Sunday’s Letters to the Editor
EDITOR: I wonder if Scott Giblin owns a vehicle (“Buy a gun,” Letters, July 11). He claims that purchasing a firearm through a dealer and registering it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the government, according to Giblin, “has no right to know what we buy.”
Vehicles, while intended for transportation, can be lethal weapons if misused as well. Yet we are required to register all vehicles and to obtain licenses that demonstrate at least a minimum level of competency in order to operate them in a way that promotes public safety. Yes, that makes it harder to own a vehicle (one of his arguments), but with freedom comes responsibility.
Shouldn’t Giblin forgo owning a vehicle because of this outrageous assault on his right to privacy by forcing him to register his vehicle?
While his assertion that guns “cannot persuade you to harm others” is true, it’s time for people to stop pretending it’s not the very purpose of a gun to cause bodily harm. Mandatory registration, ensured through requiring purchase from a dealer, imposes a level of responsibility on the gun owner, no different than registering your motor vehicle.
For a vaccine mandate
EDITOR: In the face of a widespread rise in delta variant cases in France, President Emmanuel Macron boldly issued a mandate to the French people. Beginning in August, everyone must be vaccinated to attend a concert, go to a bar or have a meal in a restaurant. In the face of a national rise of COVID cases here, President Joe Biden must do the same.
To work in any hospital in France, any employee must be vaccinated. This same law should also apply to every school in America. Get a shot if you think you can work at any school in America.
We face a surge that takes no prisoners. We need to stop trying to stop it with half measures we already know are not working.
Fund the police
EDITOR: Our police should not be a source of revenue. Not the CHP, not sheriffs, not local law enforcement. Police are a cost of providing protection and public service; police expenses should be borne 100% by tax revenues.
What’s up with the “revenue” thing? Police are incentivized to write tickets, and the add-ons are often double the fine. All of that is revenue, money to spend for whatever.
Why is this a problem? Let’s start at the top: it hits poor people in the pocket at the worst possible time — like when their car needs repair — and they are far more likely to be pulled over than a Tesla in the fast lane.
Then you have the heightened tension of a traffic stop, which have far too often resulted in death — for a taillight or an air-freshener. That has to stop. No one wants it — not the police, not the survivors and certainly not the community that settles a claim for millions. Add a high-speed chase for a trivial offense and more people are endangered.
Fully fund the police to do real police work, and the community will cheerfully support the cost.
DONAL B. BOTKIN
Seeking escape routes
EDITOR: Jeff Breithaupt would make it appear that no one is paying attention to emergency traffic routes as they relate to the proposed Elnoka development (“A new escape route,” Letters, July 5). Nothing could be further from the truth. For four-plus years, the Oakmont Property Development Committee has been studying this problem.
In August, we reached a compromise agreement with the city of Santa Rosa and California state parks to open Channel Drive as an emergency exit through the White Oak Drive gate to Wild Oak. The city has the right to close it to all but emergency vehicles needing to enter Oakmont. This was the situation during the Glass fire.
Oakmont also has an agreement with Oakmont Senior Living, Bill Gallaher's company handling the Elnoka development, for a mutual emergency only road through their property to Melita Road. Under normal circumstances, this would be a golf cart path.
The major problems with Elnoka, and the proposal before the city for a Melita Road addition to Spring Lake Village, are a two-lane Highway 12 and water.
Breithaupt might be unaware of the revised Elnoka plan that was submitted to city in late June. It is an excellent proposal with the same two problems.
Stick with Ravitch
EDITOR: During my 26 years working for the Sonoma County Superior Court, I have been privileged to work with and know our current district attorney, Jill Ravitch, a smart, no-nonsense prosecutor who believes in what she is doing and does it well.
Should a pouting man be permitted to bring down a tough and successful prosecutor using bogus and retaliatory actions? No. Who thinks it will stop with Ravitch? This may be a warning to other public officials: Don’t try to stop him from doing as he pleases. You either do as I say, or you will be recalled. Win or lose, it will cost you.
Interestingly, while he is waging this bogus war against Ravitch, he’s working hard to get another development approved for elder living near Oakmont, where escape routes in case of a fire might leave residents without a viable escape route. Sound familiar?
Vote no to recall Jill Ravitch.
You can send letters to the editor to email@example.com.