Letters to the Editor, Aug. 17 - 20

The "Follow This Story" feature will notify you when any articles related to this story are posted.

When you follow a story, the next time a related article is published — it could be days, weeks or months — you'll receive an email informing you of the update.

If you no longer want to follow a story, click the "Unfollow" link on that story. There's also an "Unfollow" link in every email notification we send you.

This tool is available only to subscribers; please make sure you're logged in if you want to follow a story.

Please note: This feature is available only to subscribers; make sure you're logged in if you want to follow a story.

Subscribe

Bedtime reading

EDITOR: This last Twelfth of Never I was listening to an alternative Mother Goose on Volpine View, that up-right station that skews the news, when I heard this faux oldie but goodie nursery rhyme:

Little boy Don,

Stop tooting your horn.

The Russkies aren’t mellow.

They’ve got you on porn.

But where is the Little Don to fight the Red creep?

He plays on his bass from his swamp that’s knee-deep.

Michael Heiman

Sonoma

Talk about car dependent families!

EDITOR: Carl DeMaio, the chairman of Prop. 6 (gas tax repeal initiative), writes in the I-T (“Elias Is Full of Gas!” Aug. 10) that the new 12-cent per gallon gas tax increase will cost the “typical family of four” $700 per year, but doesn’t attempt to explain how he arrives at this amount. Straightforward arithmetic shows that he is being intentionally deceptive, making grotesquely false assumptions to justify this figure.

Twelve cents per gallon translates to $1 per eight gallons. Therefore, to pay $700 more, this alleged family would have to consume 5,600 gallons (multiply 700 by 8) in a year – 5,600 gallons! He must be defining a “typical family of four” as driving four separate cars, each consuming 1,400 gallons per year, which equals 28 gallons per week per person, or 4 gallons per driver per day, every day.

At a sub-standard 20 miles per gallon, that would mean each of the four people drives 80 miles each and every day. Do you know of any family that fits this description? That’s the only way his $700 annual tax increase could be reached. I assume this initiative is just an attempt to incite Republicans to vote in November, since its financial claim is so obviously distorted. Any other explanation?

Richard Chadwin

Sonoma

Cannabis movement got burned

EDITOR: I have no vested interest one way or another with regard to the approval of marijuana dispensaries. Since a clear majority of citizens voted for approval, and given the legality of tobacco and alcohol, it seems hypocritical for the city to ban marijuana distribution.

I believe the distribution model should be well planned and thought out, and it takes time to do that right. The time frame should not be influenced by Jon Early’s business plans to operate a dispensary in a location he obviously jumped the gun on buying, and is likely now losing money on. That’s his problem.

He made that problem worse by his colossally inept, transparent, and ham-handed threat against one of our council members (“Bullseye Email Raises Alarm at City Hall,” Aug. 7). Regardless of whether he disagrees with the council or not, there is no place for threats of violence against a public official.

Mr. Early was so misinformed that he thought he was sending a private message, but of course any message sent to an elected official is actually public, and I’m grateful for that, because now we know the real motivation behind the local efforts to bring cannabis to Sonoma, and we now know how low the group behind those efforts is willing to go. There’s now a permanent stain on Mr. Early and the entire local cannabis movement, and I hope that the city makes it as difficult as possible for them to achieve their goals.

Martin Laney

Sonoma

Show Comment

Our Network

The Press Democrat
Petaluma Argus Courier
North Bay Business Journal
Sonoma Magazine
Bite Club Eats
La Prensa Sonoma
Emerald Report
Spirited Magazine