Editor, Index-Tribune:

As I prepare to cast my vote for Measure B (the Hotel Limitation Measure), I’ve read the voter information written by both the sides of Measure B. The most misleading argument within the ballot arguments is a claim by Measure B supporters, in their opening paragraph, that states, “Sonoma risks becoming overbuilt and over-commercialized.”

Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a former chair of the Architectural Review Board and assure you that our first and foremost concern has always been to protect the character of Sonoma and its historic authenticity and charm.

In looking at the independent impact report prepared for the City of Sonoma, you see the facts that prove Measure B has serious unintended consequences. It also shows we have done an amazing job managing growth. But more importantly, look around you and see the results of years of citizens taking pride in where they live and protecting their treasured town. The fact is, no new “large” hotels, as defined by Measure B, have been approved in the City of Sonoma for more than 10 years. Yes, they’ve been proposed, but none have been approved, a testament to the fact that the city’s planning process works, and Measure B is unnecessary.

If I thought Measure B was good for Sonoma, I’d wholeheartedly support it. But when a measure seeks to undermine our General Plan, take my voice out of the process and create another layer of bureaucracy, voting ‘no’ is the only choice.

Judith B Friedman