Letters to the Editor 8-18-2016

Give council plan a shot
Editor: By far the hottest topic of this election will be the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). However I believe the fundamental issue is not the approval or rejection of some ballot language. The real unspoken yes or no question is this: Do we trust our city leadership to do the right thing?
I remember not long ago the city council chambers were overrun by residents demanding that the council take action about the high prices of housing – prices driven by unrelenting demand and a short if not dwindling supply. “Do something!” was the desperate plea.
After thousands of hours of collective effort spent by city staff, a special housing committee and the community itself, the council decided to propose the biggest “something” it could do – something it knew full well was going to be explosively controversial and potentially a political career killer for its members: replace the GMO with a series of rules overseen mostly by the council.
With the GMO as is – essentially a strict limit of 30 housing units per year, with 15 percent of those dedicated to low-income households – we know we’ll see more of the same: More hotels, maybe a smattering of low-income housing, rising rents and housing prices and almost certainly zero housing for middle-income earners. What happens to the Nu Forest property will be a poignant front-and-center example of that status quo.
Under the proposed GMO replacement provisions, the city will clearly have tremendous power to negotiate with housing developers. But as Spiderman’s Uncle Ben says, with great power comes great responsibility.
Therefore the essential question for a post-GMO world is this: Do we believe that our city leadership will fulfill its responsibility to the community when evaluating housing development proposals? I know the council’s proposal isn’t perfect, but I also understand the complexities of the issues and I feel it is a pretty darn good compromise between profit and people. The executive director of the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County even called the Housing Action Plan component “phenomenal.” But most importantly I believe the status quo is unacceptable.
Our choice is not a simple yes or no on the GMO, but on the fundamental question of whether we trust the leaders whom we vote into power. If we don’t, then it’s time to begin an entirely different conversation. I say let’s give the council’s plan a shot, and give our elected leaders the faith that they deserve.
Joe Naujokas
Healdsburg
No need for signal at bridge
Editor: A big shout-out and kudos to Glenn Grigg. He is right: the future roundabout will be effortless and uncomplicated if the current five-way stop is any indication. The traffic signals were unnecessary to begin with. And the signals at Front Street and Healdsburg Avenue are especially annoying and a waste of time. The four-way stop was efficient and straightforward. Now it’s not uncommon to see several vehicles stopped all the way across the bridge while they wait for only the light to change, not for any traffic. Besides, the prevailing and obtrusive lights are inconsistent with the old-timey restoration of the span.”
Barbara Médaille
Healdsburg
International politics
Editor: It was the second day of our trip to Tanzania and we were on a rainforest walk. Our guide was a Masai warrior, wrapped in a red plaid shuka and armed with an long spear and a dagger. Walking up the trail, he turned to us and said, “You have an election coming up this fall.”
“Yes,” we replied, “A big one.” He responded, “Donald Trump! Are you people out of your minds?”
Phil Luks
Healdsburg
CalPERS stronger than ever
Editor: I would like to respond to the editorial that was published Aug. 11, 2016. It seems to me that little or no research was done prior to the publisher’s rampage against taxation and the public employees retirement system (CalPERS). The CalPERS retirement system is stronger than ever, reporting a preliminary 0.61 percent return on investments for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2016. CalPERS assets stood at $295 billion at end of fiscal year, and now stands at over $302 billion. CalPERS fixed income earned 9.29 percent return, and infrastructure delivered an 8.98 return, outperforming it’s benchmark by 4.02 percent.  
Not bad for a “faltering CalPERS public pension system.”
Public employees are still paid less than their private sector counterparts. That is what they give up in favor of an actual retirement that is livable, something that was available to most workers years ago but has been replaced with 401Ks. The average CalPERS retiree receives $2,627 per month, before taxes. This is after 20 to 30 years at the same job, sometimes without a raise for several years. The average public employee that is covered by CalPERS is also giving up 7 to 9 percent of their monthly wages to pay for that retirement.
It is a slippery slope that you tread on when you deny the very people that protect and serve our society their due pension.
The reason that the cities and counties are not able to provide the services that were available to us in the past is due to the failure of all persons who receive these services paying their fair share of the tax burden (i.e. Exxon Corp., Standard Oil, and many other billion dollar corporations and individuals that feel that it is not their responsibility to pay for the roads and services they use every day).  
Prop 13 makes it possible for many (i.e. elderly) to remain in their home.
I would much rather see a sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) than an assessment on our properties. That way the burden of paying for services is spread to everyone, landowner or not. Those traveling through our beautiful county get to contribute too.
The increase to 12 percent would be in line with Santa Rosa and other cities in Sonoma County. I know that the TOT in Santa Rosa is 9 percent, but they have a Business Improvement Area (BIA) of 3 percent, which equals 12 percent overall.
Angus Loop
Cloverdale