Letters to the Editor 10-2-14

No on Proposition 47
Editor: Local law enforcement leaders oppose Proposition 47.  Although well intended, its consequences will not be as advertised.  The proposition promises to channel funds from prisons to schools and rehabilitative programs by reducing many crimes from felonies to misdemeanor.  However, what we’re not hearing in pro Prop 47 arguments is that many successful programs currently exist for offenders that Prop 47 would negatively impact. In Sonoma County we have an extensive diversion program for drug offenders, and specialized courts to address drug and alcohol addiction.  By reducing these crimes to misdemeanors, the incentive to combat these addictions is replaced by a revolving door at the jail.  Worse yet, date rape drugs will be reduced to misdemeanor crimes.  
The measure presents the potential to cripple California’s fragile, yet recovering economy. By reducing the penalty for commercial burglary to a straight misdemeanor, Prop 47 declares open season on retail businesses, including Mom and Pop operations. Repeat shoplifters will face a slap on the wrist and the theft of a firearm valued at under $950 will be a misdemeanor if Prop 47 succeeds.  Additionally, this misguided measure reduces the available sanction for the theft of crops, livestock, and other agricultural crime. California rises and falls on the strength of our agricultural economy and Prop 47 invites theft targeting our farmers and ranchers.
Also worth noting is the get-out-of-jail free card given to those who commit forgery or write bad checks.  In this time of increased technology and near-constant data breaches, we should not be putting out the welcome mat for those criminals who would cheat, scam, and steal using our stolen identities.
Prosecutors currently have discretion in reviewing police investigations to refer first-time offenders to diversion programs, and charge theft offenses as felonies or misdemeanors based upon the facts of the case and the background of the offender.  Prop. 47 is a cookie cutter approach to what should be a reasoned decision in each case.
The proposition also proposes to resentence those currently incarcerated as well as those who have already served their sentence.  Proponents boast that as many as 10,000 inmates could be released if this measure passes.  The drain on the system to review each case and make an independent determination will be staggering.  Local communities are just coming to terms with the release of some 30,000 prison inmates as well as other impacts from Realignment, which shifted responsibility for low level offenders from state to local resources.
Being smart about fighting crime means finding effective solutions.  This measure misses the mark. The Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association, comprised of Chiefs from all the municipal agencies, Sheriff and DA, oppose this measure. Many Victims Rights groups join us in our opposition to this poorly drafted initiative. Please vote no on Proposition 47.
Patrick Williams, President SCLECA
Steve Freitas, Sheriff
Jill Ravitch, District Attorney
Position on Growth
Editor: Esteemed candidates for Windsor Town Council, Would you please provide us with your position on the possibility of extending the 1997 Windsor Urban Growth Boundary for at least another 10 years in order to focus on development within the current Windsor town boundaries?
James Brooks
Windsor
Support for Gore
Editor: I am supporting James Gore for Sonoma County 4th District Supervisor. I have known James even before he returned to Sonoma County while he worked for USDA in Washington D.C. James is now my neighbor in Healdsburg. I personally encouraged James to seek the position as a supervisor in Sonoma County. James is hard working, a quick study, open minded and above all, smart. We are fortunate to have a person in Sonoma County that is young and brings a wealth of experience that will benefit all of Sonoma County.
He, with his wife Elizabeth, are raising their daughter Opal and newborn son in this county. He has an invested interest in the future of Sonoma County – its infra-structure, environment, economy and education.
I urge you to vote for James Gore and invest in Sonoma County.
Robert Dempel
Healdsburg
Noisy Neighbors
Editor: Anyone out there ever had an issues with neighbors. Noisy, rude, loud, obnoxious maybe? I know folks have guests over to BBQ on occasion, or a party now and again, but a daily blasting of someone else music is trying to say the least. Add to that the yelling, screaming, and barking dogs and you have my life. If I read Windsor ordinances correctly there are specified decibel levels that should be upheld, and also the statement that ‘At no time should a person’s quiet enjoyment of their home be compromised by the willful actions of another’. I have spoken to a council member to ask why it isn’t a requirement for all folks moving into Windsor, renter or owner, to be made aware of these expectations. I am thinking it might give me a firmer footing to address this problem with a neighbor if I knew they were aware of the expectations, with regard to noise especially, before they ever moved in. I know that some folks would believe that no regulation could ever possibly apply to them but, should legal action become necessary, a resident could say that the person knew the noise regulations, but was choosing to ignore them. The police are helpful, and they will come if you ask them to, but ugly neighbors can become uglier (and more passive aggressive) once the authorities are involved. Anyone else dealing with this?
Anne Leston
Windsor
Banner Program
Editor: The Windsor Hometown Heroes Military Banner Program volunteers, are distributing collection cans to our local businesses’ today. We appreciate any contribution. Thank you to the business owners who have allowed us space on their counter. We are proud of our men and women serving our country and love seeing their flags flying high at our Civic Center.
Suzan Lewis
Windsor