa Rosa

Editor: Your October 31, 2008 article about the “genial” First District Supervisor race compels a response.

This week I received two separate double-sided color mailers from Valerie Brown with distinctly contradictory messages.

In the first she attacked Will Pier for having been a “former Green Party member” and yet the next day another mailer arrived in which she touted herself as working hard for a “greener” SonomaCounty.

The incumbent’s political message adds up to one big high-priced, glossy flip-flop.

Ms. Brown’s mailer proclaims that she has preserved open land so we all can get “lost in space”. Something indeed has been lost- the integrity to stand unwaveringly for one’s values.

I met Will Pier at a neighborhood “meet the candidates” event several months back. I found Mr. Pier to be a smart and thoughtful candidate, committed to long-term, sustainable planning for SonomaCounty.

Whereas the incumbent is spending money on glossy mailers, Will Pier has gone out almost everyday for months, pounding the pavement and meeting the constituents. Ms. Brown, on the other hand, appears to be “lost in space” somewhere.

I am voting for Will Pier and urge others to do the same.

Deborah Railsback

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: Let's stop for one moment, take a deep breath and clear our minds. Think

what it really means to you, the taxpayer, to have a suburban rail system

going through Sonoma and part of Marin counties. There are too many

questions about this proposal and not enough good answers. In these

uncertain economic times can we afford an additional regressive sales tax

that will generate $890 million over 20 years? Is SMART a necessity and

is it smart to spend $1.4 billion plus for a train that carries relatively

few passengers when we have bus systems in the County that are

under-utilized and roads in need of repair? Will SMART really relieve

congestion on Highway 101, when its own Environmental Impact Report

indicates that traffic will be relatively the same with or without the

train? Will the SMART diesel train estimated reduction of 125,000 pounds

of greenhouse gases daily significantly cut into the 24.6 million pounds

of greenhouse gases produced daily in Sonoma County? Do you really think

that SMART’s construction cost estimates of $541 million is correct when

every major public works project in the Bay Area has had significant cost

over-runs? Is the SMART train really convenient when the majority of

riders will have to drive their autos to the station, find a parking

place, and wait 30 minutes for a train, not to mention that the train will

not run all day and you will have to transfer, probably several times, to

get to your final destination? How safe is it to have both freight and

passenger trains running on the same track (remember MetroLink)? Will

SMART promote suburban sprawl and more congestion along its right-of-way?

The answer to these questions are obvious. The SMART sales tax proposal

is a financial black hole and a very poor use of scarce Sonoma County

taxpayers’ dollars. The smart thing to do is vote NO on Measure Q.

Fred Levin

Executive Director

Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association

Santa Rosa

Editor: The institution of marriage.

For those who choose to marry and have no intention of having children

(or are unable to), it isn't all about children. For those who choose

marriage, with or without children (and regardless of the legal

protections that marriage provides), it's an act that quantifies love

and commitment to one significant other. No loving committed union of

persons of any race, religion or gender has ever harmed the

institution of marriage.

What has harmed marriage? Deception, infidelity, serial marriage (by

the fourth marriage do you not have an inkling that these vows may not

mean anything anymore?) and the big ones: cruelty, violence,

abandonment neglect. Do any of these scenarios apply to someone you

know? A neighbor, a relative? Yourself?

I may disapprove of infidelity, deception and serial marriage, but

these are personal issues that should concern only the individuals

involved. I may disapprove but I would have no intention of

legislating against these private behaviors. I may believe that

marriage has been harmed but I also recognize that these behaviors do

no harm whatsoever to my marriage. Simply put, it's none of my business.

No on Prop 8

Alan Wastell

Sonoma

Editor: I hope I’m not the only one to notice that Barack Obama’s idea of charity is using the power of the federal government to confiscate your money and my money and then “graciously” present it to the “less fortunate.” He also said that anyone who disagreed was “selfish.” Anyone who wants to understand what Obama’s vision for fruit of your labor needs only to take a moment to watch a few of his speeches on Youtube.com and the truth will be clear. If computers baffle you just go to the library and ask any kid there to help you find it. Let me be clear: THERE IS NO CHARITY IN TAXATION. As the wise Supreme Court Justice John Marshall noted almost two centuries ago, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” I also hearken back to what Ben Franklin said to a lady in Philadelphia just after the Constitutional Convention finished its masterpiece. “What kind of government will we have?” she asked. The good doctor famously replied, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.” Let us highly resolve to keep it.

Chris Nowak

Kelseyville

Tammy Borrall, local residential Realtor, needs to dig a little deeper before making up her mind on Smart. Smart won't give us a strong local economy, good jobs, access to cultural events or any of the other things she mentions. The limited number of trips on week-ends and no night service does not bode well for getting to and from social events and activities. All one needs to do is research the information put out by the proponents of Measure Q. Smart will NOT reduce traffic congestion or green house gases on the 101 corridor. Smart will increase residential development pressure (especially in Sonoma County), which perhaps is why she thinks Measure Q is a good idea.

Although she did get one thing right, SMART is about public subsidies. Measure Q has from the inception been about Sonoma and Marin County tax payers subsidizing the North Coast Railroad Association's (NCRA) efforts to revive FREIGHT rail service to the north coast. The NCRA is dependent upon the voters passing the Measure Q initiative in Sonoma and Marin Counties before they can proceed with FREIGHT service from Humboldt and Mendocino Counties.

The voters have rejected the Smart initiative five times. Why does it keep coming back election year after election year? It's not because the voters demand it. There is more to this than Smart is telling us. We all need to look past the Smart propaganda to the real reasons. The NCRA wants Sonoma and Marin County tax dollars to subsidize freight service from the north coast. Visit No On Smart at www.nosmart.org. Freight rail service can be a cost effective alternative to trucking, but not on the backs of Sonoma and Marin County tax payers. Tax payers don't need to bail out another for profit, private venture on the premise that it’s for the greater good.

The north bay area needs to address the Hwy. 101 congestion and the environmental impact it creates. We need a more efficient public transportation. SMART isn't the answer. Vote NO on Measure Q.

Mike Ford

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: Friday, October 31, I received a mailer about Sebastopol’s Northeast Area Plan (NEAP) sent from Council Member Larry Robinson’s address. Ironically, this eleventh-hour publication illustrates exactly why NEAP is controversial. Disagreement with Robinson and his followers is branded as “false and misleading,” “myth” and “scare tactics.”

The mailer features a developer’s rendering that was created months before the plan was issued to the public. In contrast, photos of existing unsightly property imply the choice is this NEAP or nothing. Scare tactics?

NEAP is presented as a transit hub opportunity. A July 15, 2008 City staff report concludes the NEAP density would “NOT be adequate to fund major new transit service to or within Sebastopol.” The mailer calls increased traffic a myth, yet the EIR projects 8100 additional car trips a day. False and misleading?

No economic cost/benefit analysis was done; therefore, the economic benefits of this plan are unknown. Potential harm to our small town character is a valid opinion, not myth.

As an informed citizen, I believe thoughtful challenge to the NEAP is democracy in action. I find this mailer offensive. I believe we deserve better conduct from our public officials.

David Little

Sebastopol

EDITOR: I've received a hit piece against Shirlee Zane claiming that she would give unions a blank check. I spent several years representing the workers of the Council On Aging. I negotiated four contracts for them with Shirlee Zane on the opposite side of the table. She was tough and far from being the pushover the hit pieces have portrayed. She put the mission of her Non-profit first and foremost during these negotiations. Our negotiations were not easy and we always had to find middle ground that was fair to the workers and benefited the agency. I would expect her to be the same as a county supervisor; tough but fair, independent but concerned for all the constituents of Sonoma County, not just business, not just labor.

Paul Carroll

Santa Rosa

EDITOR: Why is Jen Thille supported by educators like us, as well as seven former Sebastopol council members from different sides of the political spectrum? Why is she endorsed by both the Sierra Club and NorCal Engineering Contractors? Why are her signs on lawns that also have Furch and Carillo placards? Why do firefighters and police officers support her? Because she has a vision for Sebastopol that reflects its small town roots while recognizing the economic realities needed to keep local services funded. This resonates with many of us, regardless of our views on current hot button topics. Her support for strong planning that requires potential housing projects to give back to the community and protect our wetlands exemplifies her positive approach to decision making. We need Jen Thille for Sebastopol.

Raini Vallarino

Sebastopol

Liz Knisely

Sebastopol