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?

Measure C and denial

EDITOR: Climate change deniers and proponents of Measure C have something in common: a disregard for overwhelming intellectual research.

No one voting in favor of Measure C can honestly say that they have done their research in concluding that rent control would help without admitting that they are ignoring the overwhelming majority of experts on the issue, including the most liberal of economists. This is the same thing that climate change deniers must do when concocting an ill-formed argument that climate change doesn’t exist.

You can either be in favor of Measure C or have done meaningful research on rent control, but not both.

If you vote in favor of Measure C, please never complain about the fact that climate change deniers must ignore the overwhelming majority of researched and well-formed opinions, because you will have just done the same thing.

If you want your vote to truly benefit the housing crisis, please perform a simple Google search on the research surrounding rent control. Our elected officials should have, but apparently they did not.

PETER SIMON

Santa Rosa

Will on Trump

EDITOR: Once again George Will writes a column that makes sense to me (“Trump doesn’t know what it is to know,” May 4).

Citing a few recent examples of President Donald Trump’s comments on historical events — his take on Fredrick Douglass (as if he’s alive and well today) and his beliefs about Andrew Jackson’s take on the Civil War (which began 16 years after Jackson’s death) — Will outlines facts demonstrating that Tump has little or no “elementary knowledge of the nation’s history” and an unwillingness to be tutored to give him a better grasp of our history and the world events around him that should have influence on his decisions. Fascinating.

In the end, Will laments that Trump is a man “whose combination of impulsivity and credulity render him uniquely unfit to take the nation into a military conflict.” This alone is reason enough to remove Trump from office.

RICHARD PIERCE

Santa Rosa

Relief for some

EDITOR: You assert that Measure C is unfair because it would only benefit some renters while others would continue to be subject to huge increases (“No on Measure C: This is wrong tool for fixing SR housing crisis,” Editorial, Sunday). However, I fail to see how it is better that everyone continue to be subject to huge rent increases. Isn’t some measure of relief for some renters better than no relief for any renter?

If there were a cure for cancer that only worked on 20 percent of the people, should we refuse to allow its use, as it would be unfair to the other 80 percent?

As for your unsupported assertion that Measure C would make it harder to remove problem tenants, I read the measure, and that’s simply not true. Please provide some evidence.

Also, I am offended by your suggestion that low-income people and those with Section 8 vouchers are likely to be problem tenants. Shame on you for that.

Finally, your assertion that Measure C would divide the community fails to acknowledge that the community is already divided between the haves and the have-nots. That’s why Measure C is desperately needed to help narrow the gap, even just a little bit, for at least some of the have-nots.

CHRIS WENMOTH

Santa Rosa

Transforming Windsor

EDITOR: I was surprised to read Martha Brooks’ letter about the Windsor Town Council’s proposal to dismantle and move community buildings to replace them with a hotel (“A bad trade-off,” May 3). I moved to the area 30 years ago, and when Windsor started to build and grow, I cynically called it “San Jose north” because I felt it would just be sprawl between Santa Rosa and Healdsburg. But that didn’t happen. Instead, Windsor became an attractive town and a creative community, both east and west of Highway 101.

I would hate to see Windsor transform itself from a lovely town into another tourist destination. Put a hotel on your plaza and the people who stay in it would be there for the wine. The shops you now have would be replaced with tasting rooms and high-end shops to cater to them. It’s neither good nor bad, but putting a hotel on your plaza would displace community events in favor of hosting tourists, and now is your time to make that decision.

MARIAN MURPHY

Healdsburg

Health care terrorism

EDITOR: Terrorism is the use of intimidation against civilians in pursuit of political aims. Congress again voted for health care terrorism on civilians in this country.

Basic health care, physical and mental, should be provided for all. If our forefathers had the vision, it would be an article in the Constitution. Millions of Americans suffer from insecurity over their family’s health care or lack of. Medicare-age citizens, veterans and members of Congress don’t share that insecurity, as their health care needs are provided in government systems that come close to a single-payer system and don’t exist for obscene profits.

We are held hostage by a dysfunctional Congress that refuses to fix a broken health care system. To pass an unfinished plan that throws millions under the bus so the House can claim victory before a cost/benefit analysis is ridiculous.

The Senate must come to its senses and spend a few months doing a complete plan that will produce a system motivated to provide health care and not profit.

Fix the whole mess and give Americans security of a system that works for all. Anything less will only further the health care terrorism of the past 20 years.

TOM MEYSKENS

Sebastopol