Letters to the Editor 9-12-13

Protected land
Editor: I was very surprised and disappointed when reading the Tribune article (“Exploring Wild Places…” 8/29/2013) on hiking the Jenner Headlands. Nowhere did the reporter note that the Sonoma Land Trust worked for more than five years to buy those 5,000 beautiful acres to protect them from residential development. The Trust raised $36 million to accomplish that and now is carefully preserving it for everyone’s enjoyment.
The article cited the Estero Americano but there too it failed to report that the Estero is protected from private development by the Sonoma Land Trust which bought and owns that coastal site.
Those two properties are part of the 32,000 scenic acres the Trust has preserved in Sonoma County for all of us. It deserved to be credited for its good work in the public’s interest.
Dick and Mary Hafner
Healdsburg
Critical debate
Editor: I too, like Marie Justin (Sept 5 letter, Defending Gary), just love “the back and forth” in the Tribune’s  Letters to the Editor; I just wish there were more each week. And I do love a vigorous, critical debate. So, to see fully three letters criticizing me, well, I was in heaven.
But darn it folks, you have to actually study the position expressed in a letter and respond carefully to the points, not gratuitously set up a straw man, attribute things that were not said, and then go off into the wild blue yonder.
Ms Justin somehow twisted what I wrote into “Gary is a disgrace,” and Mr Amato, as expected, took a page from the attack book of his idol Newt Gingrich, calling my letter “vicious.” (Maybe Mr Amato and I should both agree to forego adjectives.) Let me repeat: I respect Gary Plass and his dedication as a councilperson, and my letter suggested nothing else; I differ with him; I do not denigrate him.
Finally, none of the three writers really responded to what I actually said about the Constitutional duty that councilpersons swear to: “clear, commonly-accepted, and court-adjudicated principles of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights as they apply to the local jurisdiction.” Certainly not Mr. Amato, who instead wondered about expounding Healdsburg’s non-existent mission statement. I repeat, if Healdsburg councilpersons swear to defend the Constitution, what does that mean in the context of this city? That could be an interesting discussion, and I look forward to it.
Dave Henderson
Healdsburg
Hotel growth
Editor: Once again Mr. Warren Watkins and his “Citizens for Sustainable Solutions” are in the headlines with their opposition to future hotels in Healdsburg and they are also pushing for an additional limited growth initiative. I fully support Mr. Watkins’ right to voice his opinion but I also think that his opinions need to be put in perspective. I believe that the “sustainable solutions” group is a small but vocal faction of Healdsburg residents, and I don’t think that they fully or faithfully represent the overarching views of the greater Healdsburg community.  
Healdsburg is fortunate to be a tourist destination site. Healdsburg’s quiet and old world ambiance coupled with a quality wine industry makes it unique.  Although tourist activity can be a challenge, they do support high quality restaurants that are the envy of much large cities and their hotel/B&B Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) underwrites Healdsburg activities such as concerts in the Plaza Tuesday nights and many of the local art activities.  Certainly, parking around the Plaza is difficult on weekends, but an additional hotel in the Plaza area would probably reduce this congestion as the tourists could walk to the local destinations and only use their cars to visit outlying destinations.  Further, I believe that the Planning Commission and the City Council have been good stewards for the growth of Healdsburg and I trust they will continue to faithfully represent the view of the larger Healdsburg community.  
As a final note, I would like to offer my concern that the height of structures in Healdsburg should be limited to no more than three stories. As you can see, we all have a point of view.
Vernon Simmons
Healdsburg
Commending Plass
Editor: Unlike the letters criticizing councilman Gary Plass I would like to commend him for understanding that issues like an assault weapons ban are national issues and not local city council items. I would like to commend the Windsor town council for realizing this as well and choosing not to involve themselves in the debate.
As to state legislation SB-53 judging from the questions asked among council members I am not sure all council members understood the scope of the legislation, but voted to indorse it as well. If the council is going to use your pulpit to involve yourselves in national or state legislation at least take the time to understand them.
I understand that “assault weapons” are an emotional issue but there are many issues before the city council of far more importance to me as a resident. Yes, I would like the council members to ensure that the water stays on; electricity works, toilets flush, and potholes are filled.
I have read of plans to build two new hotels in town. With limited public transportation the majority of guests for those hotels will drive here. Those cars will need parking, something that is already at a premium in the downtown area. As council members you will have say in the future development of Healdsburg. Will the fees and revenue they generate offset any negatives from additional development? Will too many hotels and tasting rooms ruin the charm that is Healdsburg?
As a long-term resident of Healdsburg those are the issues that I expect council members to study and debate. Because a wrong decision here will not be as easy to remedy as the Foss Creek circle debacle, where you can simply reverse direction and go back to the way it was.
Ron Arata
Healdsburg
Out of scale
Editor: Whereas our lovely little downtown might benefit from another small inn, a five-story Marriott does not fall into this category. Such a bulky behemoth is out of scale with the area, and it would cast a long shadow over Center Street, especially in the winter afternoons when the sun is low.  Perhaps such a enormous endeavor would be more adequately served near the off-ramp near Best Western and Travelodge.
Barbara Médaille
Healdsburg
Community paper
Editor: Thank you, publisher Rollie Atkinson and editor Kerrie Lindecker, for the Healdsburg Tribune! This year marks my 25th year of living in the ‘burg, and I don’t think I’ve missed an issue in all those years. The reason is that what I want to read in a local newspaper is in the pages of the Trib. Stories about our town: a friend’s son who made Eagle Scout, the new play by the Raven Players, a cogent editorial on the laborers who don’t get Labor Day off, who’s helping to clean up the Russian River, who’s running for City Council, where are we with the downtown beautification project, what happened here on this date 100 years ago, what’s in season at the Farmer’s Market, to say nothing of who’s venting in the letters to the editor. It’s all there, and I thank you for your clarity about what a small town newspaper should do — foster the conversations that help us to be a better community.
Jane St. Claire
Healdsburg
Personal opinion
Editor: Implicit in the letters defending councilmember Plass’s vote on assault weapons is the charge that other council members have expressed their personal opinion rather that sticking to council business. The contrast between personal opinion and council business is faulty. For example, when they vote on road repair, downtown beautification etc. (council business) they are voting their opinion. What we hope is that their opinion has been researched, alternatives considered, benefit weighed, etc. And this of course is the same hope we have on their vote on assault weapons.  
On the charge that some don’t agree with their stand on assault weapons, the same could be said about their stand on downtown beautification, road repair and the like. I don’t expect all their votes to correspond with my wishes. What I do hope is that their vote be based on what they believe is the overall best interest of the community. Leadership as quoted by Mr. Amato in the Pullman, Washington mission statement sometimes requires a less than entirely popular stand by the leaders. (Aside: having been a Pullman resident many years ago there was a gap between practice and mission.)
As to the question of what is local and what is not, the violent use of assault weapons is ultimately a local concern. While true that restrictive legislation must occur at a different level, our representatives at that level need to hear what the constituents believe about such issues. The council vote is part of that picture.
What would be nice to know is what Mr. Plass’s stand is on the actual weapon question. I would have much more respect for his vote, if he were to say, “I am opposed to the proposed restriction” (if that is indeed his position). “So I vote against the resolution.” That is where the debate should be, not what is and what is not proper for the council to consider.  
Ted Crowell
Healdsburg