- Pontius Palace
- Murdering To Get Hamas
- Struggling To Survive
- Freedom Isn’t Antisemitic
- Loss Of Scott Dam
- Have A Glass Of Glyphosate
- Lying About Prop 13
- Listen To Butker
- Fixing Social Security
- Stop The Orange Beast
PONTIUS PALACE
Dear Ukiah City Council Members;
I can understand that the Council is sick of the Palace Hotel and the saga of its long decay and that the Council might just wish that the whole thing would just go away. I can understand that the Council might not want to spend any money on it and that you might welcome the chance to see it torn down using taxpayer money.
I am sure that the vision of something, anything, bright and shining and new standing there is captivating, and might be almost within reach just now, and I can see how the Council might be grasping for that straw.
But — standing here in Boonville with a more than 50 year history including lunch in the Black Bart Room and dinner at Pat Kuleto’s iteration of the place — I am asking you City Council people to step back and take another look at this thing. I am also asking that you facilitate a community discussion of the matter. You have shut down conversation about the Palace because, “it is not on the agenda.” Well, for crying out loud, why not put such a conversation on the agenda? I think that there is support in the community for that. I should think that you would want to do that so that you could hear all suggestions before making a decision about anything. It looks to me like you may be ready to accept a proposal without giving any other proposal even a hearing or even sharing whatever proposal you have received with the public.
Some of you are telling me that you have no control because the Palace is private property — but in fact you exercise some degree of control over all private property within the City. You can Issue or refuse to issue permits for construction or demolition and for water, sewer and electrical. You can ask for changes in the terms of proposals, with your approval contingent. You have special powers where health and public safety are concerned, including taking a property intro receivership- a power that you have used in the case of the Palace. You can condemn properties and you can make demands of the owners and then do nothing when those demands are not met. You are allowing restaurants to take over parts of public streets. Please do not try to tell me that the future of the Palace is out of your hands, even if you wish fervently that it was. I think that you have complete control…
Tom McFadden
Boonville
PS. WHAT’S NEXT?
Editor,
I think that the City is way out in left field in issuing a permit to demolish the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is Private Property. The City declared an emergency relative to health and safety issues seven, yes 7, months ago – November 2023 – and they did nothing these last seven months. They had required an engineering report on the building from the owner, but then decided that they did not want that after all. You may have seen the scaffolding – the City did not require or install it – that was done by the owner (according to Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager.) The City declared an emergency in relation to public health and safety, but the City waited and waited and did nothing – apparently they did not think it an emergency after all.
The declaration of an emergency did have one rather large effect; If public health and safety are at risk, and the City makes such a declaration , then the building, even though it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, even if it is Private Property, can be torn down with no further recourse from anyone. Looks like the fix is in folks…but wait.
Does it not seem that the total inaction by the City, for seven months and counting, to require any action at all relative to their “public health and safety” declaration, including abandoning their ask for an engineering report, say something about their declaration? Does the inaction not mean that they are not really serious about the danger to “public health and safety?” The Palace is Private Property, after all, and the City has said, over and over again, that they have no control over Private Property, yet they have set this thing up so that the Palace can be torn down with no recourse, no CEQA, no environmental impact statement, no nothing. The Palace IS Private Property.
This seems really scary to me – If the City, with a simple, perhaps erroneous, declaration can bring about the destruction of a building belonging to a private citizen with no recourse, no outside engineering reports, with nothing more than the stroke of a pen, then I think that we should all very afraid. What will they come for next? What if the City Manager should decide that he does not like gun shops? Or dispensaries? Or your house? Too bad pal – health and safety rule…
Tom McFadden
Boonville
MURDERING TO GET HAMAS
Editor:
Another letter equating protesting against what’s happening in Gaza to support for Hamas. Objecting to the decimation of entire cities to get Hamas is not support for Hamas, it is sanity. If you have to displace two million people and destroy their homes and livelihoods to get Hamas, you are no longer holding the moral high ground. In addition, for every Hamas fighter you kill you have probably minted at least five young angry replacements — and the insanity is perpetuated.
Jack Burger
Cazadero
STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE
Editor:
At what point does our government expect the average American worker to be able to afford to survive in today’s society? The one that keeps rising in inflation. In the American economy, it is getting extremely hard to sustain an affordable lifestyle. Today, a 40-hour workweek no longer sustains the rising cost of consumer goods or the price of gas. The cost of gas rises and changes daily. Grocery prices climb higher every week. Insurance companies are charging their customers premiums that many cannot afford. Anyone living on the new minimum wage will definitely struggle to keep their head above water. I’ve met people who have three to five different jobs just to make ends meet. Companies need to pay workers what they’re worth in order to survive in today’s society.
N.M. Sartain
Ukiah
FREEDOM ISN’T ANTISEMITIC
Editor:
Amy B. Jolly’s letter in yesterday’s Press Democrat certainly exhibits her good instincts. She says she admires the students who stood up for Palestinian human rights at their Sonoma State University encampment. But she goes on to quote half of a slogan she says is antisemitic. The full slogan is “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. She attributes this slogan to “Palestinian terrorists who call for the end of Israel.”
However, there is nothing in this slogan that implies the end of anything, other than the end of Israel having power over Palestinians. Because freedom means everybody has equal power in a country that was known as Palestine.
Perhaps it is the name “Palestine” she believes is antisemitic, meaning anti-Jewish. As an observant Jew, brought up by my Jewish parents to believe in equality for all, I find the message to be Jewish-positive.
I will, however, grant Jolly that it is anti-Zionist. Here’s what Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party’s 1977 manifesto said, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” So freedom for all would mean sharing power, which would be a threat to Israel’s absolute power.
Lois Pearlman
Guerneville
LOSS OF SCOTT DAM
Editor:
There is an intricate viaduct system that provides water in Lake County. It provides necessary water to residents and property owners to keep the area green and hardy. The planned removal of Scott Dam is, I believe, a direct attempt to avoid necessary upgrades and efficiencies to a project that has been long overlooked for maintenance and repair. PG&E should be held responsible for its upkeep and restoration of services. It is a vital resource for fire prevention. Without it, a fire would prove to be devastating for an entire community and adjacent outlying area. This would be irreversible. Another attempt by PG&E to shirk responsibility for lack of required maintenance. Shame on PG&E.
Tina Turner
Kelseyville
HAVE A GLASS OF GLYPHOSATE
Editor:
In a May 12 Forum commentary in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Karissa Kruse of Sonoma County Winegrowers suggested that the massive use of the pesticide glyphosate, or Roundup, by many growers is a “sustainable” practice. In 2022, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation reported that 56,847 pounds of glyphosate were applied overall in Sonoma County, with 40,691 pounds used exclusively in the region’s 60,000 acres of wine grape vineyards. The World Health Organization has cited “strong evidence” that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” It is ludicrous to market the industry as sustainable given this practice.
While some winegrowers run stellar sustainable operations, as a whole the wine industry is engaged in serious greenwashing, not so different from fossil fuel companies. Hypocrisy abounds. Kruse’s commentary suggests that there is 60% less use of glyphosate. What is not mentioned is that this reduction is because glyphosate is being replaced by another product, glufosinate — which is chemically similar and much less tested, with some preliminary observations that it could be linked to seizures.
Another example of big industry swapping one bad chemical for another — not a sustainable practice. The wine industry can do better.
Kimberlee Keller
Sebastopol
LYING ABOUT PROP 13
Editor,
The notion that Proposition 13 was intended to benefit low income people or that it originated on the political left is a blatant distortion of history.
Prop 13 was a rightwing campaign waged by Howard Jarvis and his wealthy, predominantly white supporters. They deceived low income and elderly homeowners into voting for a measure that ultimately serves the interests of big corporations and affluent commercial property owners.
This was never an effort by the political left: Prop 13 was always a rightwing extremist scheme.
Prop 13 has handed huge tax breaks to wealthy corporations while unfairly dumping the tax burden on new homeowners and starving our schools and essential public services of critical funding. Prop 13 is already a third rail in California politics. Misrepresenting the origins of Prop 13 does a disservice to citizens and hinders meaningful dialogue about reform.
We need honest, unflinching reporting that captures the full complexities of Prop 13's harmful legacy, rather than sanitized articles that absolves those who orchestrated this fiscal disaster.
Tran Nguyen
Berkeley
LISTEN TO BUTKER
Editor,
The denigrating of Kansas City Chiefs placekicker Harrison Butker for his commencement address at Benedictine College is off base. He was sending a message that needs to be heard.
Society currently emphasizes career achievement as the supreme goal in life for women. However, more women should look forward to marriage and raising a family so that society will continue to flourish. The birth rates in the U.S. and other countries are low, which will destabilize societies worldwide.
Enrollment in Bay Area schools is declining and ultimately will result in school closures.
Families need a man in the house to not only provide food and house the children but to instill proper discipline and guidance before they are launched into the world.
We need to look ahead and see the downside of the current narrative about the role of men and women in society.
Glen Jones
Fort Bragg
FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY
Editor:
“Social Security isn’t broke, but it’s badly broken,” columnist Michelle Singletary wrote. I think Singletary’s suggestions are fine for the working class stiff, but let’s also encourage readers to write their congressional representatives and ask why people earning over $160,200 a year don’t have to contribute the same as those earning less.
I think Social Security should be a truly equal opportunity: allow immigrants the status to immediately start paying into the program when they start working, and allow that 20% of fortunate wage-earners in the country to pay a full portion on their income instead of favoring them. Or maybe just roll back the 1983 Social Security reform that granted special status to high wage earners.
Susan Pareto
Petaluma
STOP THE ORANGE BEAST
Editor:
As a U.S. Army volunteer in November 1952, I raised my right hand and took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. The war in Korea was raging. To my knowledge, every young man in my high school graduating class stepped up and did his part. Only one of us was killed in action. I cannot imagine that any one of us thought we would live to see an American president refer to us as “suckers” and “losers.”
That same president is trying to regain the White House in the upcoming election. For the life of me, I cannot understand how any person currently serving or who has previously served in the military can support this man. He has made it abundantly clear that if he wins, he will destroy our current form of government and use the military as his personal revenge force.
All patriotic voters this time around with a past or current connection with the military, and their families, need to stand as one and send this draft-dodger back to Mar-a-Lago, permanently. If he succeeds in regaining the presidency, the America we know and love will no longer exist.
Jim Coleman
Santa Rosa
Be First to Comment