Honyocker's Perspective

Jake might have something to say about that.

Infrastructure & Planning vs. Petty Politics

Who could possibly argue that a few hundred grand in a county of half a million isn’t a drop in the bucket?  In high times and low, we all need to recognize that the publicly paid pension of a single retired police officer (namely the likely new mayor of Santa Rosa) is somewhere around $150k annually – which is significantly greater than the cost of the next stage of study for a core piece of planning infrastructure.

So why then would this important connector between one of Santa Rosa’s largest employers, largest & thriving educational institutions, a future railway station and an expanding retail mall get the squelch treatment?  Because of petty, petty divisiveness and bitter politics.  That’s why.  Namely: councilman John Sawyer.

I had the chance to send a message to the folks I most respect on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board last week – and through the accidental “reply-all” feature by one of the most outspoken members of the BPAB, my original message is now into the public record.  (Brown Act, etc)

So, I’d like to share that whole give & take with you.  First is my message to the BPAB members, then a response by the “senior at large” member, and finally my response.  Along with all the CC’s and BCC’s. I’ve merely removed the personal email addresses out of respect for the recipients.


from Jake Bayless
sender-time Sent at 8:04 AM (GMT-08:00). Current time there: 9:35 AM. ✆
to Beryl Brown,
Beth Dadko,
Dusty Rhodes,
Mark Adams,
Paul Klassen,
Peter Stanley,
Steve Frye,
Tracey Jones,
Barbara Moulton
date Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:04 AM
subject Video of a cyclist riding on Steele Lane vs. 101 Overcrossing…
mailed-by gmail.com
Dec 5 (2 days ago)
Hello there-
I hope this note finds you & yours doing well. 

I’m sure you are probably aware of the various things at stake at the upcoming City Council meeting this Tuesday.  Councilman Sawyer has made it clear he intends to revisit the SRJC/101 overcrossing item in order to potentially kill or stall the project.

This morning I came across this recent video of a cyclist riding on Steele Lane & Guerneville Rd from Mendocino to the railroad tracks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMd8jqZtvo8

What I’m most struck by isn’t how appalling an unsafe conditions are for a cyclist (they are, and City planners need to be held accountable) but by what a mess this route must be for a pedestrian.

Thanks for your service to Santa Rosa – please speak at Tuesday’s at City Council’s meeting.  For the life of me I cannot understand how good planning, foresight and infrastructure have become the petty political pawn that they have become.  The public and the council need to hear from you if you agree.

Fondly,
Jake Bayless  (former BPAB member)


from Dusty Rhodes
sender-time Sent at 10:21 AM (GMT-08:00). Current time there: 9:36 AM. ✆
to Jake Bayless,
Beryl Brown,
Beth Dadko,
Mark Adams,
Paul Klassen,
Peter Stanley,
Steve Frye,
Tracey Jones,
Barbara Moulton
cc John Sawyer
date Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:21 AM
subject RE: Video of a cyclist riding on Steele Lane vs. 101 Overcrossing…
mailed-by sonic.net
Dec 5 (2 days ago)

What crap!

If one is afraid to cross under the freeway on a bike just get off and walk in the ped. lane.

Note that most of this route shown is marked with bike lanes.

It is not worth $20 million of tax payers’ money to build this overpass for a very few people on bikes.

Pedestrians on Steele Lane will not walk a half mile out of their way to use the overpass.

If this overpass is needed for SMART (read dumb) access let them pay for it.

Dusty Rhodes, Member, bpab


from Jake Bayless
sender-time Sent at 10:42 PM (GMT-08:00). Current time there: 9:36 AM. ✆
to Dusty Rhodes
bcc Beryl Brown,
Beth Dadko,
Mark Adams,
Paul Klassen,
Peter Stanley,
Steve Frye,
Tracey Jones,
Barbara Moulton,
John Sawyer,
eolivares@srcity.org,
Vas Dupre, Marsha,
gwysocky@srcity.org,
Veronica Jacobi,
Susan Gorin,
Bender, Jane,
jours@srcity.org,
sbartley@srcity.org
date Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:42 PM
subject Re: Video of a cyclist riding on Steele Lane vs. 101 Overcrossing…
mailed-by gmail.com
10:42 PM (11 hours ago)

Hi Dusty-

Nice to see you’re still not afraid get in the muck and express your extreme views from the anti-tax, anti-infrastructure perspective!  An admittedly unusual ax-to-grind for a board who’s M.O. is “developing project lists and priorities” for planning recommendation.  Nevertheless…
Fact is, Dusty (and Mister Sawyer), we live in a society that values planning, foresight, and (amazingly – please don’t be surprised) paying it forward.  Noble projects usually are expensive – and long term.  This one is hardly a surprise to anyone – the fact that it has become some sort of “payback’s-a-bitch” affair says more about the sponsor of its demise, frankly, than anything else.
I really just wish there was some way to make you realize this isn’t about bikes – it’s about bitter politics.  It’s just a transportation project.  It’s a connector.
It’s about doing the right thing. It’s about our kids, and the community we wish to leave for them.  Hell, we’re certainly not leaving them any gasoline.
Hope you change your mind and do the right thing.
~jake

12 | 07 | 2010 Posted by | Bikes, Neighborhood Activism, News, Trains | Leave a Comment

I need your help.

Tasting Room Parcel Site Map

Parcel Site Map

I received this email below, along with many of my neighbors, from the steering committee that is working hard on the permit appeal for (opposition to) the Fort Ross Tasting Room on Meyers Grade Road.

Full disclosure: I am formerly a member of the steering committee of the tasting room opposition.  I departed the committee in August, and I have tremendous respect for the people and their huge efforts before, during and after my departure.  That said: Contrary to their wishes, I refused to remain civil towards the applicant because he has, on several occasions, directly and indirectly threatened me and my neighbors.  The permit applicant for this tasting room has threatened ALL his neighbors with investigations into our varied permitted, and potentially UN-permitted land use as retaliation against his tasting-room’s foes.  What I have seen, read and heard from the applicant and others amounts to nothing less than the extortion of our neighborhood to force his project’s approval and to squelch dissenting opinions.  That said, it’s important for anyone bothering to read this to have some background, however it is information that is fortunately NOT necessary nor effectual to the permit appeal itself.  The following information is.

The bullet points below are plain language reasons why this might probably matter to you.  Also important is the precedent this tasting room might set County-wide. This is something that will have much broader ramifications than simply a tasting room on the coast, as the applicant and his supporters would like everyone to yawn & believe. This tasting room, if approved, will open the door to tasting rooms literally ANYwhere in greater Sonoma County – all under the guise of “jobs” and “economic development”. Beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. more information & permit documents

Please take a minute to read the email to neighbors from the Opposition Steering Committee: {my comments in curly braces}


September 6, 2010

Hello-

Thank you for your interest in opposing the development of a tasting room at Fort Ross Vineyard on Meyers Grade Road.  A hearing before the Board of Supervisors is scheduled for Tuesday, September 21, at 2:30 pm in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room. {please mark your calendar and attend!} It would be wonderful and is very important to have you and your friends there as a show of support!  It is also important that as many letters and/or e-mails as possible be sent, addresses and talking points provided below.

Written letters:

Supervisor District 5 – Efren Carrillo
County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Room 100A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

E-mail:

Efren Carrillo <ecarrillo@sonoma-county.org>
cc: Susan Upchurch <supchurc@sonoma-county.org>

Reference/Subject line:
Sept 21 Board Hearing – UPE09-0027

Talking Points:

Opposition Based On:

1. General Plan 2020 assures that visitor-oriented uses are compatible with and protect areas of the County with natural, undeveloped, scenic character.  {The tasting room is a large, commercial operation – NOT conducive to protecting the environment, nor the natural scenic character}

2. This wine tasting room would set a precedent. There are presently no wine tasting rooms open to the public, year round, without reservations in vineyards on Meyers Grade, Ft. Ross, King Ridge Roads. {Regionally, there are many other roads and rural areas where the same precedent might apply}

3. The tasting room and special events will increase commercial traffic and also put visiting, alcohol compromised, drivers on our narrow, winding, often foggy roads.  {Roads with NO shoulder, and the same roads which are becoming more & more popular with recreational & competitive cyclists.  It is my opinion that Wine Tasting & cycling tourism are not compatible uses on roads which have not been designed to accomodate both uses.  Namely: roads that have no shoulder, where auto & bike traffic MUST share the roadway are not appropriate for tasting rooms that introduce ANY level or risk of inebriated drivers onto the road.}

4. More traffic, large events and drinking drivers increase the need for emergency medical, law enforcement and fire services.  {…Critical services that are already pushed to the max by existing uses}

5. This is a groundwater-scarce area. {!!!} The special events will occur during the driest months of the year and may compromise ground water availability to neighbors, who depend on wells and springs.

6. Large outdoor events create noise that interferes with the quiet and natural sounds residents and visitors treasure.

We {/I} Support:

1. Wine tasting rooms, events and sales in already existing commercial areas in Timber Cove, Stewarts Point, Sea Ranch, Gualala, Jenner, Duncan’s Mills, Monte Rio and Bodega Bay.  {Important to note: Denying this permit would NOT deny the owner the ability to market their wine and their vineyard’s terroir!  Denying the permit would send the message to a misguided APPLICANT (and others just like him, County-wide) that tasting rooms need to be put in APPROPRIATE places in Sonoma County.  This is a VERY important distinction!  My impression is that this opposition group (myself included) is NOT NIMBY, is NOT anti-business, and largely supports businesses and the wine industry in our area!}

2. Visitor services, such as parks, campgrounds, inns and stores, on Highway One, focusing on our unique redwood coast and ocean ecosystems.

For any of you who live in the area your personal insights are equally important to state.

Thank you for your time and please get involved! Feel free to share this message with others who might support the cause.

Nancy Feehan, Shawn Harb and Kay Barnes representing

The Steering Committee-Fort Ross Tasting Room Opposition

09 | 06 | 2010 Posted by | Neighborhood Activism, schwartz-o-rama, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.