46°
Clear
TUE
 74°
 45°
WED
 74°
 53°
THU
 71°
 54°
FRI
 73°
 52°
SAT
 69°
 45°

Bennett: Rainier will take action, not arguments

It has been suggested that I have been a bit harsh with our mayor lately and I got to thinking that maybe my critics are right. But just when I decide to do a column on nasturtiums or goldenrod or some such, he once again bursts forth with the type of utterances that make further comments irresistible.

Two weeks ago, I suggested that his proposal to tie a sales tax for the construction of the Rainier cross-town connector to a two-thirds vote was a cynical ploy to kill Rainier funding, at least in the short term. Most savvy local poll-watchers agree that it is utopian thinking to expect an affirmative two-thirds vote for taxes in Petaluma.

Then, last week the mayor responded, arguing that the proposal (first advanced by his council colleague Teresa Barrett) was indeed an earnest effort to get Rainier funded and built. In his words, he is “committed to getting Rainier built.”

At this point my skepticism meter soared. Historically, Glass has been an outspoken opponent of Rainier, and was angrily expressed when the community was asked what it wanted.

Ten years ago, Measure S on the November ballot was a simple advisory measure, essentially asking the community if they wanted Rainier built or not. The operative language was this:

“The people of the City of Petaluma do strongly urge and advise the Petaluma City Council to pursue the design, environmental analysis, funding and construction of a cross-town connector and interchange connecting Petaluma Boulevard North with the intersection of Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard.”

In the official voter pamphlet, the argument against Measure S was headed by, you guessed it, David Glass. He was mayor then, and was listed first of five people authoring the statement.

That argument went pretty much like this: The Rainier connector won’t solve our traffic problems, it will just make it worse. It would threaten “native oak woodlands” along the river and would primarily benefit “big box retail development.”

The argument said, “Why should taxpayers subsidize development in the worst place for it?”

Does that sound like the words of someone “committed to getting Rainier built?”


comments powered by Disqus
© The Argus Courier |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View