s
s
Sections
You've read 3 of 10 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read 6 of 10 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read all of your free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting 99 cents per month and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for reading! Why not subscribe?
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting 99 cents per month and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Subscribe today!
Ooops! You're out of free articles. Starting at just 99 cents per month, you can keep reading all of our products and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?

Paulin Creek preserve

EDITOR: I was cheered by Supervisor Shirlee Zane’s Close to Home column where she extolled the benefits of urban open space (“Open Space District needs public input,” March 8). Ten days later, I was alarmed when I read in another article that part of county-owned Paulin Creek preserve, an urban open space in Santa Rosa, was slated to be sold to a developer (“Meadow’s potential sale alarming neighbors,” March 18).

In this article, Zane was reported to have said she wasn’t concerned about the fate of Parcel J (paulincreek.org) in the proposed sale because the city of Santa Rosa would conduct an environmental review before development started.

On one hand, Sonoma County continues its impressive push to preserve open space. On the other hand, the same county is proposing to sell the geographic center of the 15-year-old preserve to a developer. That just boggles my mind.

The supervisors now realize that Parcel J of Paulin Creek preserve is included in the sale of the Chanate Road hospital complex. I implore the supervisors to take responsibility for making sure Parcel J is removed from the sale rather than passing that responsibility on to the city.

It may be legal for the county to sell Parcel J, but it isn’t right.

CRAIG OLSON

Santa Rosa

Standing for science

EDITOR: Life’s critical lessons are hard to take when they require major adjustments to style of living, especially when they will impact the lives of our progeny. Climate change is one such situation with impending consequences.

On April 22, scientists and others who oppose the war on science are taking to the streets to make known the utmost perilousness and urgency of this threat to our future generations.

When one makes it past the uninformed, political rhetoric and dives deep into the science of our climate, anyone with a normal inquiring mind soon realizes that this, like nuclear war, threatens our existence as a species.

When a science paradigm shift takes place, such as quantum mechanics making possible the threat of nuclear annihilation of the species, then one can no longer deny the existence of objective realities.

Unfortunately, when the preponderance of scientific evidence rubs up against the political and economic power brokers’ profit margins, the choice becomes: (1) denial that such paradigm shifts are real, as with our current president’s statement that it is a “hoax” or (2) take seriously and heed our climate scientists warnings that climate change threatens the health of our common home, Earth.

As Pogo once exclaimed so succinctly, “We have met the enemy, and it is us!”

ROGER WHITE

Santa Rosa

Taxes and waste

EDITOR: No more wasted tax money! Until we, the tax-paying public, have verified proof of where our tax dollars are actually spent by city, county, state and federal government, no more taxes. All agencies should provide annual audits showing positive use and/or waste of our tax dollars. The wasted money found would offset increasing taxes and should be spent on their intended use. By cutting government waste, the downside could be a lot of people might be jobless. But that’s life.

CHARLIE BECK

Bodega Bay

A regression?

EDITOR: Last year, I pictured our political “leaders” as 4-year-olds in a sandbox: “You messed with my sand castle, now I’m gonna smash yours.” Just lately this picture seemed to have changed to 2-year-old toddlers. Child development experts, and almost all parents, know the strongest words at age two are “no” and “mine.” Doesn’t this perfectly depict our current political scene?

My plea: are there any grown-ups out there who can get these political toddlers refocused on the welfare of the citizens they supposedly represent?

BOB WILLIAM

Santa Rosa

Ripple effects

EDITOR: After reading David Cahill’s letter (“No public cost,” Sunday), I have to respond. A friend of mine works as a property manager of a low-to-moderate-income apartment complex near Coddingtown. The complex isn’t fancy but is well run, helping to keep costs down.

Because of Measure C, the owner of the apartment complex has instructed his property manager to raise rents 3 percent every year on each unit, whether he made any improvements or not. This is because if he made improvements totaling 6 percent of the total cost of the rent that year, he could only raise the rent 3 percent to recoup the cost, suffering a 3 percent loss that year. The next year he again can only raise the rent 3 percent to break even on the improvements that he made.

To prevent future losses, rents will be raised 3 percent yearly to build a buffer of cash reserves to pay for any future improvements. If he doesn’t raise the rent that year, he is prohibited from going back retroactively to do so to recover his losses.

Other apartment owners will be following in these footsteps. The public cost is that renters can now expect rent increases of 3 percent a year, after year after year.

ROGER WILLIAM A. REED

Santa Rosa