May Letters to the Editor

Anti-Vaccine Letters

Dear Editor,

I am confused by the comments in the letter in the April issue ‘Continued vaccine conversations’ about more than one science, but what is more troubling is that these letters continue to be published in your magazine. The author of that letter is obviously confused about ‘science’ without any understanding of science, or what is worse, attempting to influence your readers that have even less understanding.

I think that publishing letters supporting the goal of vaccinating enough of the population to achieve herd immunity would be worthwhile of your magazine, rather than letters that continue to challenge or to defeat that goal.

Larry Resnick,

Rohnert Park

Ranches need water

Dear Editor,

Please take this into account when we have no more water and I as a dairy producer and the surrounding area have already had to haul water in at our cost for animals to produce milk to help feed the world. We are struggling to much as it its without having cannabis take from our area.

In the Press Democrat 4/4 “Bracing for Water cuts,” Supervisor Hopkins said, “In my opinion, if it’s not something you’re going to eat, maybe you shouldn’t be watering it. I know people are really passionate about their landscaping, but when you think about reduced water supply, that’s obviously the low-hanging fruit.” The low hanging fruit is to NOT plant cannabis, a plant that consumes six times more water per crop than grapes according to Napa County 9111 report published last year. The planning department and our supervisors are pushing a new draft ordinance that will open up 65,000 acres of our ag land and open space to cannabis. And the county has done nothing to study the cumulative impact of all that cannabis sucking up our ground water resources. Who’s influencing this damaging policy when we are in severe drought?

Are you worried about where your next food supply is coming from?

Deborah Moreda

Petaluma CA

More Inclusivity Please!

I was quite surprised to see that the Spiritual Directory published in April’s issue did not include any Islamic Centers. There are multiple in Sonoma County. I know inclusivity has been a focus area for the Gazette and I’d love to see that in the Spiritual Directory as well.

Thanks,

Yousif

The Long View

This year our county is, once again, heading into drought. We need to take a longer view when making choices that impact our collective resources.

This is why I am disappointed in our county’s new cannabis ordinance, which goes for a one-size-fits-all, let’s-make-it-easier approach. In fact, the revision does not make it easy for anyone. Growers’ needs are not adequately addressed. Residents seeking setback buffer zones of 1000 feet from their homes find their needs are not considered.

The main argument encouraging cannabis production is economic. We do need a strong local economy. But, what do we want that local economy to look like, and what types of agriculture can we rely on to support us? Our food shed bonds our county. What will happen to cropland values if they are based the current 1.1 million dollars an acre that cannabis yields?

Perhaps it is time to do things in a new way, rather than allowing one type of agriculture to proliferate because it is profitable now.

Maybe we didn’t need to flood the market with vineyards, and maybe we don’t need to do it now, with cannabis. We can’t afford a million gallons of water an acre for thirsty cannabis during a prolonged drought.

Let’s encourage our local government to do more intelligent planning around this important land use issue.

Let’s ensure EVERYONE’S resilient future in Sonoma County!

Carbon Farmer/ Artist

Piano Farm

Bloomfield CA

Cannabis Draft Ordinance not as promised

The Cannabis Draft Ordinance is contrary to what the public was told and promised coming out of public hearings from the first amendment back in 2019. Namely, the first amendment was a temporary patch, didn’t cover neighborhood concerns and promised that phase 2 would primarily address neighborhood compatibility issues via an open meeting and outreach process. Supervisor Hopkins stated “The second set of amendments, …will focus on neighborhood compatibility…I remain committed to prioritizing the neighborhood compatibility phase of the cannabis ordinance...” There has been no public outreach over the last 2 years and nothing in the proposed draft increases neighborhood protections. The same parcel size and setbacks remain. This ordinance would allow a business to manufacture a product that requires 24/7 security to be within 100ft of a neighbor’s property. How is allowing a product, any product, that requires around the clock security, ever compatible with a neighborhood of families? The ordinance provides 1000 ft. setback for “sensitive uses” like schools and parks. But when your spouse and children come home only 100ft is provided. Your family counts less at home?

Bill Krawetz

Sebastopol

Workable solution for cannabis in Sonoma County

The solution for workable cannabis ordinance in the County is a re-write, not more flawed revisions. Most cannabis is grown in hoop houses in beds of imported soil - terroir has nothing to do with it.

Find a large enough area that has:

•Separation from neighborhoods and sensitive uses, scenic vistas, wells, schools

•Power

•Security

•Water

•Roads

•Waste disposal access

Buy it and allow growers to rent out parcels.

Growers can have shared facilities for security, storage, processing, shops, Starbucks, whatever.

Neighborhoods don’t have to deal with it, growers don’t have to deal with neighbors. They have their own area where they won’t get complaints, their permitting process can be streamlined, costs reduced and they can share resources with other growers…

And their hoop houses, fences, lights and water and labor intensive 24/7 activities won’t burden our rural neighborhoods, deface our rural character and scenic vistas or impact our $2.1B tourist trade – which is dependent on our rural character.

A very small number of land owners won’t be able to grow on their land under this model. That’s a better outcome than burdening the entire County with commercial / industrial operations sought by less than 0.2% of county residents.

James Bracco

Petaluma

Easily verifiable facts

I’m glad the Gazette is covering such a critical issue as the water crisis in Sonoma County (“Dreading another long drought”, April 2021). It’s certainly of great concern. However, when your analogies and facts are incorrect, it detracts from the salient points you’re trying to convey in the article.

First, Polanski’s film was released in 1974 (“not centered around the 1974 water crisis”) and takes place in 1937 Los Angeles. Second, it’s unlikely the film’s subject matter (a drought in Southern CA) is what led to the construction of the State Water Project (SWP). According to the CA Dept of Water Resources website, numerous studies over many decades covering a myriad of issues (including agricultural needs and devastating floods) were the imperious for construction beginning in 1960. Third, your reference to Ukiah in 1977 “when 48/53 California counties were in a drought emergency” is pertinent; however, CA has 58 counties.

These were easily verifiable facts and could call into question the remainder of the story.

David Kalb

Jenner

Significant impacts of corporate cannabis

Mr Litwin’s article on cannabis shows that he does not appear to understand that many residents who oppose the update to the Ordinance do so, not because we are anti cannabis, or afraid of it , or don’t understand, or just plain old NIMBYs, but because we have read the update and fully understand the impacts that opening up 65,000 acres of cannabis will have on the County. It is absurd to claim, as the County in it’s SMND and as Mr Litwin do, that this would have “less than significant impact” and that the mitigation measures suggested are adequate.

I think we can all agree that the 60.000 acres of grapes in the County has had impacts - some good, some bad - but there are definitely impacts. The massive water use, heavy energy use in hoop houses, tons of plastic that will disintegrate or fill our landfills, ugly security fencing, employee coming and going 24/7, events that will be on narrow roads will all have an impact.

The County and industry are trying to avoid doing the Environmental Impact Report that is required by State law although they claim to want to align with state law.

Claiming to want to align with state law is a major industry talking point, and yet the main goal of this update is in fact the opposite. The State is clear that cannabis is an agricultural product, not a crop, and cultivation is not afforded protection under Right to Farm - this is not “some peculiar state law obscuring the definition of cannabis”, but the recognition that Industrial cannabis cultivation brings problems that other crops do not - unfortunate, but true.

As to hemp, yes it’s an amazing plant, (as is cannabis) has multiple uses, is a different strain of cannabis, and smells the same. However, most hemp does not have the high dollar value that cannabis has, and is grown in places with plenty of space and lower costs like Canada and the big farm states. Only hemp for CBD is comparable, and then we have the same problems as cannabis - high value crop requiring lots of security fencing, buildings, hoop houses, heavy energy and water use, parking, and strong odor 100 ft from a neighbor’s property line.

Many of us opposed hemp, not because we didn’t think it doesn’t have so many marvelous uses, but because we knew there would be the same problems growing it in neighborhoods, as is being done with cannabis. The problem is not the product, but the industrial cultivation of both adjacent to residential ares.

Again, if the industry and County really wanted to align with State law, they would comply with CEQA, not remove the Health and Safety clause and not change the wording of the Right to Farm law.

It is also time to drop the fiction of “family farmers”. While I think most of us sympathize with those in the pipeline who have been patient and whose permit hearings should go forward, no family farmer is paying $20,000 a month to lease space (an actual case.) Our real small farmers cannot pay the typical $10.000 that some landowners are asking to lease space - only corporations and investors can pay these prices, and they pay because they are making huge profits.

Corporate cannabis does not belong in our neighborhoods or dotted all over our scenic vistas.

Bridget Beytagh

Graton

Drought and Cannabis

While county residents mull over the looming water scarcity brought on by two years of drought, our water crisis intensifies with the rollout of commercial cannabis, Napa’s “9111 Report” states cannabis water demand per harvest is 6 times that of grapes. That fact, added to grape taint, overspray, odor and aesthetics, led Napa county to ban commercial cannabis. Why is Sonoma County so intent on fast-tracking permits, in spite of the obvious drawbacks?

Concerned residents are not alone in their worries. National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Native Plant Society have all weighed in with additional standards required to address the impacts of opening 65,000 acres for outdoor and hoop house production with a ministerial permitting scheme. A 3/17/21 CDFW letter states “We recommend that the review should be discretionary not ministerial.” State cannabis law set conditions that each project needs individual environmental analysis and cumulative study, both conditions impossible with ministerial permitting.

Anna Ransome

Graton CA

Thank You!

I read a lot and I am rarely caught up in the topic or the writing. This morning while reading your editorial I was gripped by both. I too, am often amazed by the casual attitude taken by many people over cases of misogyny, sexual assault and harassment. Too many times I have heard demeaning comments about the victims and how she should have known better, showed less skin, drank less. I don’t care what she’s wearing, drinking or how she’s acting, NO ONE gets to rape her. Men have always been free to do anything they please because they are never threatened. They have never had to hold their car keys in a defensive posture. Never had to say “no” more than once. Never had to fear the loss of their job if they didn’t smile. THEY DON’T GET IT!

So, Thank You! It resounded in my heart and it became obvious that you are are never too old or too young to be faced with one of our greatest societal ills; White male privilege. It is the terrifying undercurrent overwhelming our country today. It hold the guns, defrauds voters, kills the black man and rapes the women. It is an illness that has no cure but the united, vociferous voice of outrage.

The beauty of being a woman of a certain age is that I’ve crossed the line into invisibility. I no longer care about popularity or backlash. No one is looking for me which provides the element of surprise. I will continue to speak up when I hear it spoken in my presence and become the person least likely to be invited to the next party.

Keep talking, writing, speaking and yelling it. Be a force to be reckoned with. Use that newspaper in every possible way to ensure that no other sonofabitch gets away with pawing, insulting or demeaning another woman.

Thank you for reminding me of my voice!

Dawn Bell

Monte Rio

Steps toward accountability

The Active 20-30 U.S. & Canada Board of Directors, myself included, were horrified when we became aware of the allegations of serious sexual misconduct by a Active 20-30 member, when the SF Chronicle article was released last week. In the wake of these allegations, the Board is both outraged and saddened. We stand firmly with the victims.

Our top priority is the safety of our members. As the new stewards of this organization, we are committed to providing leadership and direction to prevent abuse from ever happening again. The behavior described is unacceptable and sickening. We are determined to prevent abuses in the future. Any type or manner of abusive conduct is not tolerated in Active 20-30 and if made aware of any abusive or harassing situation we will act swiftly to address it.

We want you to know we took immediate steps when informed of the allegations against Mr. Foppoli. On April 8, 2021 the National Board initiated expulsion procedures to remove Mr. Foppoli from the Active 20-30 U.S. & Canada organization. We immediately began conducting an independent investigation and now are in the process of adopting new policies and procedures, reporting processes, and leadership training to ensure that the safety of our members is our top priority. In addition to the general harassment policy the Board of Directors plans to adopt an added and even more robust sexual harassment policy at our upcoming board meeting next week.

Active 20-30 is a national service organization, made up of men and women in their 20’s and 30’s who have a passion for improving the lives of children in their communities. These emerging leaders serve local kids through hard work and fundraising. Active 20-30 has a rich history of serving and developing leaders in our local communities. In Sonoma County we have six Active 20-30 Clubs: this includes men’s clubs, women’s clubs, and co-ed clubs all of which help raise much needed funds for local children’s nonprofits and take hundreds of children in Sonoma County back–to-school shopping every year.

Out of these horrible allegations, we are working to make our organization stronger, safer and a more supportive community.

The Board of Directors of Active 20-30 encourages any Club member who wishes to reach out to the Board for resources and support to do so. We will be there for you. We stand by our members and anyone else who has been harmed. I am inspired by the courage of the victims who are speaking out at this time.

Questions regarding this matter should be addressed to the National Active 20-30 U.S. & Canada president, Tiffani Montgomery, at tiffanitmontgomery@gmail.com.

Tiffani Montgomery

National President

Active 20-30 U.S. & Canada

Save the Coast!

Since the pandemic began, Permit Sonoma has been holding remote (Zoom) workshops to solicit community input about our Sonoma County Local Coastal Plan. The current plan, which was adopted in 1980, is under revision and the new document will dictate coastal development for the next 20 years.

The workshops have been entirely too remote. They have not been an adequate substitute for direct citizen input. The Zoom set up has not shown who is in attendance, and people making comments or asking questions have not been identified by full name and affiliation.As these workshops went on, the new document with its drafted revisions was not available to read, so it was impossible to comment on it with any specificity.Meaningful community input has also been blocked by the fact that the Zoom meeting schedule has frequently been changed on short notice. Citizens who have calendared a meeting time find it has begun early or been postponed to another evening.

The Local Coastal Plan revision that Permit Sonoma hopes to complete will not satisfy legal requirements if it is not properly reviewed by the public.

Carol Sklenicka, Jenner

Submit a letter to the editor at editor@sonomacountygazette.com.