He Just Doesn't Get It

If all that is required of Sonoma City Council members is that they deal with matters that are confined, literally and figuratively, to 2 x 2.5 square miles then what need is there for such persons?

Most of the decisions made by our council regard land use and property zoning, or budgetary priorities. Many of the growth and development decisions, as well as aesthetic configurations (building size, architecture, business signs, etc.) are made by the Planning Commission anyway. Yes, the Planning Commission members are chosen by the City Council, and occasionally the council settles some planning disputes, but the former function is an opening for bias, and the latter is arbitrary. We could as easily elect a Planning Commission. Establishing a budget for the city has little to do with creating revenue, this is more or less dependent on outside forces and the vicissitudes of economic markets, and the expenditure of funds could be managed by any competent accountant. The Chamber of Commerce concentrates on promoting Sonoma businesses, and the Sonoma Visitors Bureau promotes our town as an attractive destination for the all important tourist trade.

There are two water use agencies, the City of Sonoma Water Department and the Valley of the Moon Water District that monitor and regulate water and waste-water, and many of those regulations are dictated by the county, state agencies or regional boards.

The everyday functioning of the city is done by professionals in their fields – city management, Planning Direction, building and maintenance operatives – that are far more experienced and knowledgeable than most of our citizen politicians. As to providing for public safety we have a Police Department and a Fire Department. And there’s a school board and a hospital board that concerns itself with those matters.

So this begs the question: What are the real need, the necessity for and the functioning of a Sonoma City Council? What makes a group of amateurs more equipped to deal with and make decisions about the aforementioned matters?

Councilman Sebastiani says it’s not the council’s business to consider or engage in anything other than those areas I’ve enumerated. Possibly I’ve left out some vital function only a council member might be more qualified to handle than a paid, experienced professional. Perhaps Mr. Sebastiani will enlighten us in this regard.

Given the narrow parameters, physically and politically as regards the functions of a city council as defined by Mr. Sebastiani, I fail to see what earthly purpose a city council member serves when there are much more qualified professionals to do the job. Is he equipped to make better business decisions for the city? He’s 27 years old, and his only experience is working in a family owned business. Has he started and run his own business successfully?

Perhaps he has some expertise about housing – construction, costs, renovation, green building, or the housing market, etc. Perhaps he knows about road maintenance. But then we already have competent and experienced city departments that deal with these matters. And if public safety, health care and education are handled by other agencies, and are not within the city’s jurisdiction or even sphere of interest by Mr. Sebastiani’s reckoning – Sonoma Police are ultimately answerable to the County Sheriff’s Department – then exactly what is it he’s needed for? Help me out here, August; give me your raison d’etre.

My point here, granted proffered in a facetious way, is this. We elect a city council to take leadership roles when it comes to making decisions about matters of concern that will have effects on and implications for most if not all of our residents. Again, city managers and their professional staff are equipped to handle most of the city’s business and legal matters. Can this be corrupted and self-serving? You bet, and a function of city councils is to be a watchdog and see that doesn’t happen. That requires knowing a good deal about city management. Is this Mr. Sebastiani’s area of expertise? What prior experience has given him this education? He didn’t serve on any city commissions or boards, ad hoc committees or even service organizations, before jumping on to the city council.

The only area of leadership, if one could call it that, which Mr. Sebastiani has leapt into was challenging our nation’s Constitutional First Amendment by attempting to breach the wall of separation between church and state in having religious symbols and displays on the public square. That’s the only instance of “leadership” that I’ve seen him display as he exhorted his followers to push on deeper into the waters of constitutional law. Was this a vital matter of concern for most Sonoma residents? Hardly. Mr. Sebastiani says he’s a councilman, not a “lobbyist” for certain concerns or interests, but he lobbied his little brains out for this issue – and lost to boot. Mr. Sebastiani is rather selective when it comes to seeing some issues as within or outside his so-called jurisdiction.

City councils, others, and ours take on all kinds of issues – national, state, regional or local, when it’s determined that the criteria being judged will effect or impact its citizenry. This is where leadership comes in. It is incumbent upon council members to study and to know the ramifications of these matters so that they can try to make informed and intelligent decisions. Abstaining on these kinds of issues is a chicken way out. One needs to vote yea or nay and state the reasons why. That’s leadership. Closing oneself off from such hard decisions, stamping your foot and saying “No, I’ll never go there!” is what an adolescent does when confronted with tough choices. This isn’t a stance – it’s a head-in-the-sand retreat.

I had hoped that Mr. Sebastiani would take his too easily gained position on the council to learn and grow into the position of a leader, but I’ve seen no indication of that. Quite the contrary. But cockeyed optimist that I am, I will hold that as a future possibility. Until such time I will play Jimminy Cricket to his Pinocchio, and hope that some leviathan-like happenstance will come his way, and he’ll see the light within the confined darkness of his own making.

Aerial Spraying: Not Safe, Not Effective, Not Necessary

Does being repeatedly sprayed with a toxic pesticide over the course of the next 5-10 years appeal to you? Consider that this pesticide has not been tested for its short or long-term effects on human health or its impacts on the environment. Then note that aerial spraying already began in late ’07 in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulting in over 600 health complaints, as well as reports of environmental damage.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) claims that it must conduct a blanket and long-term program of aerial pesticide spraying to eradicate an infestation of the light brown apple moth (LBAM) because it may pose a threat to various crops, plants and trees. It has declared a state of emergency in order to do this without environmental review or public health testing.

However the fact of the matter is that the LBAM has been in California for at least 30 years with no devastation of any crops or plant life, by CDFA’s own admission. The LBAM originated from New Zealand and Australia, has been there for 100 years or more, and there too no crop or plant life devastation on record. In fact those countries don’t use aerial spraying, and have opted for the least toxic and most natural methods of pest control that do not put human or environmental health at risk. So what is the “emergency”?

At least 10 Bay Area counties including Richmond, San Francisco and Marin have been targeted for blanket aerial spraying to begin in August of this year. Aerial and other blanket pesticide applications have repeatedly been shown in the past to upset natural ecosystem balance in unpredictable and often catastrophic ways, having serious human health effects as well. CDFA is relying on pesticides that contain ingredients that are highly toxic to aquatic life.

Incredibly the State began aerial spraying, initially in Santa Cruz and Monterey, before a mandatory environmental impact report (EIR) was conducted; skirting this environmental protection by declaring a state of emergency. Equally disturbing are the facts that aerial spraying of chemicals are expensive and inefficient, and biologists have testified that spraying is extremely unlikely to eradicate the LBAM.

A recent scientific study indicates that pesticide spray particles can penetrate deeply into the lungs posing a significant health risk. Most at risk are vulnerable populations: infants, children, the elderly, field workers and those with compromised immune systems. And most alarmingly the LBAM spraying program has not been tested for toxic health effects when used in areas of concentrated population. The State has relied almost entirely on its own scientists to address public concerns about the spray program, and has not employed independent outside experts to evaluate and support the program or address issues in a direct and impartial manner.

To date 19 cities and counties, representing over 850,000 people, have passed resolutions urging the Department of Food and Agriculture to impose a moratorium on any aerial spraying that is a part of the LBAM eradication campaign until the Department can demonstrate that the pesticide it has used or ones it may use is both safe to humans and animals. In addition bills in the state Senate and Assembly have called for protection of citizens constitutional rights of informed consent, and completion of an EIR before aerial application resumes.

Until independent and impartial testing is done one can only assume that blanket and prolonged aerial spraying is not safe, is not effective, and is not necessary.