Monday's Letters to the Editor

<p class="bold allcaps">Public art</p> <p>EDITOR: In defense of the new obelisk sculpture on Santa Rosa Avenue, I offer four considerations:</p><p>In 2006, the city of Santa Rosa passed the Public Art in Private Development Ordinance, which requires large commercial developers to include art for public enjoyment with the understanding that in doing so they are contributing to the livability of our city.</p><p>Under the ordinance, any commercial development project in excess of $500,000 valuation is required to expend 1 percent of the project's construction budget on publicly accessible art or to pay an in-lieu fee.</p><p>City government's involvement in both the current Nissan-funded sculpture and the Peanuts sculptures was limited to administrative support in the form of solicitations for site and donation of funding. Staff time, basically.</p><p>There will always be a differing of appreciation for any art piece. My senses are that I am enthralled by the obelisk and irritated by the Peanuts sculptures.</p><p>Why not honor a basic, integral form of transportation we grew up with — the bicycle? Most of us eventually bought cars. I don't see where the bicycle is a slam at, or a threat to, cars, the current primary vehicle of navigation for most of us.</p><p>Kudos to Nissan.</p><p>ARLIE HAIG</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Voting for Judd</h3> <p>EDITOR: Why I'm voting for Jim Judd:</p><p>In the middle of a deep recession that has cost millions of Americans their jobs, Rep. Lynn Woolsey voted to give herself a pay raise. Despite all the perks she already receives as a congresswoman, she decided she needed a raise while working class Americans such as you and I struggle to raise families and put food on the table.</p><p>In 2003, Woolsey wrote to Marin County Superior Court Judge Terrance Boren on behalf of Stewart Pearson, the son of one of her staffers, who was convicted of rape. Woolsey used official congressional letterhead to write in support of a convicted rapist, hoping to get him off scot-free. Thankfully, Woolsey's intervention fell on deaf ears, and Pearson got jail time.</p><p>Woolsey is a career politician, in Congress for 18 years. For perspective, she's been in office since Bill Clinton was president — in his first term. She's grown increasingly distant from the voters and now won't respond to the slightest of constructive criticism.</p><p>ZACHARY BRITTON</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Ignoring voters</h3> <p>EDITOR: Are you kidding me? Buried in a single column on Page A4: “The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday denied a conservative legal group's request to force officials to defend voter-approved Proposition 8” (“Officials don't have to defend Prop. 8,” Friday).</p><p>The attorney general has a mandate to defend the people's will as a servant of the citizens of California. The governor also has an obligation to enforce our laws — both those derived from the Legislature and those of the people. The article goes on to say that “doubts have been raised about whether (Proposition 8 sponsors) have authority to (appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling) because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.”</p><p>So, if the elected officials — the governor and attorney general — don't enforce and defend the laws and constitutional amendments duly approved by the majority of its voters, then who can and who will? If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the law as unconstitutional, then so be it. But until then, enforce the duly approved amendment.</p><p>CHRIS SORK</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Charter vision</h3> <p>EDITOR: As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman points out, public school districts have a lot to learn from some charter schools, especially when it comes to educating underserved populations (“Putting kids first in the education system,” Aug. 26).</p><p>Roseland University Prep, a charter here in Santa Rosa, prepares a high percentage of its Latino students for college. The school sets high goals and provides supportive as well as engaging instruction.</p><p>In contrast, the Santa Rosa City Schools don't offer college prep credit to many students doing grade-level work. Students who require the supportive strategies offered by sheltered classes and students in the highest level of ESL don't receive college prep credit even though UC Berkeley grants credit for these classes. College access for underserved students is not a priority in the Santa Rosa district.</p><p>But there is one serious flaw in the charter school model. Many charter schools hire young teachers and pay low wages. They require teachers to be with students from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Then they go home, correct papers and prepare lessons for the next day. Research indicates many charter school teachers burn out after five years. These are major reasons why unions oppose charter schools.</p><p>Teachers deserve to have decent schedules, time with their families and adequate pay. When it comes to teachers, Friedman's charter vision needs some serious tweaking.</p><p>MARY McELROY</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>An unwelcome</h3> <p>EDITOR: We in California have many reasons to be ashamed. Along with the deplorable conditions of our badly paved highways is the unsightly condition of our rest stops on these highways.</p><p>My family and I just returned from a car trip to Oklahoma. We found the rest stops in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to be clean with all the necessary supplies that a traveler needs and especially well lit late at night. Arizona offered vending machines with snacks, coffee, hot chocolate and cakes. Then there is California, where the rest stops are dirty and messy and poorly lit.</p><p>The three aforementioned states can be proud but not California. All the rest stops in our state seemed to shade the lovely memories of our entire trip. We were embarrassed to think that out-of-state travelers see the uninviting conditions that we witnessed. I know there is an economic crisis, but what about basic cleanliness?</p><p>Shame on California.</p><p>DOROTHY BEARDSLEY</p><p>Kenwood</p><h3>What did we win?</h3> <p>EDITOR: I would like to respond to James Pera's paean to former President George W. Bush, whom he lavishly credits for supporting the troops and for guiding them to success in Iraq (“Credit for Bush,” Letters, Friday).</p><p>I never would disparage Pera's military service. Neither would I presume to have the first clue of what he experienced in Iraq. Along with all but a small handful of Americans, I watched the war from a considerable and safe distance.</p><p>However, what exactly did we win by going to war against Iraq? How did Americans benefit from this glorious victory?</p><p>If I remember correctly, we went there because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But we didn't find any. Oh, wait. We went there in response to the 9/11 attack. Whoops. Wrong guys.</p><p>I am very grateful that Pera came home from the war apparently unscathed. But, what about the tens of thousands of soldiers who didn't? What about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died because of our “job well done”?</p><p>At least we were spared the humiliation of not winning.</p><p>MARK WARDLAW</p><p>Santa Rosa</p>