Let the Public Speak: Thoughts on Measure A

A permanent fix

EDITOR: With all this talk about Measure A, I have a few observations. Yes, our county roads are in deplorable condition. So is Highway 101 north of Windsor. That’s not a county road. As soon as you hit Mendocino County, Highway 101 improves dramatically. The same phenomenon occurs on Highway 128; as soon as you enter Mendocino County, the surface is infinitely better. The same is true of most of the county roads I’ve traveled in Mendocino County.

It’s interesting to me that a poorer county manages to keep its roads in better repair. Is it just poor management of federal, state and local tax dollars? Is Sonoma County getting short shrift of the tax money? Clearly that’s the case with the tax money allocated to Sonoma County for county roads, but why are some of the highways also in such poor condition?

Also, instead of dinging taxpayers for more sales tax money to repair the county roads, why aren’t we lobbying in Sacramento to effect a change in the way gas tax money is allocated to each county? Seems like that would be a more logical place to start, although it should have been started years ago. It would provide a permanent fix.

ANNETTE FLACHMAN

Windsor

A contractor’s view

EDITOR: I have lived and worked on paving projects and roads around Sonoma County all of my adult life. I am a contractor, so I know what it takes to pave the roads, versus what it takes to rebuild the entire road section. I never want to gouge my customers with unnecessary expense, so I do not want to see unnecessary cost to the taxpayers. These roads are in a time-sensitive condition, and the longer we wait to deal with them, the more it is going to cost us. We can avoid that extra cost by passing Measure A.

Paying $40 a year in additional taxes is cheap compared to what it will cost if we do nothing.

Water kills our roads if it can get through the surface course and soften the sub base. If that happens, you cannot just place new surfacing on the top. You have to dig out all the damaged material underneath and rebuild the entire road section. That is very expensive.

I am voting yes on Measure A to help save what is left of our roads.

RODNEY SICHEL

Santa Rosa

Take a leap of faith

EDITOR: As a lifelong Sonoma County resident (58 years), I have watched the rural areas of Sonoma County expand exponentially. What were once lightly traveled country roads for the farming community have become expressways to the country lifestyle. In all that time, these same roads have never been improved upon. Although the current Measure A is not perfect in that the monies will go into the general fund, the amount of watching by such groups as SOS Roads, Operating Engineers Local No. 3 and many others will ensure that the current and future members of the Board of Supervisors will have their feet held to the fire and be turned out of office if any impropriety occurs. I know this will require a leap of faith by the voting public, yet the alternative will be worsening roads.

MICHAEL HUGHES

Graton

Measure A audits

EDITOR: In a recent mailer, Denny Rosatti of Sonoma County Conservation Action states that Measure A “holds elected officials accountable by requiring annual public audits.” SOS Roads makes a similar statement regarding Measure A’s “required audit.” Those statements led me to believe the audit would be specific to Measure A revenue and spending. However, when I read the full text of Measure A in the sample ballot, I found no such requirement. A call to the county verified that the full text of Measure A contains no special audit requirement, only the routine annual audits required by California Government Code Section 29060.

Yes, the ballot card states annual audits shall be performed, and I’m certain the supervisors could request audits in the future, but that’s not stated in the Measure A language.

I believe Rosatti and SOS Roads will do their best to hold the supervisors accountable. But cities will receive the majority of the revenue, 56 percent. How will they hold the cities accountable, and how will the cities expenditures be audited?

Don’t be misled by statements that Measure A requires specific annual audits. It does not. The audit is merely a promise, just like the promise to spend the taxes on roads.

TIM BOSMA

Santa Rosa

Fix pensions first

EDITOR: It’s clear to me: No more voting on tax hikes until government pensions are adjusted to be more reasonable. The pension fund is out of control. Government agencies should all get together to resolves the problem at the same time. In the meantime, I’m voting no on Measure A.

LUCY WILKES

Santa Rosa

Hidden agenda

EDITOR: I’ve read editorials and articles from both sides of Measure A. What I always hear from those opposed is that they don’t trust the politicians to spend the money as they have promised - on roads and transportation. With the heightened level of attention that is being brought upon the supervisors and city councils, it is unthinkable that they would spend the Measure A dollars on something other than transportation.

This argument misses the point that we shouldn’t be resorting to this additional tax in the first place. Maintaining a functioning road system is literally one of the basic functions of local government. The supervisors have ignored the issue until it is now an urgent problem that requires a special (Oh, I mean general) tax to fix.

The county government will spend Measure A dollars on roads, which would free up space in the general fund to pay for salaries and pensions. That’s why the unions are supporting Measure A - not because they will siphon Measure A funds to be spent on their members, but because it continues to allow their feast from the general fund while denying the citizens of Sonoma County the basic services of government.

DANIEL VERMILLION

Santa Rosa

For a specific tax

EDITOR: Once again, we are faced with a bait-and-switch ballot measure, one with no specific, understandable language that accurately details exactly where the money would be spent. No amount of rhetoric by our local officials, or their business and union backers, gives us the slightest degree of confidence to trust them when the possibility of using the money for pension relief obligations exists.

The fact that the measure was intentionally omitted from the last election and is now costing money that could have been spent elsewhere demonstrates who really counts to our local officials, and it is not us. Give us a specific road tax that identifies exactly where the money will go, and we will vote for it.

DAVE ARGENTO

Petaluma

A serious problem

EDITOR: I’m voting yes on Measure A. It’s obvious we have a serious pothole problem and no solution if Measure A does not pass. With more than half of our roads in bad shape, and becoming a hazard to drivers and bicyclists as time goes on, they will only get worse and cost a lot more to fix the longer we wait.

Measure A will fix our roads, help provide public transit for those who need it most, decrease emergency vehicle response time and provide good local jobs for local workers.

I believe the money will be spent on roads because many of us will be keeping a close eye on those annual audits to see that it is. I’m also pretty sure our elected officials don’t want the bad press they’ll get if they direct Measure A funds away from where the voters’ intentions are for this money.

It isn’t very often you see groups such as the North Bay Labor Council, the Sonoma County Alliance, Sonoma County Conservation Action and the North Bay Association of Realtors supporting the same Measure. Vote for Measure A. Clearly, it’s a good solution for all of us.

LISA MALDONADO

North Bay Labor Council

Pay now or later

EDITOR: I have read and discussed the pros and cons of Measure A for weeks now. I am one of those who has a tough time giving any more of my money to the government for any new tax, period. However, and this is a big however, I am convinced it will cost me much more in the long run if we do not support this measure. The rains and traffic will continue to destroy our roads, so I’m in favor of a little now versus a whole lot more later. I’m supporting Measure A.

MICK MENENDEZ

Santa Rosa