Nobody has the right to "Make-up Rules as they go", like the police seems to do daily. They swore to serve and protect!! Each and Every police officer "knows" the law. Rohnert Park has a long History of Make up Police Rules!!
Not one of them listened to the Facts, when it came to my son!! I Can't wait for the Facts to be told!!
You're a jerk. You really don't know what you are talking about. Joe donates both time and material to help AIDS victims. You probably think the AIDS patients should go to jail too! Learn your facts before you make such stupid, inaccurate and insensitive comments.
And here's MIT's research on the subject: http://web.mit.edu/nnf/publications/GHM203.pdf
Merna, the kind of shade cloth that is being used in big projects in Chile and elsewhere by Fogquest is 35% shade coefficient, Raschel weave, u.v. protected polypropylene or polyethylene mesh. However, the only source for this is in South America. See their website for more info: fog quest.org Of course, any shade cloth of a loose weave 30% to 40%, doubled, will catch fog.
Enough! Why is only state law- rather then local regs mentioned? Here in SoCo, we are limited to a total of 30 plants per script- NOT to exceed 100 sq ft of canopy. State law is irrelevant to this discussion.
Ok- whether 400-500...or 1300 plants. Let's see. If greenhouse- light dep and 2nd round- we're talking 1/4#- 3/4# per plant. Twice in a season. (3, or even 4 if he has grid power or large gens and running lights.) If full season outdoor- 1-3#'s per plant. Realistically- we're talking a low of 500#'s, a high of 3 tons. Either way- a hell of a lot of weed and far more then 53 aids patients can possibly use.
And other the new laws passed by CA to FINALLY reel in the abuses of the industry- a grow of his size, especially by the cops 2 parcel numbers, would be unlikely to be approved.
I'm sorry- but as someone who as been in this industry since LONG before 215... from what I see on the face here- and what I know of the current state of the industry- I hope he gets a felony conviction and is banned from the industry for good. I'm sick and tired of the greed cloaking themselves as do-gooders...
What logical and rational evidence can there be that supports the continued use of a piece of technology that many wise and sensible people have come to recognize is harmful to our health and to the environment?
I suspect that we will need to look deeper to find what motivates our attachment to something that generates as much passion as the leaf blower. Perhaps the reasons are not rational or logical? Maybe we are in the same sphere of psychological makeup as religious beliefs or political ideologies where rational explanations do not necessarily apply? The passion that accompanies certain individuals who have expressed their right to use their leaf blower has made me think were were arguing the Second Amendment. Some letters to the Editor have expressed their entitlement and determination to continue using their leaf blowers in spite of eventual prohibition with strong emotional sentiments not altogether different from those infamous words of Charlton Heston,” I will give up my gun ( read leaf blower) when you pry it from my cold dead hands”.
The leaf blower is a weapon that forces everything in its path away at hyper speed with the power of a firearm without regard or respect for the rest of the environment or the rights of others. The noise from leaf blowers not only damages our hearing, but the intermittent frequency, the whine and the pitch from these devices cause an increase in heart rate and elevated blood pressure raising the risk of ulcers and colitis. Then there are the many psychological ill effects that people suffer. The irradiation due to the constantly changing amplitude puts the person being subjected in a continual sate of noise induced stress response which slowly erodes the immune system and can lead to depression as well as states of rage. Yet, in spite of the evidence that says the environmental damage created by leaf blowers is substantial and that their continued use puts children especially at risk of irreversible health risks, it seems to continue to fall on death ears.
To argue that one must adjust and learn to live with the noise pollution from leaf blowers is like saying we must learn to live with second hand smoke from cigarettes. This is nonsense. Noise from leaf blowers is literally making us sick.
For those who have dismissed the leaf blower issue as an insignificant distraction from more important matters, please reconsider. There is a wealth of information available.
Peter H. Coster
Minkoff Chatoy here, Thank you Bohemian and Tom Gogola for an inspiring article. We at KOWS were not looking for a news release and yet here Tom Gogola presented himself, (btw Tom, love saying your last name Gogola, Gogola!) Thank you for being the news release for KOWS and attentiveness, I had so much fun talk with you! The Bohemian is one of the BEST here in Sonoma County! Grazie!
Thanks to each of you for responding to this piece. It should be noted that I was the editor of this item and take responsibility for whatever problems any reader might have with it, including our use of the word "catastrophic" in relation to a leaf-blower ban's impact on residents. Yes, that was intended to be tongue in cheek, a tone that is a hallmark of this column. I regret that it was taken as seriously as it has been. I would also ask that factual issues raised by any commenters are appreciated and should be directed to my attention, firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks again for taking the time to comment, and please keep reading. Tom Gogola
This is demeaning to the efforts of Sonoma residents from all walks of life who are only trying to have some relief from the constant din and dust and exhaust of gas leaf blowers. The headline, "Leaf Blower Foes Bring the Noise" sets the biased tone. Sarah Stierch had 24 hours to write this piece and it shows -- she did not do her homework and collected quotes via email.
The grassroots group Sonoma Neighbors Against Leaf Blowers has consistently and deliberately conducted itself in a civil and rational manner, sticking to fact and science, as opposed to some of the more visible ban opponents who have raised their voices in meetings, and verbally harassed women after Council meetings, including calling them bitches and saying "F--- You." Even one Council woman was harassed and threatened in the parking lot. If anyone is bringing the noise, it is them. They are the reason the Mayor now has a police presence at every meeting where leaf blowers will be discussed.
There are more than "a handful" of towns with bans on all blowers or on gas blowers. As of 2013 there were 21, and dozens more with heavy restrictions and/or trying to enact a ban. Regarding your assertion that cities with bans are wealthy -- and I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning it (you might also have chosen to point out that many of them are environmentally-oriented, "green" communities) -- I would point out that neither Berkeley nor LA are wealthy cities. Certainly we currently see more wealthy communities with bans, because I doubt poor communities have the political power or frankly the time to stand up for themselves. In Sonoma, Boyes Hot Springs is one of the most effected (no this is not an East Side issue) and you might be interested to know that many of the ban proponents who have spoken at the City Council meetings were from the Springs, describing the many ways leaf blowers negatively impact their lives. They know a ban would not help them, but hope that if Sonoma bans them, the County might eventually follow suit. It is our intention to create packets of information to share with other communities.
Having several issues of importance does not preclude dealing with leaf blowers, another important issue (unless you dismiss the science on the serious health risks of breathing in fine particulate matter, and the other health and environmental impacts associated with leaf blowers).
The issue of job loss is a red herring. This report from Burlingame prepared by a citizen's committee for the City Council is one of the best and most recent -- there are others as well -- to spell out the satisfaction in towns with leaf blower bans, and the total absence of any evidence that anyone lost their jobs or went out of business. (The interviews with cities are summarized starting about 2/3 through the document.) http://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=7862
Finally, Waldron's letter did not predict "catastrophic" effects as you describe them, and your own quote confirms this. "A little less tidy" for the same price is not what I'd call catastrophic. I've spoken to him myself and I know his feelings about a ban have consistently been: it's probably inevitable (for good reasons) and he can deal with it - for some jobs the cost will go up slightly or the result will be less perfect.
I think you've done a disservice here to the public, who have a right to know the facts.
Speaking of facts, there is ample research on the health risks associated with the filthy emissions and fine particulate matter leaf blowers produce, including reports from the Harvard School of Public Health , Harvard Medical School, NYU Medical School, the American Lung Association, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, an Orange County Grand Jury Report on Leaf Blowers, physicians groups, the EPA, The New England Journal of Medicine, The NY Times, Scientific American, Environmental Health Perspectives, and many other sources.
I would like to point out, that the refugee crisis in Europe is more important than affordable housing, but what does that have to do with affordable housing not being an important issue? On the drought, as we have been told by our arborist, if people did not blow the leaves off, the ground would not become rock hard and unhealthy for our native trees. This would also help stop the spread of sudden oak death, by keeping the trees healthier. I am 64 years old and weight 107 pounds. I sweep the leaves out of our driveway and off the street in front of our house and place them under the oak trees on a regular basis. So, I do not buy into this "We must have our leaf blowers as a necessary landscape tool, or our world will fall apart, our property values will plummet if we can not keep our yards devoid of all naturally occurring elements" litany in favor of leaf blowers. Maybe it is time to embrace our natural world, and contribute to its health and be just a bit less tidy without our leaf blowers.
Boyes Hot Springs
Wow. Sarah Stierch got so much wrong about this five year effort to ban leafblowers in Sonoma, and is so clearly committed to journalism as an exercise in hyperbole vs. getting the facts straight, it would be a miracle if anyone working on either side of this issue ever talked to a Bohemian writer again.
What a shock it is that DA Ravitch took a pass. I'm sure ever since she faked her investigation of Eric Gelhause, she will double down from now on. Those local defense attorneys must have been pretty sure these allegations had meat on 'em to get Attorney Izaak Schwaiger involved. I bet if the attorneys with juevos in the area did a little digging, they'd find a can of worms at that jail.
Just another example of "rogue police". Unexcuse-able behavior for the protectors of the Friendly City. If I am not mistaken, this isn't the first time. What if Barney Fife's gun went off and killed one of their kids? Resisting arrest???
This is outrageous behaviour from a local police dept supposedly pledged to "serve and protect" their community. "Surveil and harass" is more like it.
With so many in every community being incarcerated for non violent crimes and first time offenses, why have the police increase the sense of injustice with these tactics? Good grief, 3 officers to conduct a parole search when no crime was suspected, no complaint made?
That's not only a waste of tax payers money, but very poor public relations.
Crackpots after easy money.
This article has inspired me to return to Peter Lowell's for another meal. I've experienced both good and bad from the restaurant (food is nearly always 4-5 stars imo), but service has been tricky at times. Glad to hear they are taking leadership on income inequality in our community!
BTW, Lowell Sheldon is just ahead of the game, one day soon, tipping will go away in California....mostly because of a high minimum wage.....I've been in the restaurnat business 35 years, I know. I've been an owner the last 16....Tipping is going away....
To justsaying....if TIP is To Insure Promptness, why do we do it at the end of the meal. If we're " insuring" something, shouldn't we do it before?
Just a couple points here, from a New Yorker who's relocating to Sebastopol:
1) Peter Lowell's is hands down my favorite restaurant in Sonoma -- it's one of my favorite restaurants anywhere! PL's embodies everything a local place should be; it's creative, exuberant, relaxed, true to its principles, and above all DELICIOUS. I have read gripes on SM about service, but in two dozen visits over the last 7 years I have never had anything but great service there. So I think that is truly a bad rap.
2) Maybe it's the years I've spent overseas where "service-compris" is standard, but to me an automatic service charge just makes sense. Tipping is an archaic practice that neither really communicates a larger message to management nor fairly compensates the supply chain that leads to that hot plate of deliciousness just placed before you. And it makes both waiters and patrons uncomfortable, by setting them up essentially as counterparties in a transaction, rather than people enjoying the miracle of a great restaurant. Let's face it, this model is outworn. There are plenty better ways for waiters to show they care and patrons to show they're happy than by this financial reward/punishment system.
3) Restaurant work -- at every level -- is HARD WORK. Competition is fierce for the best employees. Plus, shouldn't the people who bring you such goodness be fairly paid for that task?
Finally, Lowell, as everybody knows, is a passionate, committed, incredibly brilliant chef who is an asset to our community. I don't even want to contemplate Sebastopol without PL. We need to be supporting the local businesspeople that are bringing their hard work and passion every day.
Was just recently at the restaurant, my first time. I was a little underwhelmed. I did read about the 20% policy and it did not strike a positive chord for me. I still believe that a TIP is To Insure Promptness. WE did not really experience that.
As for the comments from DonDonSurvelo, do not worry about Lowell's. I noticed that they are already collecting the 9% tax on the "Service Charge". Hmmmm Not only are we required to pay a standard fee in lieu of the traditional tip, we are now taxed on it, whereas before tips were not a taxable commodity for the client. (Yes the servers and any kitchen staff that were receiving a portion are required to report it as income)
The result is a 25% (in my case) surcharge to the advertised prices. Not sure how that jives with the laws regarding advertising or labelling of prices. I would guarantee that even with the good intentions of paying the staff a living wage ($16 -$28 an hour given the hours and expense of living in the bay area is not a living wage) that none of us would buy gasoline (or groceries) that were labelled at $3.00 per gallon and after we filled up were billed $3.75
North Bay Bohemian
2016 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation