Pulse of Petaluma

Poll: Opinions split on Scouts’ policies

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Thu, 16 May 2013 18:03:20 +0000

Opinions were divided on a new policy the Boy Scouts of America is considering that would lift its decades-old ban on openly gay scouts. The policy would keep in place a ban on gay troop leaders.
About 36 percent said they disapproved because they wanted to see the rules stay as they are; 44 percent said they disapproved because they thought gay adults should be allowed to participate too, 14 percent approved, and 6 percent weren’t sure.
Here are some of the comments.
——
“As a former scout, I think it is a good thing that the BSA is becoming more inclusive. However, as a private organization, I think they should be allowed to set their own rules just as any other private organization can within the United States.”
——
“If the BSA wants to have nonprofit tax status they should not be allowed to discriminate. Unless you want a date with a person, their sexual preference should not concern you.”
——
“Men who are against gays often are fearful of their own homosexual tendencies.”
——
“Until they lift the ban altogether we will continue our policy of not contributing to the Boy Scouts.”
——
“Homosexuality is neither healthy nor normal. This is just another attack on traditional values in America.”
——

Poll: Many find Petaluma too expensive

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:37:42 +0000

The overwhelming majority of those responding to the Argus-Courier’s online poll said that they or someone they knew found it too expensive to live in Petaluma.
About 76 percent found it too expensive, while only 22 percent said it was not too expensive. About 1 percent weren’t sure.
Here were some of the comments.
——
“Almost everyone I know finds Petaluma very expensive, particularly the westside/downtown areas. For my family, the quality of life and unique charm make it worthwhile, but it’s certainly prompted trade-offs in our budget.”
——
“I find more and more of the people I know are having to move farther north to Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, or even farther just to afford a house or rent. That in addition to the City of Petaluma always raising or wanting to raise the cost of everything because they can’t budget. Include the higher cost of taxes, food, gas and just living, people are moving out of state or north.”
——
“It’s too expensive to live here in the sense that there are so few head of household paying jobs here. Our City Councils over the past 10 years have pushed for developments that give us either expensive homes or shopping centers filled with nothing but part-time and minimum wage jobs. As compared to Petaluma, half-way decent jobs pay 10 percent more in Santa Rosa and 25 percent more in Marin. Yet the cost of renting a home in Marin or Santa Rosa is comparable to here. So those who live and work here have to spend a lot more of their income on rent. Marin, here I come.”
——
“It is expensive, but there is a good mix of housing options. We often want more than we can afford.”
——
“Kids who grew up here cannot afford to live here. It’s sad when you have to leave your home and move north because it’s what you have to do to survive. Meanwhile, let’s hike the price for everything.”
——
“Low inventory of homes is pushing up home values.”
——
“Petaluma is great but we are planning to leave for retirement. Housing, property taxes, gasoline, vehicle registration, etc. keep going up.
You can live much better on a fixed income outside of California. Never thought we’d be leaving Petaluma but we might have to.”
——
“Rents are sky high. Shopping choices force us to pay too much for identical products what is in Rohnert Park. I guess that this is the progressive solution to increased population.”
——
“The prices are left over from the days when there were big name high tech companies here. There are only two minor players standing, but the prices are still high. I find this town like a glorified Vallejo or Fairfield, so I believe prices should reflect that.”
——
“When you add property tax, sales tax, gas tax, our ridiculous DMV fees, all the taxes for government services on my phone bill, cell bill, and electric bill, you can’t afford to live here anymore. It takes 100 percent of your income, so there is no way to save anything for retirement. You have to leave the state, not just the city.”
——

Poll: Most opposed to county’s power plan

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Fri, 03 May 2013 17:22:37 +0000

The majority, or 60 percent, of those responding to this week’s online poll said that Sonoma County should not get into the business of providing power through the Sonoma County Clean Power Agency, which the supervisors approved moving ahead with on Tuesday, April 23.
About 34 percent thought it should, and 5.7 percent weren’t sure.
Here were some of the comments.
——
“All they are doing is trying to take a piece of the pie. Anybody who thinks that they are going to save money if they switch is going to be in for a big surprise. I hope the extra money they are spending for this cleaner power will at least make them feel better. It is all coming off the same grid folks.”
——
“This genius idea brings Sonoma into the world of potential sustainability! With this program, done well, we can begin to generate our own power, saving millions now paid to PG&E. Many cities are doing similar programs. Look to Healdsburg — much more independent if and when a grid crisis arises (and it will). Go Sonoma green power! Also called Community Choice Aggregation, this plan puts us on a road to recovery from our overextended energy habits!”
——
“As bad as PG&E can be at times, they are a better alternative. The idea is good but our Board of Supervisors messes up everything that they touch and they will be the ones really in charge of it all. I don’t trust them nearly as far as I can throw them. Just look at the debacle at the county dump, our horrible roads and the slush fund that is the Open Space District (note the complete absence of publicly accessible open space on Petaluma’s side of the Sonoma Mountain). It’s been over 20 years since Petaluma had a representative on the Board of Supervisors who had the needs of all of the people at heart.”
——
“No government agency has ever succeeded doing anything more efficiently than a private enterprise. There is no incentive for a government agency to be efficient.”
——
“There are some things the government should not do, this is one of them. How is it that the county cannot run a landfill but the water agency should be in the power business? Sounds like Enron, but public.”
——
“This will help but it’s not enough. We need a gradually increasing taxes on carbon fuels, where all the revenue is returned directly to consumers, as proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby.”
——
“Wow, just what the citizens need in this time of economic calamity, another government bureaucracy to support. If you want to save the planet some pain, dry your clothes on a clothes line outside instead of the dryer. Let’s work on lots of small steps, they add up to big changes.
‘That’s my opinion and if you don’t like it, well, I have others.’ — Groucho Marx
——
“All anyone has to do is look at how PG&E runs their business, and their committment to profit over public safety, and it’s clear that we need other choices.”
——
“It works well in areas with a lot of hydro production. Not a good idea for local government to try to navigate the very complicted power market.”
——
“The last thing that Sonoma County needs to do right now is take out a multi-million dollar loan that we taxpayers are responsible for. Gambling belongs in casinos, not on the ‘chance’ that maybe our utility bills will be lower. Anyway you slice it, we citizens will have to pay back the loan, either through higher taxes or higher rates. Don’t do it.”
——
“This increases competition for PG&E. That can be positive for all rate payers. It also increases the mix of clean energy we pay for immediately while giving the county the ability to invest in cleaner power within the county. I believe we should have a choice of power suppliers.”
——

Poll: Most love mural on wall of Phoenix Theater

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:40:26 +0000

(This post is from a poll originally printed in the Argus-Courier on April 11.)
A large majority of those responding to this week’s online poll said they loved the downtown mural that is going up on the southern wall of the Phoenix Theater.
About 74 percent said they approved, while 18 percent disliked it. About 8 percent weren’t sure.
Here were some of the comments.
——
“I love, love, love it and only hope this is just the beginning! Petaluma can certainly use more art!”
——
“I don’t like it myself, but I respect the building owner’s right to have it put there. It’s also well done, it’s just not my taste. There’s got to be room for all of us, and art is often an expression of that.”
——
“I love it. It brightens an otherwise dismal and un-seen wall downtown. We should allow more artist to liven up our surroundings like this.”
——
“I love the idea of the mural but was not a fan of how it came out I feel something that better represents Petaluma would have been better.”
——
“It’s a little bit country. And a little bit rock ‘n roll.”
——
“I think Ricky should be given more buildings to work on!”
——
“It is a bit vivid for my taste, but it does catch the eye and it looks better than graffiti. I neither love nor dislike it.”
——
“I wish that Petaluma’s largest mural would represent the city and its heritage as a chicken and egg dairy.
——
The mural has large buildings and is more appropriate for a metropolis than for a bucolic small town. It’s a shame that all that effort was wasted on an out of place random piece.”
——
“This is wonderful public art. Thanks to our artist and his boosters for turning a blank wall into art for all of us. It’s a worldwide tradition, enriching the city for all of us.”
——
“Brightens up that area — yay for them.”
——
“It is so very nice to see color, especially where it usually isn’t. Ricky Watts has done a great job bending and distorting his shapes to fit the huge wall. I have never seen anything like this done before. This should open the eyes of the public for more commissioned walls. I love it!”
——
“It adds energy to the atmosphere downtown.”
——
“I think it rocks!

Poll: Drug dogs at schools a good idea

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:32:51 +0000

Most of those responding to the Argus-Courier’s online poll this week said that they thought bringing drug-sniffing dogs onto school campuses as a deterrant to drug use was a good idea. About 23 percent disapproved, while 6.5 percent weren’t sure. Here are some of the comments
——
“Anything it takes to protect my kids. Sooner the better.
——
“A very negative solution to a problem needing positive ideas through education against drug use.”
——
“Dogs should also be used at sports events and school zone parking areas.”
——
“I believe that while drug usage in school and or dealing drugs on campus is a problem, K-9 unit will be way too over the top. It is yet another way for the police to harass the kids like they have been doing for some time now.”
——
“I say why not? Make the students think about this and perhaps they will not bring drugs to school.”
——
“I think the police should have the right to do this anytime, maybe without even telling the school administration.”
——
“The learning environment is already bad enough, making kids feel like they are criminals will make it worse. It certainly won’t motivate them to learn.”-
——

Poll: Most would like fairgrounds to remain as they are

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:34:15 +0000

Most of those responding to this week’s online poll said that they believed the Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds should remain as they are.
About 57 percent believed that the grounds should be kept as they are, while 19 percent thought some of the space should be reserved for the fair and the rest developed for another purpose. About 24.5 percent thought the entire area should be developed and the fairgrounds moved.
Here were some of the comments.
——
“The fairgrounds are part of the heart, physically and culturally, of Petaluma and are a reflection of the history of the town. Once it is gone for a short term economic gain, that part of the town will be lost forever.”
——
“We don’t need a Sonoma-Marin Fair in addition to the Sonoma County and Marin County Fairs. Use the property for something else (like a central park for the Farmer’s Market, recreation, sports, etc), lease it at a market rate, or just sell it.”
——
“Leave the fairgrounds alone unless you plan to build a minor league baseball park which could also house concerts. No to housing or commercial development. Housing would undoubtedly be a lower income subsidized development that would be a dump in a couple years. I’ll be dead and buried before the Planning Commission or PCC would allow any useful commercial interests. Leave it alone for the fair and current users.”
——
“There have been rumors for years about a tentative deal between the fair board (or at least a couple of its influential members) and the Regency shopping center owners that would carve up the fairgrounds for their benefit. One of your poll choices reflects this rumor pretty well. No, the only thing that needs to happen at the fairgrounds is that the racetrack should go away (sad but true) and be replaced with something that would generate more money for the city and be more environmentally friendly.”
——
“Speaking as someone who has lived here her entire life and has been going to the fair since I was a child, it holds many memories for me and my family. I’m sure others feel that way too. It’s the one last thing that has stayed unchanged in what was once a small town. Why does everyone want to ruin it? We are one of the few towns left that can say they have a small town fair and I like it.”
——
“Give the fairgrounds a long lease so it can make improvements which can make the fairgrounds more accessible. Please do not destroy the middle of town by building more mixed use ugly buildings.”
——
“Great opportunity for new smart-growth development in the center of town with all infrastructure nearby. A minor league sized baseball stadium as the core component, closest to Target, surrounded by some pedestrian oriented commercial and some medium to medium-high density apartments and townhomes, similar to what is planned for the train station area downtown. The fair is such a fun but rare event, it shouldn’t cause us to waste that precious location 11.5 months of the year!”
——
“Stop with the redevelopment already! We are going to have to change our name to South Rohnert Park!”
——
“The fair is a part of the community fabric and should not be changed. The people of Petaluma voted to provide the facility years ago and a few newcomers should not change the wishes of those that have gone before.”
——
“The city needs to take back the fairgrounds and develop it in a way that will add to the city’s coffers. The fair can move elsewhere. It’s crazy for the city not to take advantage of this prime real estate for everyone’s benefit.”
——
“Although I voted for a new site use, I think the new use should include agriculturally-focused elements that would evoke the role of the fairgrounds. Perhaps a permanent farmers market, extensive rooftop farming, and farm-to-table restaurants. The best use of the site is as something other than fairgrounds, but the site should continue to act as a showplace for local agriculture.”
——
“Your survey needs more options. Keep the fair where it is. It is one of the last old school traditions. But make the area available for other uses during the off season, community uses, not necessarily commercial uses. Don’t sell any of it off. A nice piece of community open space in the center of town is not a bad thing.”
——
“Development? Are you kidding me? Isn’t Petaluma getting enough of the D-word? How many more shopping centers, housing tracts and other tree-destroying plans do we need around here? If there is any development to be made, how about a tree museum so future kids will know that Petaluma once had trees?”
——
“I would be OK with educational or sports uses, but I am not interested in any more commercial uses in that location.”
——

Bishop’s ‘morals’ clause unpopular

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:44:07 +0000

About 70.5 percent of those responding to this week’s online poll disapproved of Bishop Robert Vasa requiring all teachers under his diocese to sign a ‘morals’ addendum. About 23 percent approved, and 6.5 percent weren’t sure.
(Editor’s note: after this poll was launched, Bishop Robert Vasa relented in his request that all teachers sign the “morals” addendum, but said that they would still need to sign some version of the addendum by 2015.)
Here were some of the comments.
——
“Absolutely not! I am a Catholic whose sons went to St. Vincent. Teachers should be entitled to their own beliefs. It should not affect their teaching at all. The bishop is overreaching with his authoritarian attitude.”
——
“Heaven forbid…..they are private schools.”
——
“If I am a teacher, if I do not teach religious studies, if I am not a Catholic, why am I being asked to sign this document? I do not impose religious beliefs on others. Also, don’t these schools receive public benefit? Then they should comply with laws of the community or give up those benefits.”
——
“I sincerely hope that there are strong repercussions as a result of this preposterous grandstanding.”
——
“I think a private school run under a religious set of beliefs should be able to set its own standards (within reason).”
——
“I’m very glad he changed his mind!”
——
“It is a violation of the teacher’s privacy. It is unenforceable. Is the next step to require the students and the parents to sign a similar document? As far as I know no other bishop is requiring anything similar. He is out of step with the times. Some of these teachers have been dedicating their lives to education for over 30 years. They have not harmed the school community. The bishop is making this demand without having visited the campus or communicated with the teachers involved.”
——
“No. It reeks of McCarthyism.”
——
“Private schools can have any requirements.”
——
“The gall of this man! How dare he interfere with the rights of teachers to think and vote the way they please! When does he start monitoring their bowel movements?”
——
“They are private schools. If you don’t like it, go work in a public school and get a nice fat pension and great benefits.”
——
“What is he thinking? Who does he think he is wanting such a thing? I for one would never think of sending my child there if this went into effect!”
——
“What year is this? Love. That’s what it should all come down to; love, respect, tolerance. Our world is too small and our lives are too short to be so judgmental, so intolerant of others, so unkind and unthinking.”
——
“Why doesn’t the Catholic church become a model of what they want their teachers and students to become first? Lead by example. I believe that is what Jesus taught us all. As a matter of fact, What Would Jesus Do? Turn away those who are passionate about education and empowering children to become better human beings by treating others with respect and dignity?”
——
“How absolutely ridiculous! They will lose many fine math, science and English teachers over this.”
——
“If they were to hire solely Catholic teachers, there might be an argument for the clause, however, this is not the case.”
——
“I think that as it is a private religious school situation, it is fine. However, it should only be required of new teachers. As for existing teachers, it wasn’t mandatory when they were hired. Changing the terms of their employment after they have already taken the job, is unfair. I do think it’s odd to have the general public chiming in on matters that don’t concern them if they aren’t Catholic. We don’t spend so much time judging Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists and their schools.
People seem to hate Catholics.”
——
“Want to pick up a paycheck from the Catholic church? Then sign on the dotted line, which means you support and agree to uphold the morals clause. These folks need something they can count on from their teachers.”
——
“Poor catechesis in Catholic schools has contributed to the breakdown in the understanding of what the Catholic Church believes. This has further contributed to the breakdown of practicing authentic Catholicism. Do we really need a teacher who is in favor or abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ or contraception?”
——

Poll: Naming rights at Petaluma City Schools

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:22:41 +0000

A small majority of those responding to an Argus-Courier online poll said that they did not think schools should give individuals or businesses the right to name school facilities if they made a large donation to the facility. About 54 percent disapproved, while nearly 37 percent approved.
About 9 percent weren’t sure. Here were some of the comments.
——
“Does everything have to have a price?”
——
“I think it’s only okay if the name is of someone who has given a lot on a humanitarian level. Integrity is what matters here. After all, schools are places of learning and it’s vital that we emphasize learning about ethics, kindness, and acts that support the well-being of each other and our planet; not just learning how to make money.”
——
“Keep the ego out of the gift. What if the giver had no honor, just money, and was a poor example for the kids? Bad idea.”
——
“So sick of ‘naming rights’ with everything else, and — now they want to infiltrate schools?
——
“The schools need the money so why not?”
——
“School should be an environment where students learn to speak freely and think critically. Promoting a particular “brand” may discourage that discourse; brands always have an implicit perspective attached. Corporate sponsorship, in particular, would discourage community action in conflict with the sponsor’s espoused views.”
——

Majority oppose fluoride plan

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:34:28 +0000

The majority of those responding to this week’s Argus-Courier online poll opposed the county adding fluoride to its drinking water supply. About 75 percent disapproved of the proposed move. Here were some of the comments.
——
“Absolutely not! As a person with a thyroid condition I’m not supposed to have fluoride. And my daughter is allergic to it. How completely ignorant and unfair to add something to the water that many people can’t have. It’s much easier to get fluoride if you want it, than it is to have to find some other source of water.”
——
“Beside the expense and health concerns, have you ever tasted fluoridated water? Ugh!”
——
“Haven’t we polluted ourselves enough?”
——
“I prefer simple and safe water. Distribute fluoride another way that allows people a choice to put it in their body or gardens.”
——
“No no no no, can’t say no enough! It’s another poison additive we don’t need that is forced upon us!”
——
“Ridiculous and pathetic. Fluoridation is a choice. I choose no. Besides, it is a ridiculous cost while our roads continue to crumble.”
——
“Speaking as a person that is allergic to fluoride: 1. There are far less intrusive ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. 2. No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. 3. Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride. 4. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.”
——
“The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay and is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century”.”
——
“The studies are somewhat clear. They seem to indicate that there is a link between communities that have added fluoride to the water and the rate of heart disease. It other words, an increase of fluoride is linked to an increase of heart disease. And the studies also indicate fluoride does not really improve the health of teeth. Let’s not add useless and highly toxic poisons to our water supply. Let’s not waste $100,000 of our precious funds just to study a proposal that would result in dangerous risks to the health of everyone in Petaluma. Let’s keep our water pure, natural, safe and healthy. Say NO to fluoride in our water.”
——
“Too expensive, not proven to help. Government should not get involved. People should just take care of their teeth and go to the dentist.”
——

Poll: Should fire departments partner?

Pulse.Of.Petaluma — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:08:59 +0000

The vast majority of those responding to an Argus-Courier online poll thought that the Petaluma Fire Department should share management duties with the Rancho Adobe Fire Department if it would save both departments money and allow Petaluma to apply for grants to replace its aging fire vehicles. About 79 percent thought this was a good idea, while 18.4 percent thought it was not. About 2.6 percent weren’t sure. Here were some of the comments.
——
“The biggest problems with the PFD are a glut in the higher ranks, self-imposed overblown minimum staffing levels that cost the city close to $1 million per year and unrealistic pensions. Write about that, Argus.”
——
“Unions will never allow this….just ask the Post Office.”
——
“Win-win: productivity, efficiency, economy of scale.”
——
“Yes. Petaluma Fire should also look at having their ambulances committed to only medical calls only! Currently they send medics to all calls including structure fires. This causes a problem because they are then committed to that incident. If a medical call comes in then they have to rely on Sonoma Life Support (SLS) to handle that call. This can cause a long delay. Could be life or death. Maybe the city should look at having a partial Volunteer Fire Force to supplement the paid staff. This is how it is done around most parts of the country. Just some thoughts to get some conversations flowing.”
——
“Good move for the departments, the cities served, and the citizens.”
——
“More partnership should mean better service to both areas.”
——