A call for common sense
EDITOR: The recent letter about the school bonds (“You Get What You Paid For,” May 29) has a point. I made a mistake not opening the voter’s pamphlet to read the fine print. Should not have trusted advertisements in the newspaper and flyers about Measure E repairs and improvements to our schools without mention of a stadium. Should not have trusted the voters ballot summary excluding a $9.8 million stadium as board member Dan Gustafson later said, “There were only 17 words left to put on the ballot,” apparently not enough to describe it. Won’t do that again.
Ballot wording was clear? I disagree: “Constructing outdoor learning and athletic facilities” can fit a wide range of project designs. Common sense would expect facility improvements would be in keeping with a quiet town relying heavily on tourist dollars and would mean fields/facilities of improved quality – not a 2,500-seat lighted stadium with concession stand and loudspeaker system that will massively impact traffic and noise levels for miles. Common sense: Improve the existing stadium four blocks away.
It gets worse for Sonoma. Under California Law, SVUSD is its own entity – they do not have to submit to City of Sonoma Planning Commission. That means SVUSD School Board does not have to consider City of Sonoma in its planning, as far as the track/stadium/lighting/loudspeakers/concessions goes, it appears that is their plan. Common sense would say make a plan that works for Sonoma.
So, when you say we “get what you paid for,” I reply: What we voted for is “what was advertised.” The costly stadium was not advertised because Measure E consultants advised against it, according to board member John Kelly, in an I-T story last September.
This white elephant of a stadium is not paid for yet, so let’s use our common sense and not buy it.
Who elected these people?
EDITOR: First off, thank you, for asking the pros and cons on the topic of marijuana (“City Council: Back Yard Cannabis OK, Dispensary No Way,” June 1). I am new to Sonoma and find all the comments presented very interesting. However, I find the outcome vote by the mayor and council extremely biased and from individual opinions rather than representing the 80 percent which was from the unofficial surveys you asked for. And this was brought up by a person at the meeting. Thank you for pointing this out to all. What I wonder is how did these people get voted in, and when is the next election? If they are not representing the people, nor the law for California, why are they even able to stay? Since the Presidential election, I feel embarrassed as an American, and see our country in a moral crisis. This meeting does not support our rights nor the foundations, freedom and equality for all. This attitude seems to be in opposition to what America stands for. Just as our present government reflects. I find it frightening; too close to what my father and many Americans fought and died for in WWII. I am surprised this is happening in Sonoma and California. How does fear and ignorance matter over the people? Just curious!
Let ‘em eat fumes
EDITOR: In response to Highway 37. I hope everyone voted “no” on any and all new taxes (“Measure 3: A Bridge to Traffic Solutions,” April 19). Yes Highway 37 is a nightmare, but keep in mind that California pays the highest taxes in the nation. We pay the highest price for gas and filling up our gas tank has become beyond affordable, the cost to cross our bridges is out of reality and we have the most expensive home costs in the nation. We pay the most on entitlement programs for both U.S. citizens and illegals, our infrastructure is in ruins, our schools rank a unacceptable 26th in the nation. Our children cannot afford a down payment for a home in the town they grew up in. We need new leadership and a new direction in Sacramento. Our present liberal administration in Sacramento with their tax-and-spend agenda is both unaffordable and unsustainable.