Letters to the Editor 10-8-15

Same rules
EDITOR: In his letter entitled “Go Solar?” (SWT&N Sept 17), Jack V. Jones states that it’s time to let the solar industry survive on its own merits unaided by subsidies. If all are to play by the same rules, let’s start by eliminating the estimated $10 to over $50 billion of direct annual U.S. government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
Woody Hastings
Sebastopol
Who’s the victim?
EDITOR Regarding the Sept. 24 letter from Joseph Baxter of Santa Rosa, “Misstatements,” Mr. Baxter is doing a huge disservice to the disability minority in this country, and to Mr. Skaff.  His letter is full of inaccuracies regarding the large body of law, Federal and state, that protect people with disabilities from discrimination.  He tries to portray businesses as the victims of those who ask that their civil rights laws be enforced.  The reality is that these businesses have been discriminating against people with disabilities for decades, and when finally asked to stop, begin blaming the real victims – their customers with disabilities.  
California passed legislation in 1969 requiring public accommodations to be built in compliance with building standards providing access for persons with disabilities.  In 1972, state laws went into effect requiring buildings, when remodeled, to be accessible.  California civil codes were amended at the same to make it a violation of law to discriminate against people with disabilities.  CA Civil Code 55 is entitled The Disabled Persons Act.
That means that California laws requiring accessibility to businesses have been on the books for 46 years, nearly half a century.  The Federal law requiring businesses to provide access for people with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is 25 years old.
Contrary to what Mr. Baxter wrote, the ADA requires, like the earlier California laws, that businesses, when constructing new buildings or remodeling, make their facilities accessible to everyone.  The ADA goes one step further, however, and requires businesses to remove their architectural barriers when it is readily achievable to do so and defines that as easily accomplished and not requiring ˛much difficulty or expense (28 C.F.R. 36.304(a).  (Not reasonably achievable, as stated by Mr. Baxter. “Reasonable” is a subjective determination.
In order to ensure that small businesses have the means to remove barriers, the Federal government provides a tax credit of $15,000 per year for barrier removal.  This is a credit, not just a deduction.  (See IRS Publications 535 and 334 and Form 8826.)
The Rio Nido Roadhouse has had decades to remove its architectural barriers, with financial assistance from the IRS.  Yet, apparently, according to Mr. Baxter, they have chosen to play victim rather than to stop their discrimination against people with disabilities.  
As a fellow advocate, I have worked with Mr. Skaff at the state level for decades to achieve better access building codes and compliance, and I know him for his integrity and hard work for the disability community.  I have taken the opportunity many times, as did Mr. Skaff, to tell owners and managers at various businesses about their architectural barriers and to let them know about the tax credit.  
However, the Rio Nido Roadhouse owner’s persecution of Mr. Skaff gives me pause as to whether I should extend that courtesy again, as it might result in my being taken to court, also. That means I can just let the discrimination continue, as most people with disabilities do because of their fears of the kind of retaliation Mr. Skaff is experiencing from the Roadhouse.  Or, I can contact an attorney and ask for representation in court to stop the discrimination against me and other people with disabilities once and for all.  After half a century, isn’t it time for businesses to stop their abuse of people with disabilities?
HolLynn D’Lil
Graton
Concerns
EDITOR: I’m concerned that Tony Landucci’s recent article about the proposed Local Coastal Plan revision does not accurately reflect the concerns of West County residents and that your readers may be unintentionally misled.
First, the public “workshops” about the LCP were not advertized, so that only the last meeting was sufficiently publicized to produce a significant citizen turn-out. That process in itself created an atmosphere of distrust in the PRMD process of LCP revision.
Second, “Appendix E” contained language that was not known in detail to voters prior to its tacked-on inclusion in the LCP.  Specifically, it allows liberalization of development within the coastal zone as long as that development serves to “promote” Sonoma County agricultural products. Sayingthat the language was “always there”, Sandi Potter implies that it was accepted by the Coastal Commission, which in fact never approved it.  This is a case of “grandfathering in” loophole language obviously crafted for future development.
To get a clear view of the threat at hand, see geologist Dr. Jane Nielsen’s scientific response to the revised LCP on the SWIG (Sebastopol Water Information Group) web site. I find Ms. Potter’s response to our concerns inappropriately patronizing. Those of us who see the trend are not being unnecessarily alarmist.
Third, once language is in place, it’s MUCH more difficult to contest, no matter how much public dissent is expressed. Given the momentum of population pressure, proximity to a large urban area, the movement of wealth into our county–some of it from foreign investors– and the presence of huge construction and winery industry influences on the Board of Supervisors, it’s no wonder that some people are a little worried about the future of coastal land and water.
Lastly, take a look at the Fort Ross Winery precedent, in which only a tasting room was initially permitted and an unpermitted vineyard was later planted on the same property. On its website, the winery advertizes that it is the “closest winery to the ocean” in the “Seaview” appellation. This kind of planning does not instill confidence in due process.
I invite corrections if anything I’ve written here is in error.
We love our wine and we love our coast. Please help us keep them separate.Thank you.
Laura Morgan, MD
Sebastopol