Sonoma County Conservation Action - Archive of Newsletters

Letters 2005

______________________________________________________
Beyond the Turf Wars: The Search for Common Ground at Railroad Square

North Bay Progressive July 2005

by Sabrina Ross

Floor-area ratio. Mitigation measure. Zoning adjustment board. These are just a few of the terms usually found in conversations about development. These terms and hundreds like them are often enough to make communities throw up their hands when discussing proposed projects in their area with government agencies and developers.

But many are learning a whole new vocabulary when it comes to Railroad Square, a historic neighborhood in downtown Santa Rosa which is currently home to many vibrant local shops, and is planned to house one of the key rail stops for the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) train. As part of a "Transit Oriented Redevelopment Project Area," Railroad Square developments will be eligible to receive significant public dollars in the form of subsidies, tax credits, and a host of other financial incentives.

While the plans for Railroad Square have been hotly contested, many community leaders have now come together to call for a shared set of basic agreements with potential developers. A broad collection of labor, environmental, housing, and interfaith groups are following the lead of communities in California who call for dialogue with developers early in the process in order to avoid late-in-the-game misunderstandings and conflict. According to Martin Bennett chair of New Economy, Working Solutions, "If we can have an open process with meaningful community involvement with these vital and substantially publicly funded developments in downtown Santa Rosa, I think we'll see progress in downtown Santa Rosa."

SMART, owner of 5.5 acres of the area, recently decided to remain the lead development agency, with the City of Santa Rosa playing a key role as well. SMART board members, whose district was formed to promote commuter rail, grew concerned over Santa Rosa's plan to build a food and wine center on the property. The rail officials primary priority for the site is affordable housing, in order to boost potential ridership. SMART plans to select a developer by December, and to begin construction on the site by August of 2006.

The promise of community-friendly development in Railroad Square is leading many advocates and community organizations to put their heads together to work with city planners and developer teams, but this process is not without its challenges. "Some city officials are eager to work with us. Other city officials still have the antiquated idea that development is no one's business but their own," said Ben Boyce, coordinator of Sonoma County's Living Wage Coalition.

SMART is currently drafting its Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P), a document that notifies potential developers of the project and its basic nature. The community advocates delivered their first joint communication to the SMART Board in May, requesting that the RFQ/P include criteria relating to housing, a living wage standard, and appropriate energy conservation measures for the site. Other development RFQ/P's for project around California have included these standards and others, including requirements for targeting job opportunities to local neighborhoods, funds for public art, and space for community childcare centers. Stephen Harper, chair of the Housing Advocacy Group, said, "We'd like the RFQ/P and the ultimate development to fit the needs of our unique community. This is a great opportunity for developers to understand the community aspects of the project from the outset and to secure community support early on."

Efforts in Railroad Square aren't the first to time community advocates in Sonoma County have worked with developers and local government bodies to ensure that the public dollars are put to good use. In 2000 the Petaluma City Council, the Living Wage Coalition and the North Bay Labor Council negotiated an agreement that mandates in return for receiving 2.75 million in public subsidies, the developers of the Petaluma Sheraton Hotel agreed to provide a living wage to all workers and to remain neutral if the workers requested an election for union representation. More recently, in April of this year, the County Board of Supervisors passed a Workforce Housing Ordinance, a progressive policy-level measure that requires new commercial developers to participate in the county's affordable housing program by providing worker housing or mortgage-assistance programs, or by paying an "in lieu" fee that goes into public funds for housing.

Sonoma County groups aren't alone in pursuing early agreements regarding development. A recent study by Good Jobs First, a national non-profit studying economic development accountability, found that at least 43 states, 41 cities, and five counties apply some type of job quality standards-- living wage, healthcare, or full-time employment-- to subsidized economic development. Illinios, for example, recently passed the State Economic Assistance Accountability Act, providing disclosure and clawback requirements for corporations receiving state economic development assistance; the law also requires that assistance information be published on the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity website.

While most local standards have applied living wages to developers receiving public subsidies, many advocates are looking to include transportation, housing, and land use measures in their efforts for accountable development. "Here in Sonoma County, we're looking for location efficiency and affordable housing as factors also," said Denny Rosatti, co-director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, "We're building a smart-growth movement, and we're getting involved early in the process. Development that creates minimum wage jobs and unaffordable housing far from any public transit does not help Sonoma County. Development that is built around transit centers with quality jobs and affordable housing does."

______________________________________________________

Timberland Conversion Compromise in Works
Supervisors won't back ban on switch to vineyards but want new local rules
Monday, October 17, 2005

By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A compromise is in the works on the contentious issue of converting Sonoma County timberland to vineyards, with the current proposal falling between the ban sought by environmentalists and the hands-off stance of property-rights advocates

Supervisors are awaiting a new draft of timberland conversion regulations by the county's Permit and Resource Management Department. They have directed staff to come up with an ordinance that allows conversion of forests to agriculture, but requires a land-use permit before the changes can be made.

"It is not perfect and it is not everything that I hoped for, but it will be the most stringent local ordinance in the state that preserves forests," said west county Supervisor Mike Reilly.

Although he supports a ban, he concedes this compromise may be the best deal environmentalists can get.

Currently, landowner requests for timber-to-agriculture conversions must be approved by the state Department of Forestry. The compromise would add another step, forcing landowners to also go through the county's land-use permitting process.

To gain approval, conversion would have to demonstrate a public benefit and landowners would be required to mitigate by replanting two acres of trees for every one acre cut down.

Officials with the Sierra Club and the Russian River Residents Against Unsafe Logging said they may grudgingly support it, even though it is not the ban they wanted.

"It is a very weak win for us, but doing nothing is worse," said Jay Halcomb, a leader of the Russian River group and a Sierra Club activist. "There is some disappointment because we wanted an outright prohibition."

County administrative officials are working out the details and will submit a draft in mid-November. During a recent, lengthy board session on timberland conversion, supervisors Tim Smith, Valerie Brown and Mike Kerns said they would likely support land-use regulations, but not a ban covering the approximately 230,000 acres of commercial timberland in the county.

On Friday, Supervisor Paul Kelley said he remains opposed to any further regulation of agriculture and timberland and isn't likely to vote for any such compromise.

"This is a solution looking for a problem," Kelley said. "It restricts property rights, it may be a precursor to other regulatory activities and it may open the door to more discretionary government permitting on agriculture."

Farm Bureau executive director Lex McCorvey said he will oppose the compromise instituting land-use permitting because "the state has done a good job of regulating timberland conversions."

"You don't see it happening a lot," he said.

Timberland conversion has been a hot-button issue in the county for several years as environmentalists pushed for local regulations to halt forest cutting and prevent the spread of vineyards.

____________________________________________________

COUNTY TO LOOK AT RULES FOR TIMBERLAND: SUPERVISORS REJECT BAN ON CONVERTING FORESTS TO VINEYARDS

Published on August 24, 2005

BYLINE: KERRY BENEFIELD
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Rejecting calls for an outright moratorium, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday to consider standards for proposals to convert timberland to vineyards.

Taking up an issue that harkens back to the fight in the late 1990s over planting grapes on hillsides, the board heard more than two hours of testimony, much of it from opponents of timberland conversions. The issue is expected to come back to the board in October after county staff draft criteria for conversions. They're likely to include environmental restoration, public benefit and agricultural flexibility.

Without taking a formal vote, the five-member board charted a course between competing calls for an outright ban and taking no action at all.

Proponents of stricter regulations say the county risks losing redwood and Douglas fir forests if it doesn't enact rules.

Opponents of county involvement say timber conversions already are regulated by the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and county rules would add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.

Although the board decided to consider local regulations, Supervisor Valerie Brown called for caution, pointing to court cases elsewhere in the state involving similar issues.

In February, the 6th district Court of Appeal struck down a Santa Cruz County law that would have limited timber harvesting near streams, saying the state has jurisdiction over logging. The case is currently before the state Supreme Court.

"I have a discomfort level with this whole pre-emptive issue,'' Brown said.

The majority of speakers at Tuesday's hearing represented the environmental camp, with many wearing green ribbons affixed to their shirts and jackets.

"There clearly is a role for the county to play in protecting the county's resource,'' said Margaret Pennington, chairwoman of the local chapter of the Sierra Club. "The public wants our Redwood Empire forests to remain forests.''

From 1989 to 2001, the state approved the conversion of 721 acres of timberland, less than 0.5 percent of the county's commercial forests -- largely concentrated in the northwestern parts of the county.

But there are more pending applications for vineyard conversions than in the past 10 years combined, according to David Schiltgen, project planner with the county. Of the conversions larger than three acres since 1989, all but three were for vineyards.

The debate was pushed to the forefront in part by the sale of 19,000 acres of coastal mountains near Annapolis to Premier Pacific Vineyards, a Napa-based vineyard company.

Converting 10 percent of that property to vineyards would allow the company to reinvest profits in the remaining 90 percent -- forests that have been ravaged by logging in the past, said Richard Wollack, co-chief operating officer for Premier Pacific.

"Forest conversions have a place. Most forests cannot heal themselves,'' he said. "If you forever freeze these forests in a state of disrepair, that is illogical on its face.''

You can reach Staff Writer Kerry Benefield at 526-8671 or kbenefield@pressdemocrat.com.

____________________________________________________

RESIDENTS: INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Published on July 27, 2005

BYLINE: PAUL PAYNE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Healdsburg residents Tuesday urged planning commissioners to require more affordable housing in a 258-acre custom home development planned for the hills north of the city.

The owners of Saggio Hills want to build a resort hotel and 48 homes on lots averaging four acres. They have agreed to donate about 35 acres for a park and about 2 1/2 acres for about 50 low-income homes. The proposal has been praised for its light touch on the environment. A previous plan envisioned about 250 homes on much of the same land.

But given a shortage of homes that are affordable to people with low and moderate incomes, some residents said Saggio Hills is ill-conceived. They called on the commission to study alternatives that could add hundreds of units to the low-income housing stock.

"You and I have our homes,'' resident Mike Fairchild said. "How is the next generation going to afford to live here?''

Bruce Abramson, one of Saggio Hills' most outspoken critics, said it would squander the last developable land near the city.
"I think it is a real shame considering the demand for affordable housing,'' Abramson said.

Denver developer Don Beauregard defended the proposal, saying it addresses the city's concerns about preservation while making provisions for affordable homes.

The hotel is expected to generate about $1 million a year for the city in bed taxes.

"I truly believe the plan answers the question of `What's in it for the city?''' Beauregard said.

The planning commissioners are charged with making a recommendation to the City Council on whether Saggio Hills should be approved and whether it should be modified.

The commission is analyzing several options that would expand space for housing into park land as well as a vineyard that was proposed as an agricultural buffer.

Some commissioners said they would consider using some estate housing land for affordable homes and requiring granny units.

"I see this whole development as a trade off from one side to the other,'' Commissioner Jim Wood said.

Wood said the balance of affordable homes in the current plan was inadequate.

A decision was continued to the next meeting in two weeks.

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 521-5250 or ppayne@pressdemocrat.com.

Affordable Housing is an Environmental Issue

Published on April 21, 2005
© 2005- The Press Democrat

EDITOR: The canvass staff of Sonoma County Conservation Action knocked on nearly 70,000 doors last year in Sonoma County. We found that a common issue among our citizenry is the pressing need for affordable housing in the county.

The environmental impacts of our county's housing crisis are clear. The lack of affordable housing near job centers has forced many people who work in Sonoma County to travel long distances for their daily commute, creating traffic, which leads to air and water pollution. Additionally, the construction of traditional subdivisions has led to a limitation on the available land near city centers. The results are urban sprawl, habitat loss, wetlands deterioration, more traffic and loss of scenic beauty.

Our county supervisors are about to vote on a package of housing policies that includes a jobs-housing linkage fee and an inclusionary housing policy. These policies have proven to work in other Bay Area communities, by providing for work force housing and including affordable housing in new developments. The citizens of our county are calling on their supervisors to show leadership next Tuesday by adopting these critical affordable housing policies.

DENNIS ROSATTI
Co-director, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Santa Rosa

____________________________________________________________

SMART LAND USE

Published on March 15, 2005
© 2005- The Press Democrat
EDITOR: Your Sunday editorial about Railroad Square misses the point. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit is concerned about development at rail stops -- the type that will enhance ridership, such as general improvement to surrounding business, affordable housing and parking accessibility. Proper land use at rail stops can make or break a system. Putting in a food and wine center there will attract out-of-towners in their cars for limited times and could kill efforts to help with our transit and downtown housing needs. How about a food and wine center in the downtown Courthouse Square area? Parking and rental space is available.

LEN SWENSON
Santa Rosa

__________________________________________________________

RESTORING THE RAIL

Published on June 23, 2005

EDITOR: More than 70 percent of voters in Marin and Sonoma counties surveyed in 2004 favored restoring passenger rail service between Larkspur and Cloverdale (J. Moore Methods Public Opinion Research). The railroad right-of-way is intact and in public ownership. As gas prices have risen in the past year, rail ridership has increased more than 17 percent in the neighboring Caltrain and Capitol Corridors.

All of these facts point toward the likelihood that passenger trains will again serve Railroad Square. It is prudent for Santa Rosa to be carefully considering the travelers that could be arriving here by train in 2010. The city will benefit greatly if it can develop a more walkable downtown in anticipation of rail service, instead of needing to retrofit later.

Citizens of Sonoma and Marin counties deserve the option of riding a train, instead of concentrating on taillights as they travel.

STEVE BIRDLEBOUGH
Chair, Friends of SMART, Santa Rosa

__________________________________________________________

CORPORATE TAKEOVER

Published on August 11, 2005

EDITOR: It's a sad thing when we have to protect ourselves from powerful corporations, but that's what we're having to do. The GE-Free Sonoma initiative will protect our farmers' property rights from big chemical corporations like Monsanto. Hundreds of farming families whose lands were contaminated with GE crops have been put out of business by Monsanto's aggressive lawsuits. The only way to make sure none of our farmers have their lands seized by dirty and underhanded tactics is to keep all GE crops out of our county.

Protecting our family farmers, our children's health and Sonoma County agriculture - that's what the GE-Free initiative is about. The initiative was written with the help of fishermen, farmers and scientists. Dozens of family farmers, restaurants and other business people support a GE-Free Sonoma County.

Vote yes with me on Nov. 8 for a GE-Free Sonoma.

INDIGO CRONE

Santa Rosa

__________________________________________________________

SCARE TACTICS

Published on August 8, 2005
© 2005- The Press Democrat

EDITOR: The Farm Bureau is up to its old tricks again in its campaign against a GE-Free Sonoma County. Now it's scaring animal lovers and parents, telling them they won't be able to use genetically engineered medicines and vaccines.

It's a vicious lie. Genetically engineered vaccines and other medicines created by GE techniques would still be allowed under the initiative. It is only GE crops, fish and other animals that would be prohibited.

I'm worried that if people believe the Farm Bureau's lies that they will vote against this important measure.

The GE-Free initiative will protect family farmers, our environment and our children's health, while allowing our doctors and farmers the tools to do their jobs. Don't believe the lies. Vote yes for a GE-Fee Sonoma County on Nov. 8.

REBECCA MASSELL
Forestville

__________________________________________________________

BAN 'FRANKENFOOD'

Published on August 10, 2005
© 2005- The Press Democrat

EDITOR: A person has to be reckless to knowingly eat genetically modified food. Join Marin and Mendocino counties, and ban "frankenfood" in Sonoma County. The GMO initiative probably will not affect Sonoma County's grape crop. While a grapevine resistant to Pierce's disease is being developed, it may take 10 years of more before it will be available.

The GE-Free Initiative expires in 10 years and can be overridden by a unanimous vote by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Biotech lobbying groups, fronting for Monsanto and other corporations, spent $600,000 to defeat the GMO ban in Mendocino County last year. The citizens of Mendocino County weren't fooled. They banned GMO crops in their county. Don't believe the corporate scare tactics.

PHILIP RATCLIFF
Cloverdale

___________________________________________________________

CONSUMER CHOICES

Published on August 7, 2005
© 2005- The Press Democrat

EDITOR: My partner and I are among dozens of Sonoma County farmers standing behind the effort to keep our county free of genetically engineered (GE) crops. The 22 goats at Pugs Leap Farm eat alfalfa and grains --crops that would become contaminated if GE grains were raised nearby. We do not know what harm would befall our goats if they ate GE contaminated feed, nor what it would do to our cheeses and our customers.

The research has just not been done. GE crops could put our livelihood at risk for the sake of chemical companies' profits. That doesn't seem like a good deal for us, our goats or our customers. We got into the dairy goat business to give customers a choice. They can buy local, sustainably made cheese from goats that are raised without pesticides or hormones. GE contamination would take that choice away. I worked in the chemical industry in San Francisco before coming to Healdsburg to farm. I've seen first hand the effects of globalization and the harm it does to local democracy, community and agriculture. That's not what I want for Sonoma County. I'll be voting yes for a GE-Free Sonoma on Nov. 8.

PASCAL DESTANDAU
Pugs Leap Farm, Healdsburg

_________________________________________________________

VULNERABLE LAND

Published on August 24, 2005
© 2005- The Press Democrat

EDITOR: Almost buried in the well-deserved criticism of the Port Sonoma ferry proposal, included in the recent Congressional transportation measure, is the pork perpetrators' disregard for years of effort to protect Sonoma County's bayfront. Tens of millions of public and private dollars to buy property and easements now protect the landscape and wetlands -- except for the 100-acre Port Sonoma property. A 100-acre strip along Highway 37 will not sit idle if this Congressional growth stimulator re-energizes past land development schemes.

County and environmental groups have fought off previous incompatible bayfront projects including an airport, regional dump, dredge spoils drying yard, industrial park, power plant, casino and a whole new city. Yet the ink was barely dry on the daring $19 million 2,300-acre waterfront save by the Sonoma Land Trust when an Alaska congressman injects a $20 million boost to his own ferry building industry that impacts the front yard of Sonoma and Marin.

Sonoma County can be proud of her undeveloped bay shoreline, a scenic triumph. Marin Supervisor Cynthia Murray and Sonoma's Mike Kerns should condemn this tainted effort to establish a long discredited ferry proposal. They have an obligation to protect the public investment in this splendid but vulnerable landscape.

BILL KORTUM
Petaluma

More Letters

SHARED VISION

Published on November 24, 2005

The current picture of Windsor was painted by the canvassers of Sonoma County Conservation Action and our team of grass-roots organizers who knocked on doors and educated the citizens of Windsor about the importance of downtown development, smart growth and urban growth boundaries. The voters were tired of a less than mediocre community feel, and SCCA prompted them to elect a Town Council that was willing to stand up to development pressures and craft a vision that has produced the new mantra of Sonoma County: City-centered, mixed-use development that is perched fabulously close to a future train and bicycle depot.

I have personally seen the transformation of Windsor, as I have knocked on doors there through 12 different campaigns, including the incorporation of the Town of Windsor, the recall of Deb Fudge and Sam Salmon, the urban growth boundary campaign, and the notorious Measure X. It's amazing how much a group of committed individuals with a shared vision can accomplish.

KATE FRAGA

SCCA canvasser, Healdsburg

_____________________

ABUSE OF POWER

Published on December 1, 2005

The Saturday headline article has Sonoma State University buying inexpensive land for faculty housing outside the urban growth boundary of Rohnert Park. That land is "cheaper'' because it is rural county land outside of the boundary, and development is precluded. However SSU, a state agency, is not subject to local land-use regulations.

The university administration should not abuse its eminent power to violate Rohnert Park's voter-mandated urban growth boundary. Nor should it expect the City Council to disregard its electorate and provide sewer and water to the parcel. An institution responsible for educating land-use-planning professionals and critical thinkers should not force such bad policy.

The university's vital need to attract and retain faculty by contributing to their housing needs is recognized. At the same time, the public expects civic leadership on the part of the university to honor years of local government and citizen efforts to protect the scenic resources, farmlands and open space of Sonoma County from disappearing under the pressures of misdirected development. Available options should be explored that foster cutting-edge principles including smart growth and pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development, in contrast to the administration's leapfrog, sprawl proposal. A prestigious institution is expected to lead by example.

BILL KORTUM

Petaluma

________________________

MOVING PEOPLE

Published on December 4, 2005

EDITOR: The train editorial and the ``Rail nonsense'' reply in the Wednesday letters to the editor bring out the issue of the need of benefits of a SMART rail system. I am a resident of Cloverdale. I am not a transportation expert but have lived in Sonoma County for many years and witnessed a growing transportation mess in need of solutions. I believe that a rail system is an essential part of any viable solution to this need. Here are 10 benefits I see:

* Use of a neglected transportation system in the North Bay, already in place.

* Provides a proven, viable HOV (high occupancy vehicle) transportation resource.

* Provides another viable alternative to low-occupancy vehicles.

* Provides alternative HOV transportation options to the oil-dependency crises.

* Provides another, realistic, subsidy option to other highly subsidized transportations systems (air and highways).

* Provides a non-disappearing job market (it would be hard to out-source a train).

* Provides another transportation resource for low-income people.

* Provides economic opportunity (commuter, tourist, freight).

* Provides another viable link in an integrated transportation system.

* Provides a transportation opportunity that can help build community and social interaction.

Need more? Study those areas progressive enough to use rails for moving people.

HARRY MARTIN

Cloverdale

_______________________

Open Letter to the Sonoma County Farm Bureau

Published in The Bohemian Weekly, December 14-20th, 2005

EDITOR: The members of the Sebastopol Farmers Market strongly condemn the intentionally deceptive tactics utilized by the Sonoma County Farm Bureau while campaigning against Measure M, the initiative for a 10-year moratorium on growing genetically engineered organisms in Sonoma County. We found the following to be particularly objectionable:

1. Signs were posted around the county proclaiming that “Family Farmers Are United – No on Measure M” even though dozens of local family farmers had already publicly endorsed Measure M.

2. In its mailed campaign materials, the Farm Bureau stated in large print, “Every major farming organization opposes Measure M.” This was an outright lie. California Certified Organic Farmers and community Alliance with Family

Farmers are local farm organizations that, along with several local farm organizations, endorsed Measure M early on and worked for its passage.

3. The Farm Bureau’s campaign against Measure M utilized a spokesman, Patrick Moore, who was identified as a representative of Greenpeace. This was an ongoing effort by the Farm Bureau to confuse the many environmentally minded voters of Sonoma County who know that Greenpeace works for the integrity of the environment.

The fact is that Patrick Moore has not been a part of the Greenpeace organization for 20 years and has been repudiated by Greenpeace for being a hired mouth for corporate interests. Greenpeace opposes the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture and supported Measure M.

4. The Farm Bureau, understanding that many voters would be troubled by an ordinance that denied access to needed medicine, said in its ads and public statements that Measure M would restrict the availability of vaccines for people and animals, a fabricated claim without factual basis. Mary Maddox-Gonzales, Sonoma County Public Health Division director, was repeatedly quoted out of context to make it sound like she was saying that Measure M would limit availability of vaccines, when in fact she was saying just the opposite.

To be clear, we have no quarrel with honest differences of opinion and fully expect and welcome such differences to be expressed publicly, especially during election campaigns. That is constitutionally protected speech necessary for a functioning democracy.

However, what we witnessed in the recent campaign was not difference of opinion but outright lying. Knowing that Measure M would likely be approved if argued strictly on the merits of the issue, the Farm Bureau sought at every turn to undermine support for Measure M with calculated deception.

Lies may be common political currency, but they are toxic to community and democracy. We, the members of the Sebastopol Farmers Market, demand a full public apology by the Farm Bureau for their underhanded deception and see no reason why they should be considered respected members of the community unless and until such an apology is made.

Paul Thornton, President, Board of Directors

Ted Richardson, Bella Ridge Farm, Vice-President, Board of Directors

Jennifer Sheehan, Sisters Farm, Secretary, Board of Directors

Ann Hayes, Sisters Farm, Treasurer, Board of Directors

_______________________

COMMUTER LINE

Published on December 18, 2005

EDITOR: I am a bit confused by the Monday article in the Empire News section of the paper, titled, "Council insists on wine center in Railroad Square." Is it not the primary purpose of this rail line to be an optional form of transportation to Highway 101? Are we, the taxpayers of Sonoma and Marin counties, being asked to finance a much-needed alternate to Highway 101, or are we being asked to finance a tourist line, similar to the Napa Wine Train? With all due respect to the Santa Rosa City Council and other like-minded interests in our community that feel the need to convert this project into a tourist line, I disagree.

This project needs to be what it is intended to be and that is an alternative form of transportation. The SMART board and planners of this project know this and all of the studies done or about to be done provide overwhelming evidence that this needs to be a transit-oriented development. While it could certainly include a wine and food center, it is more important that the original goals of this project are realized and that we develop this project with those goals in mind. I would encourage the SMART board to firmly stand its ground and stick to the mixed-use plan.

STEVE BENJAMIN
Santa Rosa

___________________

SHARED VISION

Published on November 24, 2005

EDITOR: Cheers to The Press Democrat editorial team for its opinion piece on the downtown Windsor and the Windsor Town Council's approach to smart growth and city-centered development. All we need now is a train depot, and things are looking up for a Windsor that was transformed by the vision of Debora Fudge, Sam Salmon, et al.

The current picture of Windsor was painted by the canvassers of Sonoma County Conservation Action and our team of grass-roots organizers who knocked on doors and educated the citizens of Windsor about the importance of downtown development, smart growth and urban growth boundaries. The voters were tired of a less than mediocre community feel, and SCCA prompted them to elect a Town Council that was willing to stand up to development pressures and craft a vision that has produced the new mantra of Sonoma County: City-centered, mixed-use development that is perched fabulously close to a future train and bicycle depot.

______________________________________________________Beyond the Turf Wars: The Search for Common Ground at Railroad Square

Timberland Conversion Compromise in Works Supervisors won't back ban on switch to vineyards but want new local rules Monday, October 17, 2005

COUNTY TO LOOK AT RULES FOR TIMBERLAND: SUPERVISORS REJECT BAN ON CONVERTING FORESTS TO VINEYARDS

RESIDENTS: INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable Housing is an Environmental Issue

SMART LAND USE

RESTORING THE RAIL

CORPORATE TAKEOVER

SCARE TACTICS

BAN 'FRANKENFOOD'

CONSUMER CHOICES

VULNERABLE LAND

______________________________________________________
Beyond the Turf Wars: The Search for Common Ground at Railroad Square

Timberland Conversion Compromise in Works
Supervisors won't back ban on switch to vineyards but want new local rules
Monday, October 17, 2005