Housing bond is needed
EDITOR: It is a crying shame that agricultural and business interests are so shortsighted that they oppose the proposed $300 million housing bond, effectively killing it (“County’s plans for housing bond stumble,” Sunday).
The article’s example of a $967 annual tax increase on a $5 million property demonstrates not that the tax is excessive but rather that it would have a de minimis impact on business owners’ pocketbooks.
This county needs affordable housing, and those of us who are fortunate to own land here, both residential and commercial, need to step up to the plate and pay our fair share.
We all benefit from an economically diverse community. The Farm Bureau and the Sonoma County Alliance should rethink their selfish positions and support the proposed bond.
EDITOR: I am honored that the voters of Sonoma County have elected me to be your next Sonoma County sheriff-coroner. I am truly humbled to be entrusted with leading the 650 men and women of the Sheriff’s Office into what I consider to be a bright future for Sonoma County and its 500,000 residents.
I commend my opponents, Ernesto Olivares and John Mutz, for raising important issues about the challenges our community faces now and in the future. I believe we agreed on much more than we disagreed on, and I look forward to working with their supporters if we truly want to keep Sonoma County a special place to live and work.
The support of my family, friends and co-workers has been incredible; their support and encouragement from the very beginning is the reason I ran for office. I’ve been genuinely impressed by the hundreds of people I’ve met over the past year for their willingness to get involved in the democratic process, ask tough questions and work to make their community a better place. I am excited to get to work for the people of Sonoma County.
A functioning democracy?
EDITOR: No doubt many readers were dismayed, as I was, to read that less than one-fourth of California’s registered voters actually voted in the June 5 primary election (“Voter turnout twice that of state average,” Saturday).
This raises a serious issue as to whether the results of that election are valid. Really. The low turnout begs the question as to whether our form of democracy is functioning well. Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment stating that elections aren’t binding or valid if fewer than 75 percent (pick a number) of registered voters actually vote.
Let’s just leave the offices vacant until the citizens of this state decide to participate in selecting candidates and steering the state and local governments.
There is no acceptable excuse for the low turnout. One must conclude that three-quarters of Californians have such a high level of disgust or ignorance, or both, that they have given up on participatory democracy. This is very sad and surely is a frightening situation.
The county’s sewer tax
EDITOR: I read with amusement the story saying the sewer plan is a win for Larkfield residents (“Larkfield sewer plan seen as win for citizens,” June 7). I would say, Larkfield residents, beware.