What do you think of Lynda Hopkins?

[sohemi]

I would have to disagree. Being a Buddhist for the last 30 years, I have sought balance in all aspects of my life, including running for office. All of my contributions have been spontaneous acts from people I know or were inspired by hearing me speak.

My interest is to provide the best services possible to the people I wish to represent. I am running for Supervisor of the 5th District because I feel passionately about the place I have called home for the last 50 years, 40 of those years in the 5th District. My angle is to have someone who's heart and life are in the District. If you have any questions for me, I answer all of my own e-mail [email protected].

Cheers, Marion
https://www.marionchase4supervisor.com/

...In fact, I'd expect anyone who's affected much by public policy, who has money at stake and who has any to spend, would pick a candidate who helps further their interests. If any person or group has non-financial interests, but money to spend, they might act similarly. ...

[scamperwillow]

Marion is the real deal too!!

I would have to disagree....

[podfish]

I would have to disagree. ..... All of my contributions have been spontaneous acts from people I know or were inspired by hearing me speak.

in the interests of balance myself - I don't share the opinions of many who see nothing but evil self-interest in campaign contributors, but equally, I don't share your optimism about the sunny motivations of those who support you. I betcha they think that your actions in public office will make the county align better with their interests.

again, that's not a criticism! it's really how it should work. I'm objecting to the moralistic interpretations; those you inspire aren't necessarily more noble than, for example, those who want land policy changes that enable their own chosen way of life.

[podfish]

Some of us have motives other than money...I think you will find that true of most progressives - care about the public good and not personal profit.

I know, tl;dr but in my post I said "If any person or group has non-financial interests, but money to spend, they might act similarly."

you're positing "most progressives" as caring about the right things, and implying the 'others' don't. I see self-interest in making the county safe for those who share your feelings about things, and I see it on both sides. I don't see it being wrong per-se. Enough redundant posts, I hope....

[jbox]

I for one would not be able to vote for you, Tom, after this display of immature sarcasm on WACCO. This type of temperament is not what we need or want in a public official.

Yes, yes, the public sector is no place for a sense of humor, much less sarcasm. We need humorless policy wonks, I just can't imagine what Tom was a-thinkin..........

[tommy]

I need to attribute "through the history of our country, unions - groups of workers - are the main democratic force, standing against complete control by big money" to Noam Chomsky, from his recent Netflix documentary "Requiem for the American Dream"

Slam unions all you want. They are not perfect, little is, except Mother Nature.

However, through the history of our country, unions - groups of workers - are the main democratic force, standing against complete control by big money.

[spam1]

Slam unions all you want. They are not perfect, little is, except Mother Nature.
However, through the history of our country, unions - groups of workers - are the main democratic force, standing against complete control by big money.

Completely agree for private employee unions. they are on the opposite side of big money and owners. Owners watch out for themselves, unions watch out for members, a virtuous tension exists.

But who watches for the taxpayers who are on the hook when elected officials (supported strongly by the unions) negotiate with the unions that support them: what happens is what we see with pensions. No money to fix roads and money to pay pensions so far greater than any of us private workers will see it seems like a public worker has hit the lottery (only we're paying for the tickets).

[Dorothy Friberg]

About the pension plan which you state, I have no argument, but as to your issue on "junior second dwelling units with zero impact fees, no hookup charges and no affordability charges for owner occupied homes that want to create a small second unit", etc. I DO TAKE ISSUE! Western Sonoma County is no longer the wild west with wannabes thinking there is still manifest destiny in operation here. While we do have housing issues up the ying yang, why is the tax burden left to the legitimate homeowner? West county is awash with huge numbers of "junior second dwelling units" already untaxed. That means that Legitimate homeowners are already carrying much more than their own tax burden.

This is one reason our roads are in such dire shape, the multiple second and even primary dwellings who are not paying a fair tax because they have built and continue to use the services which are paid for by hard working tax payers (and I haven't' even mentioned marijuana plantations). So Ms. & Mr. taxpayer not only pay for county pensions, but also for the schools, roads, law enforcement, welfare, undocumented worker and whatever else residents wish to put on their plate. And now you want to add an untold number of untaxed additional units. Get real!

Good question Barry...sorry for the long response but this is a complicated issue....

[podfish]

While we do have housing issues up the ying yang, why is the tax burden left to the legitimate homeowner? West county is awash with huge numbers of "junior second dwelling units" already untaxed. That means that Legitimate homeowners are already carrying much more than their own tax burden....And now you want to add an untold number of untaxed additional units. Get real!

maybe I missed his desire for 'untaxed' units. Sounds like you've made a good case for adding more property inspectors.

It's never made sense to me how society balances freedom vs. laws by insisting on poor enforcement. No-one would accept (ok, few would..) having their car's speed broadcast to the CHP, but we're happy with speed limits. There's a weird social compact about when and where it's ok to enforce the speed laws, and most especially on how to do it. This extends to tax law - and really all over the place. Of course, the main beneficiaries are the fabled 1% who know how to dodge enforcement, or to get enforcement operations de-funded, and those who suffer are the powerless who feel the full weight of capricious enforcement.

But the rest of us 'typical' people typically don't rock the boat, glad to get away with building a granny-unit on the sly or rolling through a stop sign unmolested. Perfect enforcement is a science-fiction nightmare, of course, but this more human way has its negative side effects. Tightening some things up would be beneficial.

one obvious thing to do is increase the number of enforcers (IRS auditors, property inspectors, traffic cops) as long as the fines and taxes previously left uncollected pay for their employment. Sounds awful, doesn't it? since it does, we get what we have now. That's easier than ensuring the laws are (nearly) universally acceptable.

[Dorothy Friberg]

What society has, is a social contract. Such as trusting that the other driver will stop at her stop sign (if she has one) so that traffic can proceed in other directions without wondering if it is safe to proceed. Few of us can stomach the multiple rules which are placed on us in a burgeoning society. But we all need to carry our own fair share, not so much of enforcement as participation in a smooth running society. Very few of the famous 1% live in west county. If you use the roads, pay for them. If you use the schools, do the same. You can float around in your head your paranoias about cops and inspectors, I am discussing with a potential supervisor of the 5th district the addition of units which he thinks need to bypass our county requirements. I agree that present building fees are out of reach for many of us and prevent worthy people from being properly housed. What needs to change is the bottleneck in government (and your attitude 'free for me' and to heck with the rest of you.

maybe I missed his desire for 'untaxed' units. Sounds like you've made a good case for adding more property inspectors.

It's never made sense to me how society balances freedom vs. laws by insisting on poor enforcement. No-one would accept (ok, few would..) having their car's speed broadcast to the CHP, but we're happy with speed limits. There's a weird social compact about when and where it's ok to enforce the speed laws, and most especially on how to do it. This extends to tax law - and really all over the place. Of course, the main beneficiaries are the fabled 1% who know how to dodge enforcement, or to get enforcement operations de-funded, and those who suffer are the powerless who feel the full weight of capricious enforcement.

But the rest of us 'typical' people typically don't rock the boat, glad to get away with building a granny-unit on the sly or rolling through a stop sign unmolested. Perfect enforcement is a science-fiction nightmare, of course, but this more human way has its negative side effects. Tightening some things up would be beneficial.

one obvious thing to do is increase the number of enforcers (IRS auditors, property inspectors, traffic cops) as long as the fines and taxes previously left uncollected pay for their employment. Sounds awful, doesn't it? since it does, we get what we have now. That's easier than ensuring the laws are (nearly) universally acceptable.

[Lisa Maldonado]

What society has, is a social contract. ...

This is what happens when you have laws and a society dominated by real estate and big business interests- regulations written for the interests of those who wish to make money- not community.

When I moved to Santa Rosa ten years ago I was truly flummoxed by this beautiful and quaint little town with a big ugly mall right in the middle of it. I asked a couple of natives "whose idea was it to drop a big concrete mall in the middle of this sweet little town?" and the responses were generally "that's what happens when you get real estate and developers on the city council and board of supervisors."

That's why it DOES matter that Lynda Hopkins is being funded by Big Business developers and real estate pacs and the Syar Gravel Mining interests. They and others like Tom Lynch want to distract you with ranting and raving about pensions and unions while they continue despoiling our county until the whole thing looks like Santa Clara....A Vote for Noreen Evans is a vote for thoughtful and community based planning-and Noreen is supported by the Sierra Club and Sonoma County Conservation Action.

Not like Lynda who talks a great game about organic food and compost toilets ; while she is taking money from Syar Gravel Mining interests and big wineries who's main concern is the pursuit of a blessed buck by Any means necessary- including despoiling one of the most beautiful places in the country

[tommy]

From what I've heard, there is a good case for relaxing regulations around 2nd units, as was done in Novato.
There could be a moratorium on 2nd units, where people could come forward, without risk, to legalize them. The same with Junior 2nd dwelling units. They could be added to the tax on the property. The main issue is providing more affordable housing.

When any idea is proposed, that's in the public good, there will always be people opposed. The argument of "not paying your fair share" is a scarcity argument, that will exacerbate the housing crisis. The CA Legislative Report has proposed higher density housing in CA coastal communities, such as around Smart Train Stations. Will there be people opposed? Of course. However, we need to look at the greater good, of providing more housing, and not catering to those who got here first.

About the pension plan which you state, I have no argument, but as to your issue on "junior second dwelling units with zero impact fees, no hookup charges and no affordability charges for owner occupied homes that want to create a small second unit", etc. I DO TAKE ISSUE! ...

[terijane]

Can we start threads to address the important issues of the 5th District (roads, pensions, housing, homeless, etc.) and get poor Lynda off this title? Just sayin'......

---

From Barry:
Have at it, Terijane!

[sohemi]

I agree, if you use our roads, you should help pay for the repair and upkeep. The very first thing I pushed for during the candidate forums is just that. I want to raise the Occupancy Tax 3% and have the full amount go to our roads and emergency infrastructures in West County. This revenue would stay in the community it was derived in. If the revenue is raised in Bodega, it would stay in Bodega to pay for Emergency services such as Bodega Fire as well as the roads themselves. This will not place an undue burden on tourism. It will bring us into alignment with the GST (goods and services tax) of other Countries.

I am the only one proposing a fee on rental vehicles. This fee will apply to anyone using a Driver's License from outside of Sonoma County. These funds will then be designated to pay for a Infrastructure Preservation Bond. I believe we can pass both of these measures. Both District 1, which encompasses Sonoma and District 4, which encompasses Healdsburg, would benefit from the new revenue. Both Districts are popular tourism areas.

What society has, is a social contract. ...

[Shepherd]

Yea! Thanks to Teri for this suggestion. Let's stop picking on the youngest person running. This is the single worst thread that I have seen in my years reading Wacco. What a disgrace. We may need her in the future.

Can we start threads to address the important issues of the 5th District (roads, pensions, housing, homeless, etc.) and get poor Lynda off this title? Just sayin'......

[Zeno Swijtink]

Just got my Lynda sign. So excited!

Expand

[riverosprey]

Expand

Nice sign Zeno, but I think our signs are better, real works of art :0).

kind regards to all (including Lisa Maldonado :).

Tom "Developer Lackey" Lynch

p.s. Thank you Shepherd for your kind words on deaf ears :).

[Michael Anthony]

That's why it DOES matter that Lynda Hopkins is being funded by Big Business developers and real estate...

What don't you get about the fact that Noreen Evans' previous campaigns were funded by big wine, big business, big real estate, and big casinos? How much good did it do them? The answer is the same as it will be with Lynda Hopkins; NONE.

When you donate money to a homeless person, do you first ask them for their allegiance to you? The idea that Lynda Hopkins has been bought by the people who have donated money to her campaign is that ridiculous.

[scamperwillow]

I would like to know as well Zeno.

I'd be interested in knowing why you support the candidate who is endorsed by business and development interests, Zeno. Please tell me/us.