- Preserve Railroad Line From Cloverdale To Willits
- Cut Electricity Rates
- Hypocrisy In The Right’s Reaction To Kirk Slaying
- Partisan Rhetoric Turns Up The Heat On Violence
- A Cricket-Friendly Ecosystem Is Healthier For Everyone
- Trump Demands Students’ Grades. So Let’s See His
- Vote No On Prop. 50 To Change Our Congressional Districts
- Remind Networks That First Amendment Matters
- Yes On 50
- Abandoned By The Dems
PRESERVE RAILROAD LINE FROM CLOVERDALE TO WILLITS
Editor:
The hoped for cross-country “Rail Renaissance” described in the Sept. 21 edition of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat could also happen in Sonoma and Mendocino counties if state Sen. Mike McGuire’s Great Redwood Trail would be built next to the tracks from Cloverdale to Willits instead of tearing out the rails as currently planned.
At Willits, the railroad would connect with the Skunk Train, which has been working on adding freight service, as well as passenger service, to Fort Bragg. The tracks from Cloverdale to Willits, unlike the tracks in the Eel River Canyon north of Willits, are on stable ground and easily accessible. It is poor planning — and totally unnecessary — to destroy such a valuable resource for our region and for the health of the planet.
B.B. Kamoroff
Willits
CUT ELECTRICITY RATES
Editor,
The new extension to cap and trade is a critical step in keeping California on top of the energy revolution, but it stumbles in one key area — bringing every Californian along on the decarbonization journey.
The new bill gives money back to ratepayers in the form of a quarterly dividend, in part to offset the increase in PG&E bills from cap and trade. It’s good to give money back to consumers, but this structure fails to incentivize people to use more electricity instead of gas. This partly defeats the purpose of cap and trade.
The California grid has high renewable content, and we should be giving people cash to use it. If the California Public Utilities Commission can turn the quarterly dividend into a simple decrease in electricity rates, this will make the change easier to understand and more clearly help everyone to go electric, save money and reduce emissions.
Suzanne O’Meara
San Francisco
HYPOCRISY IN THE RIGHT’S REACTION TO KIRK SLAYING
Editor:
Right-wing activists seeking to expose anyone making disparaging remarks about the Charlie Kirk killing reminded me of the attack on Rep. Nancy’s Pelosi’s husband in San Francisco in 2022. Kirk called for a “patriot” to bail out David DePape, who attacked Paul Pelosi. Dinesh D’Souza, a right-wing commentator, tweeted that the attack on Pelosi was “fake,” so “ridiculous” he was laughing about it. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene falsely claimed Paul Pelosi knew his attacker. Donald Trump called Nancy Pelosi “crazy” after the attack and asked sarcastically, “How’s her husband doing anyway, anybody know?” to a clapping, laughing Republican crowd in California. Republican Rep. Clay Higgins from Louisiana said that Pelosi’s attacker was “a male nudist hippie prostitute.” Rep. Devin Nunes claimed falsely the attacker was in his underwear. Rep. Claudia Tenney, Elon Musk, and Republican Royce White of Minnesota said Paul Pelosi was having a gay affair. The right-wing media crowd’s cries for revenge are hideously hypocritical.
Pam Walton
Santa Rosa
PARTISAN RHETORIC TURNS UP THE HEAT ON VIOLENCE
Editor:
We all remember Donald Trump’s reaction when a bullet nicked his ear. He raised his fist, and yelled, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” The implication was that Democrats tried to kill him. Therefore, all Democrats are guilty by association, and MAGA should get even. He has used that incident as a rallying cry ever since, even though the person was a registered Republican and left no indication that he was part of any organization trying to kill Trump.
When Charlie Kirk was assassinated by some nut in Utah, Jesse Waters, on Fox News, growled, “They’re at war with us!” Before the suspect was caught, and while nothing was known about them, Waters implied to his followers that Democrats were guilty by association. The president’s reaction was to blame Democrats and suggest they should be investigated. Some in Congress declared all Democrats are terrorists. Free speech be damned.
Real leaders might want to lower the temperature of public discourse at a time like this, but we don’t have one. Utah is a Trump-friendly state. He hasn’t threatened to send troops to bring law and order there, but imagine if Kirk had been assassinated in California.
D.C. Galloway
Sebastopol
A CRICKET-FRIENDLY ECOSYSTEM IS HEALTHIER FOR EVERYONE
Editor:
On evening walks in Santa Rosa, I can make eerily accurate predictions. Houses with large expanses of lawn will sit in silence. Yards with more diverse plantings, however, rock with cricket song. I am not a biologist, but apparently crickets are one indicator species for the health of an ecosystem. They act as decomposers, eat smaller insects, such as aphids, and serve as dinner for larger insects, birds and some mammals. A lack of crickets can signal that an ecosystem is in distress.
My guess is that lawns, being monocrops without nutritional value to insects, don’t appeal to crickets. The chemicals often used on them are likewise bad news for expressive Grylloidea and for other species, including humans. Evidence is clear that lawns have virtually no ecological benefits but do considerable harm by wasting water, destroying soil vitality and displacing native plants that feed insects we urgently need for a healthy planet.
Lawns are ecologically expensive — must crickets pay the price? As habitat destruction, climate change, pesticide use and other factors decimate insect populations, maybe more people should explore Santa Rosa Water’s generous “Cash for Grass” rebates.
Leah Halper
Santa Rosa
TRUMP DEMANDS STUDENTS’ GRADES. SO LET’S SEE HIS
Editor:
The White House just ordered colleges to hand over data about grades and test scores that includes race and gender concerning their students. And it wants to see merit aid data as well. This from the same president whose own college grades are kept under lock and key. All the colleges should get together and tell Trump: “In the spirit of transparency, you release your grades, and we will consider releasing the information requested.”
Carl Merner
Holualoa, Hawaii
VOTE NO ON PROP. 50 TO CHANGE OUR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
I strongly disagree with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 on the ballot in the November special election. It seems to me that Newsom wishes to gerrymander more Republicans out of office by “temporarily suspending” the voter-passed provisions in the California Constitution on redistricting.
The process of quickly passing this proposal through the Legislature may have been ruled legal, but I still think Democrats used tricks. I don’t think this is adequate notice to the voters.
I oppose Proposition 50 because it will likely give districts to the Democrats. According to the secretary of state, they only have about 45% of the registered voters, yet already have 43 of 52, or 83% of California representatives in the House. Based on registered voters, I think it’s already too many Democrats. I think California’s current disparity occurred because a significant number of state residents are “no party preference” voters.
If Newsom’s plan comes to fruition, the majority of California Democrats in the House of Representatives could increase to 92%. This is clear partisan gerrymandering incongruous with the current independent commission created to adjust the districts every 10 years, per the expressed will of the voters.
Like many others, I also have doubts that the gerrymandering will be “temporary” if it gives the Democrats an even greater number of Congress members.
Peter H. Behr Jr.
San Anselmo
REMIND NETWORKS THAT FIRST AMENDMENT MATTERS
Editor:
I’m old enough to remember network news as the purveyor of truth. I remember clinging to every word from Walter Cronkite after John F. Kennedy was shot, never suspecting his report would be slanted. What a change the networks have made, clearly driven by a Federal Communications Commission chairman who has no authority to censor anybody.
Shame on ABC, and for that matter, CBS, for lacking the courage to stand behind entertainers who speak their own truth. I have visited Cuba and was invited into the back room of a restaurant to hear the whispered truth about the government. There was obvious peril to the speaker in sharing information with Americans. Are we now standing on a precipice, ready to fall into a news vacuum or one where only censored news is allowed? I hope those of us who share my concerns will ensure that our networks are aware of our feelings: the First Amendment matters, and speaking truth to power is our right as American citizens.
Jan Gilman
Santa Rosa
YES ON 50
Dear Editor,
I support California’s redistricting efforts because of one central truth. Democracy is not weaken when the people are given the power to choose, Texas’s mid-decade gerrymandering strips voters of their voice. California’s proposal does the opposite. It hands the voice to the voters. That is not an erosion of rights. It is their fullest expression.
The measure before California voters is temporary, with a sunset, leaving the commission intact for 2030 and beyond. The people decide- not a president acting like a king.
When one state rigs the board, the nation feels it. Silence is not an option. Vote
Yes on Prop 50.
Val Muchowski
Philo
ABANDONED BY THE DEMS
Editor-
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a Democrat. I was young, and I cared deeply about people and the world around me. I saw the Democratic Party as the one that stood up for the underdog — minorities, low-income families, women, children, and the environment.
I’ve always known that programs like food stamps and subsidized housing have been misused by some. But I believed — and still do — that we shouldn’t dismantle programs that serve a vital purpose just because of a few bad actors. Eliminating these resources only punishes the children and families who truly need them.
I admired powerful women who broke barriers, most of whom were Democrats — women fighting for gender equality and civil rights. And as I’ve gotten older, those core values remain important to me. But I now see things with more perspective.
In my younger years, I was idealistic. I didn’t have children. I didn’t understand how complex economics, government spending, interest rates, and inflation really are. Now, as a woman, a mother, a wife, and a working professional, I’ve grown — and I’ve watched the Democratic Party change, too.
They still claim to fight for the underdog, but in practice, that no longer seems true. I live in Mendocino County, one of the most impoverished counties in California. We face high rates of poverty, child abuse, drug addiction, and declining job opportunities. And yet, the very party that claims to care about people continues to push policies that hurt our communities.
Of course, I want a better future for my kids. Of course, I want to protect the environment. But there is no future without water. There is no future without jobs. There is no future without affordable housing — not just for low-income families, but for teachers, police officers, nurses, and others essential to a healthy community.
Yet the Democratic Party supports removing two dams that provide critical water through local reservoirs (Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino) — all in the name of environmental protection. This decision risks creating more water scarcity, displacing farmers, and deepening poverty. Generations of families stand to lose their land and livelihoods.
Why? Why is this being allowed to happen? Why can’t there be a balanced solution — one that respects both environmental conservation and the immediate needs of the people who live here?
Yes, restoring steelhead populations is important. But so is protecting the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people. People must come first. The fish can wait — especially since it’s been over a hundred years, and a new ecosystem has already been established in Lake Pillsbury that would be destroyed by dam removal. A fish ladder could be built instead, providing a compromise that supports both ecological and human needs.
Instead of creating more water scarcity, driving down home values due to lack of water, and pushing more families toward homelessness, maybe the Democratic Party should reconsider its priorities — and put blue-collar working people first. Maybe they’ll recognize that what’s happening here is simply wrong.
But I’ve lost hope.
I’ve followed the Potter Valley Project and the proposed dam removals closely. The current plan for pumping water to Lake Mendocino is, at best, haphazard. Even in wet years, projections show the lake will run dry six out of every ten years. That is not a solution.
At this point, federal intervention — through eminent domain — is the only real option left. I can only hope that Secretary Rollins, Secretary Burgum, and President Trump step in and fight for our water, because the Democrats clearly will not.
They have made their choice: they care more about fish than about people. They have abandoned the people of California.
In the last couple of years, I have re-registered as a Republican. I feel abandoned by the Democratic Party. They no longer care about the working-class people who simply want a stable, decent life — and who work hard for what little they have.
Kahli Johnson
Redwood Valley
Be First to Comment