Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification

[This new thread continues the discussion from the prior thread "Santa Rosa Plan to Reunify Courthouse Square calls to remove 35 Redwood Trees?" which is now closed.] :waccosun:

---

The City Council PASSED UNANIMOUS YES VOTES to continue with the courthouse square reunification plan.

Is anyone in favor of chipping in to help fund a www.change.org petition to influence the council members to stop the development for now? Alternatively to the Change.org petition, the city will acknowledge wet-ink petition signatures in order to put the issue up for vote on the November ballot, but at a long and arduous 9 months of signature collection. There's got to be a different way through some kind of "Docu-Sign" as a legal way to obtain mass wet ink petition signatures, of which we would need 7,500, or 10% of the city's population.

We have some idea of what the true cost of the reunification will entail. They tell us $10 million. But if $10 million is akin to a mortgage loan, then it will cost much more, as per the September 22, 2015 council meeting, the true cost will be $20 million when interest is included @ $665,000 per year for a 30 year loan.. The way the council has pursued money for this project requires no public vote, yet funding will be with our tax dollars through the generation of new fees, including rent control fees @ 4.7 million per year to administrate.

This plan has been in the works for decades, but no matter, the public "poll" is not in favor due to financial ambiguity, and the plan itself to remove trees, to which there could be a better way to spare them in a different plan.

The community has expressed sentiment at the meeting last night that there are too many questions and the plan was Marshall-ed in some secrecy through closed study sessions, hence potentially breaching the Brown Act, which calls for all citizens to participate in governmental discussions. Most disappointing, there were no PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES erected at the site of Old Courthouse Square to let the public know that the topic was being discussed by City Council. (Our citizens could benefit from an automatic text when any meeting takes place at the City Council).

I understand the reunification is important and a long sought and noble desire. But the time is not now. We have a severe housing crisis and the $10 million turned $20 million when finally paid off, is a priority for putting more jobs into the Santa Rosa Permit Department to help expedite developers building plans to build more affordable housing. The council seems to disagree and thinks that the $20 million would have an unknown return on investment, but one council member speculated of 20 years. This is not a good answer and 20 years is a horrible ROI. We need SOLID ROI information before moving forward.

Trees will be slated to be cut ASAP. I'm sure the City is being tight lipped about the exact day of cutting to prevent public protest.


BTW: I URGE anyone who is interested to view the video archive stream on the City Council website (ARCHIVED videos) to see the public courthouse hearing held on September 22, 2015, (please watch item 4.1 and 14.1, as well as video of the actual vote to approve on January 26, 2015 near the end of the video).

Anyone? Please comment your ideas and thoughts.

Many thanks!

Dies irae, Dies illa

[translation: "Day of wrath and doom impending."]

went to meeting and stayed till after midnight. quite sickened by this whole thing. they've likely begun cutting wednesday, the trees will be felled within days, completed by feb. 1. nothing left to save.

a few specifics for the $10MILLION DOLLAR project, paid for by public/your funds;
some vague talk about money from nearby businesses which profit most, but why should they pay if they don't have to? (and this followed previous hours of testimony on the intense shortage of AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS MENTIONING THEY ARE LANDLORDS AND NOT COMFORTABLE WITH RENT CONTROL but clearly feeling fine about their own ruling on their self-invested issues!!):

- SMALLER SQUARE BY 10, 000 square feet the COMMONS, OUR SPACE shrinking, while population grows
- surfaced in DECOMPOSING GRANITE (difficult-to-impossible for canes, wheelchairs, barefoot)
- one small central flat grassy area (bull's eye in the middle) - NO shade, nowhere else to sit and connect with the earth
- trees in BOXES, a couple of rows, NO GROVES, nothing natural. all sterile, controlled; trees which grow to 15 ft. height maximum. wet dream of a control freak; nature is just too wild and messy...
- NOTHING NATURAL, NO soft, lovely, curvey respite from the streets and stores…few places for people to sit and talk, gather and BE (GO AND BUY SOME STUFF OR EAT AT THE SURROUNDING RESTAURANTS DAMMIT)
- maybe restrooms, maybe not; public spoke up several times on the insanity of NO restrooms
- ditto for a water fountain (hey, why give it away? gotta make MONEY)
- and yes, 91 TREES CUT AND GONE.

but, hey, 45 more parking parking spaces. with meters. right on the square. BFD. ugh.

jude

How to fight "Big Money Greed and Insanity" with "Little Money Compassion for nature"? Our voices are whispers in a blinding storm. We are living in times of extreme homicidal madness, and this is just but one example, in our own backyard. My wish is that the activity will somehow backfire on those who need a "wake up" call, and it's never too soon.

Remember the song, 'Tie a yellow ribbon-round-the-old-tree'?
So they are poised to begin cutting the Redwoods at Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa.

Although I'm far more concerned with the upcoming logging of places like the Gualala River Watershed, where literally thousands of redwoods will be logged for Big Logging profits, and more degradation of watersheds, habitats, wildlife, rivers, H2o, and the Natural forests themselves being eaten up & replaced with sterile gmo-trees...
(see 'A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat, Genetically Engineered Trees' with David Suzuki):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxLqxQCRW-UYouTube ...
The redwoods being cut in Old Courthouse square are representative of the last of the redwoods.

So, in the spirit of resisting Big Logging Exploitation, and 'SAVE THE LAST OF THE REDWOODS!'
"Tie a day-glow ribbon round the redwood tree" at Old Courthouse Square to bring awareness, and show solidarity with saving the last of the redwoods! Whether everyone does (or doesn't), there will be trees w/ribbons galore!
Participence, Perseverance, and Resistance!
Thanks & Solidarity. Gualala Spring 2016!

Beautifully and sadly reported. Thank you for your heartfelt energy, in the face of such powerful, controlling opposition.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

went to meeting and stayed till after midnight. quite sickened by this whole thing.
they've likely begun cutting wednesday, the trees will be felled within days, completed by feb. 1. nothing left to save.

a few specifics for the $10MILLION DOLLAR PLAN, paid for by public/your funds; some vague talk about money from nearby businesses which profit most, but why should they pay if they don't have to?
(and this followed by hours of testimony on the intense shortage of AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS MENTIONING THEY ARE LANDLORDS AND NOT COMFORTABLE WITH RENT CONTROL!!):

- SMALLER SQUARE BY 10, 000 square feet the COMMONS, OUR SPACE shrinking, while population grows
- surfaced in DECOMPOSING GRANITE (difficult-to-impossible for canes, wheelchairs, barefoot)
- one small central flat grassy area (bull's eye in the middle) - NO shade, nowhere else to sit and connect with the earth
- trees in BOXES, a couple of rows, NO GROVES, nothing natural. all sterile, controlled; trees which grow to 15 ft. height maximum. wet dream of a control freak; nature is just too wild...
- NOTHING NATURAL, NO soft, lovely, curvey respite from the streets and stores…few places for people to sit and talk, gather and BE (GO AND BUY SOME STUFF OR EAT AT THE SURROUNDING RESTAURANTS DAMMIT)
- maybe restrooms, maybe not; public spoke up several times on the insanity of NO restrooms
- ditto for a water fountain (hey, why give it away? gotta make MONEY)
- and yes, 91 TREES CUT AND GONE.

but, hey, 45 more parking parking spaces. with meters. right on the square. BFD.
ugh.

jude

---

It sickens me too - a done deal before they even pretended that our input meant anything at all.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

went to meeting and stayed till after midnight. quite sickened by this whole thing....

---

I attended the Santa Rosa City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 26. As the topic was addressed three hours after the posted time, I was not able to stay for the public commentary, but did see the presentation of the Plans.

As I understand it, the Plan is to utterly destroy our two unique and lovely fountains, our little Grecian bandstand, all the trees and plants except the redwoods and the giant bunya bunya tree, then lay out a highly unnatural space with other trees (of unnamed species) in boxes, ground granite and paving over most of the space, and a green area in the middle. Oh, and a “water feature” that has a few shards from the lovely Ruth Osawa fountain that will be replaced by parking.

A secondary effect will be to reroute traffic around the Square, sending drivers on a merry chase around the heart of Santa Rosa. Good thing there will be 44 parking spaces in the Square - on top of the three thousand in parking garages only a block or two away. Yeah, 44 more parking spaces will really boost sales downtown! You betcha!

Then there’s the matter of public restrooms for people enjoying our Town Square. How many are there in this plan? Two? Four? How about None? Yep, no public restrooms at all. Were they omitted intentionally? Or it just slipped everyone’s mind? Which is it, City Council?

Those of us who feel sentimental about the place were thrown a few fish: more redwoods spared, parts of the fountain reused, parking lots named after streets from our grandparent’s time, the footprint of the stately Courthouse of years gone by reflected in the green area. Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the shape of the old courthouse. I care about hot afternoons in the shade by a fountain, waiting for friends, reading, eating a hot dog or some Mexican food while hearing music on the bandstand, Pomo dancers, book fairs, so many wonderful memories, their place being bulldozed under forever for what? A pre-fab urban design that would not look out of place in San Jose, but it isn’t Santa Rosa at all.

No, thanks, Santa Rosa City Council. I don’t know why you’re in such an all-fired hurry to push this project on all of us, but it’s unseemly for you as public servants to make such a huge change in our commons without better agreement from the citizenry.

I’d be happy to share my ideas for retaining both fountains and nearly all the trees, having handicapped parking right in the park and even restrooms! As for the huge traffic problem that will be created, you’re on your own there…but let’s not use the same reasoning and values that gave us a major freeway roaring through our city, okay?

Diane Darling
Graton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BothSidesNow:

Dies irae, Dies illa

[translation: "Day of wrath and doom impending."]

---

**********************************************************************************************************************
No, Sara, that's not the way I meant it or the way it was always translated in my Catholic childhood. It's from the Catholic Requiem Mass.

Dies irae, dies illa = "day of wrath and day of MOURNING."

What I meant was:
Yesterday, the day we found out our hopes were dead, on that day there was anger & there was mourning.

Janet

[ That was the translation I looked up. Sorry, Barry :waccosun:]

Can't we do some sort of tree-hugging/chaining/human barrier/climbing-up-a-Julia-Hill-tree/press release thing to keep this from happening?!?!

Is there any chance now of overturning the vote with the right amount - or quality - of support? If we spread the word enough? There are a lot of ways to spread the word...Public radio? Care2.com free petition? I noticed someone said a Change.org petition needed funding, but Care2's 'ThePetitionSite.com' is free to create petitions; Neighborland.com is another site where people can come together easily as a community for free, giving them the resources to come up with ideas for their community and bring together the right people and resources to reflect those ideas in reality.

Another thought is how I felt as a child and a teenager, growing up in a world being ruined by the world before me, and my parents' and my own generations after that. I was passionate and optimistic that I could affect major change through my own logic, effort, and skills. My life's dream was completely tied in to all of this, this desire to 'save the planet' because its health, purity, life, and beauty were being destroyed by the very beings who had most taken advantage of its bounty. How then must the children of today feel when they learn of this horror the adults of their generation are about to inflict upon their own local community next? I know I for one would have wanted to do something to stop it!!

Now, some may feel that children should have nothing to do with such 'adult' matters and would never consider getting any *actual* children involved; some might even consider it morally wrong, thinking of it as 'using' children for an adult agenda they may not support...but I urge you to consider these lines of questioning as well: 1) How do you think a child -- one you may know, or your own, perhaps -- would see this situation? Would they support it? Would they want to fight against its happening? Would they feel afraid of any part of it? Would they think of themselves as being 'used', if they wanted to support the 'natural' beauty we here are (mostly) all so fond of, even without anyone else around (i.e., 'adults') to benefit? How sad (or angry!), or confused, or troubling would it feel to have the plan go ahead and not successfully stop it?

What would that child think, and more importantly, how would they FEEL, when they saw those beautiful, gigantic (for downtown SR, anyway) redwood trees, cut down and lying on truck beds...and the sad-looking stumps left over, with their dark sap looking almost bloody because of its color seen against the color of the redwood? I used to feel sick, and oh-so-sad and depressed to see tree stumps -- sad, dead headstones, silently marking a spot (or many spots!) that had once been so full of life - not just the life of the tree itself, but all the life within it, too. Would that child Want the Chance to save the 'Downtown Santa Rosa', along with its beloved trees, that they've been allowed to enjoy so far? Do they have the basic human right to be given that chance - and do we have the right to deny them that chance?

Next, consider: 2) Think of a teenager, maybe someone you know, perhaps your own. Think carefully through all those same questions, see all those images over in your mind, this time from the perspective of a teenager. Digitally-addicted since early childhood perhaps, rebellious against anything and anyone, maybe super-smart with anything wired, possibly 100% oblivious to the charms of Nature -- yet still passionate about whatever drives them. They are, like I was, strong with emotion & energy (though logic might not be their strongest quality at this point in life). They not only fight hormonal impulses and bullies and acne and changes in their bodies, relationships, and responsibilities; at times, they seem almost *eager* to fight whatever else comes their way. Would that teenager Want the Chance to save the 'Downtown Santa Rosa', along with its beloved trees, that they've been allowed to enjoy so far? Do they have the basic human right to be given that chance - and do we have the right to deny them that chance?

Last, consider: 3) Think of Yourself as that Child - think of Yourself as that Teenager. Ask yourself those same questions, see those images for your own self, in your own experience, from *your* point of view. Would YOU Want the Chance to save the 'Downtown Santa Rosa', along with its beloved trees, that YOU've been allowed to enjoy so far? Do YOU have the basic human right to be given that chance -- and do we -- do I -- does ANYone have the right to deny You that chance? Would you -- and have you -- forgiven your elders for not giving you that chance to do more as a part of your regular learning experience? Teachers should be allowed to inspire their students, asking something like, "Students...How do we want to make our community better today, thus making our world better?"

Make no mistake: This was your grandfathers' fight, your parents' fight, and it is now YOUR FIGHT - but it's ALSO your CHILDRENS' Fight, and if we but have the COURAGE to ALLOW them THEIR CHANCE to FIGHT this, then maybe, just *maybe*, THEIR Children WON'T HAVE TO FIGHT ANYMORE.

Those of you who feel your children, or your teenagers, would want to know, Please, *Talk To Them*. Entire families, entire communities, neighbors, friends, the homeless on the street, the elderly in their communities, along with entire school classes or college courses filled with people Young AND Old, rich AND poor, white, black, green; male, female, or otherwise - EVERYONE deserves a chance to stand up for their community and the good things in it -- like trees! -- and good people. If CHS is filled to overflowing with young and old citizenry, banners, sad faces, and 200 children & teens who suddenly need to use a restroom when 'Cutting Day' arrives (if by Goddess' mercy it hasn't already!), I think the PressDemo and possibly other news outlets would have a bit of a 'field day', don't you? I'd want to be there to see it! The more attention we can spotlight on the situation, the more likely we'll be to generate positive action, hopefully leading to a strong oppositional force that can & will defeat this 'unanimous vote' (that definitely DIDN'T have MY vote at any point!).

Parents, teachers, worried the safety of your children could be compromised somehow for standing up for their beliefs at a young age? Shoot some home videos on your camera phone, upload them to YouTube.com, and send the footage to the local news stations, your congressman, the City Council, anyone who can HELP. Better yet, dig up some old, or shoot some new, vids of your family enjoying a nice day in the (existing) downtown square area (if it would stop raining for a moment!). Talk to the businesses you patronize (as a family) and let them know you'd be very disappointed and might not be as eager to spend your time (and thereby, your money) downtown if your family and you don't find it pleasant once it's been 'reunified' -- give THEM reason to speak up on your behalf!

If the cutting hasn't happened yet, I DO think it's POSSIBLE to Successfully overturn this decision and improve it along the lines of what everyone here is suggesting. As far as what I personally can offer -- I'm creative, with a lot of different ideas, but I myself am limited in physical mobility and transportation, so I'm not able to list out ALL of my ideas in a letter like this; this is a rare thing that's taking some moderate back & neck pain to create (which I'll be paying for later).

This pain, and more, I'm willing to endure so our stately redwoods (which I for one LOVE and got to grow up with in childhood and as a student and adult, living and working downtown) can live on, without the pain of being cut down in their prime. However, I need Help myself, in order to do more than just post this message. I would need a ride in order to face down a chainsaw and handcuff myself to a redwood or two, possibly some medical support. Other types of help I might be able to provide could require other types of help for me to perform them, like some pep-talky positive motivation if I were feeling overwhelmed by the opposition, or help researching who to send vids or protests to, etc.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or suggestions; however, as typing is tedious and uncomfortable currently, please include a phone number along with the earliest & latest times you wish to receive calls &/or texts, and please also let me know if the number is text-capable, if you don't mind.

~ Thank you for your time in reading this; I hope it inspired someone out there or helped someone in some way. ~

Blessings,

MissTrisBliss >^.^<
:fairy duster:

There are some positive aspects to reuniting the square. #1 I think is it will slow or relocate traffic away from the heart of Santa Rosa. #2 is it will create a space for people to be, instead of a few park benches in the current split configuration.

Greetings citizens of Sonoma County,

Thank you for your support thus far. We keep revising for better focus.

UPDATE:

Below is a link to a NEWLY REVISED and abbreviated Change.org PETITION. Please sign the petition by opening the link (below) and signing if you are a resident and/or voter of Santa Rosa and support the cause. We need signatures in the thousands.

https://www.change.org/p/santa-rosa-...rthouse-square

That's right! Even after decades of city-wide deliberation, we still think more time is needed. Why? because we think that the City of Santa Rosa and the money for Old Courthouse Square Reunification should triage for ways to begin to resolve our city-wide housing crisis.



Thank you for your support!

Thank you for the petition to sign. In my opinion,This issue should be decided by the voters, not the city council.

I just read a post on Rohnert Park Nextdoor.com that this petition can only be signed by Santa Rosa residents. Is this true? If so, this needs to be stated up front.

I just posted this on several Santa Rosa focused Facebook groups and sent an email to my friends who live in Santa Rosa. If you belong to a Santa Rosa Nextdoor.com group, please share this post there.

R U a Santa Rosa resident voter? This affects you:

If you're a Santa Rosa resident voter, you may be able to prevent $10+ million from being spent on Courthouse Square instead of "affordable housing". Ask the City Council to REVERSE it's decision. Time is of the essence. SIGN NOW, or LOSE your power to stop this insanity.

I just signed the petition "santa rosa, California, Santa Rosa California City Council: Santa Rosa 4 Affordable Housing... Not a $10 Million Courthouse Square!" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name. Please SHARE with your friends who are SR resident voters.

Our goal is to reach 100 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/santa-rosa-...edium=copylink

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by diaba:

Thank you for the petition to sign. In my opinion,This issue should be decided by the voters, not the city council.

---

Hello everyone,

Please send us your best local referral to an attorney whom you know cares about the 2008 Environmental Impact Report, as it pertains to the reunification of Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa.

We are holding a strategy meeting to contemplate the need for a legally proposed challenge to what we think may be the incomplete and outdated 2008 traffic study related to the reunification of Old Courthouse Square. We are concerned, and see no evidence that the 2008 traffic study addresses the addition of 42- 47 parking spaces, which may have a significant impact on the implications of traffic to downtown. In light of this we want to brace ourselves with the advisement of an attorney in order to better understand our rights in becoming informed citizens. In the meantime, we will be contacting City Council to ask them to respond to our concern. Since the City Council cannot give us legal advice, we still need to seek out an attorney to educate us to the City Council's reply.

Whereas we DO FIND evidence on publicly available archived City Council meetings. In the LINK BELOW, please find the minutes and video dated February 22, 2015; section 4.1 on the video archive, in which the question has been raised and gone only partly answered as to "why" the city may exonerate itself from re-submitting a new EIR traffic study to 2016 traffic implications. And while the commentary does not beg the question as to the additional 42-47 parking spaces, it is a good prelude to begging that question at the next City Council meeting. As herein we would want the citizens of Santa Rosa to know if the city must resubmit for PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY to either the EPA and/or CEQA a new traffic study BEFORE THEY BREAK GROUND on the reunification of Courthouse Square project.

When the video is played, pay close attention to the public comment made by Santa Rosa Certified Public Accountant, Susanne Ell, who expresses concern over this very issue, and more.

Fast forward the video to the time marker 00:33:45 to view her comments before the City Council, and their reaction to her comments.

https://santa-rosa.granicus.com/Medi...=5&clip_id=677

We deserve answers over how additional parking spaces not peviously mentioned in the 2008 traffic study will impact outlying streets and traffic.

Please URGE City Council members to answer to this question immediately and perhaps we can find some solace.

Thank you for your support!

Hello everyone,

Certificates of Participation, aka COPs.

Sadly, there are those of us who are learning, or already know that the City of Santa Rosa Council Members DO NOT need to ask for voter approval regarding the all or partial use of "Certificates of Participation" for the $10 million dollar lease-back finance instrument they chose for the reunification of Old Courthouse Square.

Please find the guideline below, as per the "CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION" outlined in 1993, at such time when COPs were voted into the State of California. We're verifying if this 1993 version is the only current version.

Guideline 17 states: Solicit Public Participation in Tax-Exempt Leasing Decisions

For us geeks who like to read public policy, there's a glimmer of good news held within pages 40-52 (link below). You might be pleased to learn that Santa Rosa voters may have a chance to change and/or monitor the way the Santa Rosa City Council chooses to use COPs for funding FUTURE projects. Yes future projects. And wouldn't that be nice to have that choice tested before a city-wide vote in 2016?

Read pages 40-52 to learn the possibilities. Its a fast paced read into COP use, abuse and administrative guidelines a used by city and county governments.

https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/r...elines93-8.pdf

While these pages hold no definite promise of Santa Rosans having a vote in accepting or rejecting COPs , its worth looking into isn't it? And we are!

We want to make sure another $10 million dollar COP project (or cluster projects) CANNOT PASS approval without a PUBLIC mechanism of oversight.



Thank you for your support.

Jennifer, I so appreciate that you have gone beyond, in digging up this "disheartening dirt". I wish someone with some "true grit" and power would step forward to help the ordinary citizens who oppose this insane plan for no better reason than to spend money on modifying the downtown streets and cutting down trees for a few parking spaces, when so many people have only streets for a home. It's criminal, in my opinion, but only highlights the larger criminal actions in our country, and beyond.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Certificates of Participation, aka COPs....

---

Hello Councilman Wysocky,

Please, would you help to educate me with any information the City Council may provide? Please forward my email to all Council members.

We would like to evidence what measures City Council documented pertaining to the "California Debt and Advisory Commissions Guideline 17".

Guideline 17 states: Solicit Public Participation in Tax-Exempt Leasing Decisions

https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/re...elines93-8.pdf

Whereas we find evidence for public participation (polling) over aesthetics of the reunification of Old Courthouse Square, we do not see any documentation of public participation soliciting public participation in the enactment of tax exempt leasing decisions as Guideline 17 recommends to city and county governments.

Respectfully, Jennifer Novascone

I would highly recommend Jack Silver @: [email protected]. I have worked with him on many local environmental issues including gravel mining in the Russian River, Santa Rosa sewage problems, California Tiger Salamander habitat, etc. He is a dedicated environmental lawyer and is a conscious individual.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Please send us your best local referral to an attorney whom you know cares about the 2008 Environmental Impact Report, as it pertains to the reunification of Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa...

---

Hello everyone,

Please sign our petition: https://www.change.org/p/santa-rosa-...rthouse-square.

The link above does not work. Kindly scroll down to Barry's post and you'll see the link in BOLD YELLOW to the petition, titled : "Santa Rosa 4 Affordable Housing... NOT a $10 Million Dollar Courthouse Square".

We're holding a strategy meeting this afternoon to better understand what our options may be with regard to convincing City Council to hold off development of Old Courthouse Square in favor of diverting the $10 million for use toward our critical housing shortage!

Among topics we'll discuss, is our request to the City Council to provide the citizens of Santa Rosa a financial feasibility study of the anticipated tax revenue and increased business (projected dollar amount) that the revitalization of downtown square will bring to the City. We have no hard data to rationalize if City Council has exercised sound financial planning on behalf of taxpayers and voters. It would be financially irresponsible to speculate over the return on investment for this project.

The citizens of Santa Rosa are OWED informed financial transparency in the use of their tax dollars.

We ask you to URGE City Council to issue an independent financial review of the reunification of Old Courthouse Square before proceeding on any level, including to cease from removal of a single tree on the square.

Please write to our council members. It takes on a moment to send a brief note in your own words, OR feel welcome to copy and paste the commentary made here into your email with your own introduction.

Below is a list of City Council email addresses:

Santa Rosa City Council Contacts:

John Sawyer, Mayor: 707-578-6006, [email protected]
Chris Coursey, Vice Mayor: 707-527-6588, [email protected]
Gary Wysocky, Council Member: 707-575-3820, [email protected]
Erin Carlstrom, Council Member: 707-321-0278, [email protected]
Julie Combs, Council Member: 707-542-1906, [email protected]
Ernesto Olivares, Council Member: 707-975-0023, [email protected]
Tom Schwedhelm, Council Member: 707-326-4495, [email protected]

Thank you for your support!

Hello SANTA ROSA voters and taxpayers,,

Please send in your letter or email of opposition to the expenditure of $10 million for the reunification of the Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa.

You might send something like the sample letter below OR your own letter. (choose one or all sample statements below, or insert your OWN comment).

Dear City Council Members,

I oppose the reunification of the Santa Rosa Old Courthouse Square because:

I have not seen a published report of financial analysis with respect to the return on investment, and the expected amount of tax revenue the project will generate once complete. As a taxpayer and voter, I want to see quantifiable and independently audited financial data and not speculation. I'm counting on the Council to demonstrate their obligation of fiduciary duty to the citizens of Santa Rosa, as well as, to the economic viability of this expenditure BEFORE breaking ground.

The City of Santa Rosa is facing a critical housing shortage, of which $10 million for the reunification of Old Courthouse Square would be better allocated toward development of new housing to alleviate human suffering.

The reunification of Old Courthouse Square needs to slow down in order to allow taxpayers to understand the financial impact of a $10 million dollar expenditure. As a voter and taxpayer, I need more time to contribute public participation to the decision making process. As well, I urge City Council to put the reunification of Old Courthouse Square to a public vote, as this is OUR money; everyone's choice, not City Council or downtown merchants alone.

Thank you for your reply,

(your typed signature here)
Please send your email to:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Please send your postal letters to:

The City of Santa Rosa
Attention: City Council Members
Care of: CITY CLERK
100 Santa Rosa Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Hello everyone,

A group strategy meeting was held this afternoon and the morale among our collective intelligence is HIGH! We will move forward with steps to slow down reunification of The Old Courthouse Square in order to put this controversial issue to a PUBLIC VOTE!

In the next two to three days we will be presenting information on what we know thus far, including strategy. However, as of this writing our immediate goal is to enlist public participation in organizing a peaceful protest at City Hall. Yes. A peaceful protest. We need your help NOW more than ever to enable our community exercise a fair and balanced voice in this call for action.

Our goal is to personally serve a bundle of written opposition letters to the Santa Rosa City Clerk. The subject of these letters will be to oppose the Santa Rosa City Council trajectory for using "Certificates of Participation" or COPS to fund part of the Courthouse Square. A sample letter to help exemplify the meaning of this will be published in the next few days. Please come back to the Waccobb.net forum to check for updates!

Serving letters of opposition is extremely time-sensitive and URGENT, as these letters are instrumental in allowing citizens to enact a voice in a manner that may build enough momentum to keep the the project from moving forward, and thereby allowing the public to voice their preference to take this issue to a ballot vote.

There's more to come in the next two days; to flesh out a better understanding for all. Though for now, we feel it is vital to stay connected with those of you who back this grass roots movement.

Thank you for your support!

Jennifer,

When I clicked on your petition link, change.org said your page didnt exist. Can you have a friend check your link to verify it works on a computer different than yours? I'd love to sign this petition!!

---

From Barry:
Here's a valid link. Just click on the petition title below

Santa Rosa 4 Affordable Housing...
Not a $10 Million $ Courthouse Square!
:waccosun:

It didn't work for me either. :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by prowess88:

Jennifer,

When I clicked on your petition link, change.org said your page didnt exist. Can you have a friend check your link to verify it works on a computer differnet than yours? I'd love to sign this petition!!

---

When I go to this site, it says
This petition isn't available. Either the URL is incorrect, it violated our Community Guidelines, or the starter removed it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Hello everyone,

Please sign our petition: https://www.change.org/p/santa-rosa-...rthouse-square

...

---

Here's a valid link. Just click on the petition title below

Santa Rosa 4 Affordable Housing...
Not a $10 Million $ Courthouse Square!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by prowess88:

Jennifer,

When I clicked on your petition link, change.org said your page didnt exist. Can you have a friend check your link to verify it works on a computer differnet than yours? I'd love to sign this petition!!

---

Hi there,

Yes. I posted a reply to find the link. Simply scroll down to find the link. Thank you! ~ Jennifer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by prowess88:

Can you have a friend check your link to verify it works on a computer different than yours? I'd love to sign this petition!!

---

Hello Santa Rosa voters and taxpayers,

EASY SAMPLE LETTER to Copy and Paste and EASY instructions are down below!

First off, please SHARE this post among all the social media networks that you utilize. It will amaze you at the results you can achieve in spreading the word. Our petition site is called: Santa Rosa 4 Affordable Housing... NOT a $10 Million Dollar Courthouse Square!

If you'd like to help EMPOWER YOURSELVES, then please know that time is of the essence to send us your letters. We must serve these letters next week, as we are under a STRICT DEADLINE to secure our right to oppose the Court House Square project financing mechanism. If we cannot achieve this, then we will have LOST our foot-hold to exert pressure to bring this matter to a public vote.

This is all we ask for: A VOTE. And shouldn't Santa Rosans be able to understand how this project will truly effect them, as only a vote will allow? Yet, the very nature of the finance tool of "Certificates of Participation" requires no such vote from citizens. As evidenced here in this link to better understand the use of "Certificates of Participation". Please read the section called PUBLIC POLICY, page 41 (scroll down). It explains "why" you will WANT to understand the issue in better light.

BELOW AN IMPORTANT COMMENTARY FROM ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER:

The $10 million dollar Courthouse Square is a BIG expenditure. In light of our housing shortage, we URGE Santa Rosans to decide for themselves where to allocate their taxpayer money. At the very least, we ask that City Council provide us with a financial feasibility study of what sound fiduciary duty requires for the Courthouse Square reunification to move forward. So far they have not provided. I have asked one City Council member to provide this data, to which that person has replied (in a manner of speaking), that no such data can exist on a project of which they can not anticipate what future revenue it will bring. FRIGHTENING to my point of view!

We will serve your letters to the Santa Rosa City Clerk at our peaceful protest, or serve it yourself (with us) on a day to be announced by next week.

If you cannot attend, please send your signed letters immediately to:

Jennifer Coleman
P.O. Box 12
Cotati, CA 94931

SAMPLE LETTER BELOW: Speaks Specifically to Opposition of FINANCE Scheme Until Public Vote.

Dear City Council Members,

I oppose the reunification of the Santa Rosa Old Courthouse Square because:

I have not seen a published report of financial analysis with respect to the return on investment, and the expected amount of tax revenue the project will generate once complete. As a taxpayer and voter, I want to see quantifiable and independently audited financial data and not speculation. I'm counting on the Council to demonstrate their obligation of fiduciary duty to the citizens of Santa Rosa, as well as, to the economic viability of this expenditure BEFORE breaking ground or removing precious trees.

Furthermore...

The reunification of Old Courthouse Square needs to slow down in order to allow taxpayers to understand the financial impact of a $10 million dollar expenditure, as proposed in partial or predominant issuance of "Certificates of Participation". As a voter and taxpayer, I need more time to contribute public participation to the decision making process in using COPs to pass this type of finance instrument without a public vote.

Lastly, I request that reunification of Old Courthouse Square project be put to a public vote, since this is OUR money; everyone's choice, not City Council or downtown merchants alone.

Thank you for your reply,

(your typed signature here)

Another point of view from today's PD:

Uninspiring trees

EDITOR: I haven’t attended any of the reunification of Old Courthouse Square hearings. I have, however, kept close tabs through The Press Democrat.

I drove to Courthouse Square to look at the trees. I don’t get the argument. Those redwoods are wholly uninspiring. It seems that these angry protesters think that our City Council is paving over Armstrong Woods.

Terry Dirks (“Headed elsewhere,” Letters, Wednesday) wrote: “I will never again spend one penny in central Santa Rosa if they desecrate the beautiful town square.” Desecrate? Beautiful? Town? I don’t think she has ever been there. Was she was in the crowd at the hearing where Councilman Chris Coursey was heckled and booed so loudly during his closing statement that he had to publish his statement in the newspaper (“Old Courthouse Square vote was about improving downtown Santa Rosa — not parking,” Close to Home, Jan. 29)? How old are these people?

I very much hope the entire City Council and Carlile-Macy will continue to fight these headwinds. I am looking forward to an architecturally designed urban space. It will mean so much for so many people.

BECKY JANSSEN, Santa Rosa

Hello everyone,

We are attempting to locate Ms. Jen Schallert Cox, author of the Rent Control petition as it pertains to Santa Rosa's affordable housing crisis? If you know her, or someone who knows her, please pass this posting along to the appropriate person, so that Ms. Schallert-Cox may reach us.

We would like her to contact us so that we may join forces with her in cross-sharing our respective petitions as "updates" to our supporters. These are the supporters who signed her petition and ours, some of whom request to be updated on the progress of the petitions they sign.

Our goal is to get the word out to Santa Rosa renters... to encourage them to QUESTION their City Council, as to "how" $10 million dollars is slated to be spent on reunification of Courthouse Square, but while the City's critical housing needs go unmet. We believe that some renters are not making this correlation. We want to urge them to attend City Council meetings to better understand the pros and cons to the reunification of Courthouse Square, and what it means for their housing situation.

Thank you for your support!

She's on Facebook. I just sent a friend request, and encourage you to do the same.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

We are attempting to locate Ms. Jen Schallert Cox, author of the Rent Control petition as it pertains to Santa Rosa's affordable housing crisis? ...

---

My response to BECKY JANSSEN that I'll respond to in the PD:

Because you're uninspired by the trees in Courthouse Square says more about you than the trees. It's really about perception. And it seems that your inspiration will come from an "architecturally designed urban space" at the price of $10+ million, while people go homeless. This also says a lot about your priorities, and how easily you align with the SR city council members. Unfortunately, many people and children sleep unprotected from the harsh elements. I wonder how they perceive the proposed Courthouse project.

Imagine for a moment that your mother, father, child or any loved one is at the mercy of this decision. If that doesn't inspire you, then maybe you can imagine yourself being homeless. There are many previous home owners who had good paying jobs, now on the street. They also never imagined it could happen to them. To "inspire" your imagination, take a walk in the middle of the night when temperatures drop to below 40, and you're out in it with no insulated coat from REI. Bring into your memory anytime you've ever felt biting cold, and couldn't get to your warm home fast enough. It seems that compassion is not your strong point for trees or people.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JimmyL:

Another point of view from today's PD: Uninspiring trees...

---

We NEED your help, and we need it right away!

Did you e-mail and/or speak to the Santa Rosa City Council in opposition to aspects of the Courthouse Square project before their disastrous vote on Jan. 26? If so, we need copies of your messages or presentations.

Why do we need to gather these letters? To substantiate to relevant authorities that the City Council received messages of opposition (to the parking spaces, the tree-cutting, traffic implications, etc.) prior to their yes-vote on the Courthouse Square project on January 26, 2016. We believe we'll be able to use these letters legally to stop or slow down the City in their their plans to break ground at the square. Your letters may contribute, for instance, to demonstrating that the California Environmental Quality Act, aka CEQA, was violated.

Anything sent to the Santa Rosa City Clerk is especially important, because those items are supposed to be part of the public record. For whatever reason, they have not yet been made available to the public so we aren't able to access them that way. That's why we need you to send them to us.

We have only 30 days after January 26, 2016 to make our case--meaning we must have all the evidence gathered no later than Feb. 25.

Please send a copy of your letters to me. Who am I, you might ask? Some of you will recognize me from my username occupyboston, my handle up until that original thread was closed. I've now lived here long enough that I thought it was time to change my username. (Plus, people were finding it confusing, wondering if I was writing from Boston, etc.) So I have a new username from the Joni Mitchell song. I'm working with others trying to stop the project from going forward.

It's easy. Just go to your Sent folder to find any e-mails or presentations you sent to City Council on this issue. (Their e-mail address was: [email protected].) Then forward (or paste) the dated copies to me via Reply Privately.

THANK YOU for taking the time to help the cause this way!

Janet (aka occupyboston)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

...Imagine for a moment that your mother, father, child or any loved one is at the mercy of this decision....Bring into your memory anytime you've ever felt biting cold, and couldn't get to your warm home fast enough. It seems that compassion is not your strong point for trees or people.

---

sorry, but that logic is really counter-productive for me. Part of it's the same argument vegetarians use vs. carnivores - "how can you fail to see that animals (trees) deserve the same compassion as humans?" - and another part is "how can you spend money on XXX when there's a need for YYY". If you're going to go the latter route, why is there such an outcry demanding road repair (to pick a hot-button issue) when we have homeless people on the streets?

The day they admit that the reason they're not spending money on the homeless or other human needs is because they need it for construction expenses is the day that argument starts to make sense. It's again a false analogy with family-scale economics. If I spend money on car repair, it might make it harder to make my rent. Governments don't budget that way. They will never take money not spent on infrastructure and instead spend it on human services.

The right-to-life of trees seems an equally difficult case to make.

I sent my letter to all city council members by email which is similar to the below. Would it work better to send a printed copy to Jennifer too? And does there need to be a letter for each council person or can one suffice?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

...We will serve your letters to the Santa Rosa City Clerk at our peaceful protest, or serve it yourself (with us) on a day to be announced by next week...

---

IMO, this is sadly becoming a tempest in a teapot. This is a WACCO idea!

It's a great idea to unify Courthouse Square. Santa Rosa has been wanting to do it for 30 years. Right now, it's two halves of a whole, split by a major traffic thoroughfare. I think unifying the Square will force traffic onto 101, away from the heart of the City.

The idea of linking the expenditure to Affordable Housing, while laudatory, is fantasy! It's a bait & switch idea. What are you smoking? That's not the way affordable housing gets built. Affordble Housing takes years to build, acquire the land, permits, funding, etc. Even if the City decided not to unify the Square, they would not earmark the $10M automatically for Affordable Housing. The City has many pressing needs, and a shortage of money. It would have to go thru the normal budgeting process. Trying to tie these two things together is like taking a half of an apple and a half of an orange and saying we now have a whole fruit.

Why is there not more Affordable Housing? It's because our economy is based on private enterprise, not on the government running everything. The average cost of building a 2 bedroom unit in Sonoma Co is around $350k. To finance all that money, would cost you $1600/month, at long term rates, which does not make it affordable. It requires a subsidy. The current political climate does not welcome more government spending or higher taxes to fund the subsidy. Even in California, Gov Brown recently vetoed bills to fund Affordable Housing through tax credits, which would have given investors an incentive to fund Affordable Housing, through reduced taxes. My understanding is Brown vetoed it because of the reduction in tax receipts.

I believe that the reunification of Old Courthouse Square is a good idea. I do not like the existing plan. There are others who agree because the square will be filled with streets and cars, with almost nothing left for people to walk and stroll,or much grass, or room for events. Also, the loss of the Heritage redwoods is sad; they are very old and can't grow back to that size in a few lifetimes.

I have a vision of what could be:
*** I have an alternate way they could make the square, which should keep everyone happy; even the retailers who think they're going to get more business if there is more parking on the square. And, it would cost a lot less because of reduced tree removal costs and no extra construction of 2 more streets, stop lights, etc.
I see a plan where ~ 60-80 parking spaces can exist, there would be no extra streets in front of the businesses, but plenty of parking right there, a big square for events and people, and ~ 3-5 medium sized redwoods that would have to go. The Heritage redwoods could all stay.

Now envision this:
Angled parking slots all across the north and south ends of the reunified square, lining 3rd and 4th. That means that on 3rd St., ~ 30-40 slots could fit and another ~30-40 slots on 4th. Most of that area right now is street (Mendocino Ave.- 4 lanes) and wide sidewalks.

On 4th St., I see 3 med.redwoods that would have to go down, but cutting them would be easy because they are out in the wide open area. There might be a couple more, but it's a lot less than what they are proposing.
I am thinking that people would LOVE to sit outside in front of the restaurants lining the square on the east and west.No cars parked right in front of their faces.

The square would be a decent size to sit or stroll and much more usable for events and for the city's people (174,000 pop.)

That's it! No extra streets, traffic signals, etc. The Heritage redwoods are saved, the fumes from the cars will be at the perimeter (the existing plan will bring fumes right into the middle of the square).

Cars going down 3rd St. would come from the east and slide in the slots and park , and the opposite would be true for the cars going down 4th , sliding in as they head east, coming from the west. It would be beautiful, useful, and cost effective.

What will be left for the people,after all the car spaces and extra streets, in their flawed plan is TINY. It will be almost all cement, cars parked and cars whizzing by, not much park land for the people. It will smell bad. It will look bad. The Heritage trees will be gone.

Hello WACCOBB readers,

Below is an email reply I submitted to City of Santa Rosa CFO, Debbi Laucher in response to helpful references she made to me in a public email exchange. I hope this post helps educate the public as to the system of protocols used by our city government.

Greetings Ms. Lauchner,

First, I want to thank you for your reply. My responses to your email are in red text.

Please forgive my sense of wordy deliberation, as sometimes the best answers come from asking the question several times and in different ways. I suppose that the best answers to my questions come from the City itself in how it governs itself for the people of Santa Rosa. I hope you will direct this email to the correct departments to answer parts that do not pertain to you.

Ms. Lauchner referenced and confirmed my older inquiry, that per The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC), Guideline 17 states that "The Commission’s stance is that public agencies solicit public participation in their tax-exempt leasing decisions". I replied: "Yes. Last week I printed this guidebook, and will study to better familiarize myself. I'd like to see this guideline put into play with city taxpayer and voter participation, including my own. Similar to how the city engaged public participation over the city square aesthetics, I'd like to review the city's financing scheme in the same manner, including a financial feasibility study of the Courthouse Square, CHS reunification, and all of the necessary protocols that a study of this kind takes into account in order to help citizens have confidence in how their taxpayer dollars are being spent. I see how well the city demonstrated this in subcommittee meetings, with written comments of support and opposition to the square before the resolution. But disappointed that the "snap-shot" of public opposition comments were not made public at the publicly held City Council meeting on January 26, 2016; only the positive input was notated in the minutes".

QUESTION to Ms. Lauchner: Will the City of Santa Rosa City Council and Finance Department form a similar subcommittee and public comment group-study to allow taxpayers and voters to participate in the formation of the financial scheme used for reunification of CHS? If so, "how" can we go about getting involved right now? If NOT, then please help us understand why we would not be allowed to participate?

QUESTION to Ms. Lauchner: Does the City Council and Finance Department ascribe to heir own "financial ethics charter" pertaining to the submission of financial feasibility reports to the public and fiduciary duty to the public regarding large expenditures, like CHS? If not, then why? Why would the city not be held to a fiduciary duty for reporting financial feasibility studies?

For example: Is the City of Santa Rosa governed by any financial laws or ethics of fiduciary duty for reporting of financial feasibility study on CHS by a government oversight (entity)? If so, what are the charters or name(s) of the oversight entities to help make sure that taxpayers and voters may exercise their right to financial transparency and due diligence regarding the CHS expenditure? Our goal is to learn what entity compels the city to provide financial analysis; expected revenue stream, economic report, ROI, payback of the CHS expenditure?

Links I found that may speak to this:

MARKET AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES: A HOW-TO GUIDE

https://pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/downloads/How%20to%20do%20a%20Market%20Analysis.pdf

California Society of Municipal Finance Officers Dedicated to Excellence in Municipal Financial Management

https://www.csmfo.org/about/code-of-ethics/

Ms. Lauchner referenced that City Council held a study session on September 22, 2015 regarding project and financing options available to the City. I replied: "Yes. And I say this without being flippant: Support and opposition was given via public comment by Ms. Suzanne Ell, CPA. Was she required to file a "Letter of Opposition" within 30 days to the City Council? May I point that question to your City Attorney to answer? We do not know the City's policy in this".

Ms. Lauchner referenced that City Council approved that Certificates of Participation would be considered as the preferred mechanism of funding for Courthouse Square. I replied: "Yes. With due respect; what is the city's stance when a public comment opposes? My point: what is the utility-purpose of a public comment of opposition to City Council meeting decisions if it cannot effect change? Does the opposition serve a purpose to do nothing more than to notate opposition? Or must the city respond to the comment of opposition? For if a taxpayer or voter opposes, then what remedies does he/she have to challenge a decision? Please advise, and perhaps this one is in the City Charter or the City Attorney can answer. I'm speculating that a citizen can petition a change by gathering wet signatures, or use legal course. I need confirmation of what avenues we may take for asserting our opposition to a funding scheme with lack of feasibility report".

Ms. Lauchner referenced that on December 12, 2015 a Community meeting was held on Courthouse Square reunification: I replied: "Yes. Public comments of opposition were not reported in public video meeting before City Council on January 26, 2016, only support".

Ms. Lauchner referenced that on January 9, 2016 a Community meeting was held on Courthouse Square reunification. I replied: "Yes. Public comments of opposition were not reported in public video meeting before City Council on January 26, 2016, only support".

Ms. Lauchner referenced that on January 26, 2016 Council Meeting held a approving final design for project. I replied: "Forgive me: I'm trying to understand. If there was public opposition to the project moving forward, then how would that have had to be enacted, per the City Charter or guidelines, for public to intervene with opposition? Other than legal or wet signature petitions for ballot vote, is there a protocol the City requires citizens to use who oppose decisions?

Ms. Lauchner referenced that the City provided an online survey for additional public comments. I replied: "Yes. But these final opposition comments were NOT reported at the January 26, 2016 City Council meeting. Respectfully, may I ask "why" they were not reported and represented as part of the citizens voice of opposition? If they had been reported, then would the comments of opposition held any weight in putting off the resolution? If so, then how? If not, then "why"?

Ms. Lauchner referenced that the Finance Department has not pursued financing for this project, and that while the final design has been approved, an engineering estimate for the project is pending. Once the engineering estimate is provided, Finance will pursue financing for a portion of the project. The approved financing mechanism is Certificates of Participation. I replied: "Yes. but there was public opposition comment to the COPs. How would Ms. Suzanne Ell have made her comment count"?

Ms. Lauchner referenced that Finance is also working with local banks to explore alternatives. That Finance is looking to achieve the most flexible financing package with the best terms possible. She referenced further, that any financing will need to be approved by the City Council in an open session that has been duly noticed. And, in addition, that Finance would expect to get permission to proceed from the Council at a public meeting in March or April in order to keep the project on the current timeline. I replied: "Yes. Thank you. May I ask, "how" can city taxpayers and voters impact the decision of funding if some oppose and others support? My point: we want financial due diligence and a feasibility study on expected revenue stream, economic impact, ROI, payback, etc. in this expenditure. How can we compel the City of Santa Rosa City Council and Finance to provide this to its citizens before moving forward with a funding scheme? This goes back to terms like the City's "fiduciary duty", and "ethics and transparency" to voters and taxpayers".

I replied: Lastly, We note that $300,000 of the gas tax street improvement fund was transferred tot he CHS project. Is that permissible, as fungible-interchangeable?

https://qcode.us/codes/santarosa/
Chapter 3-40 SPECIAL GAS TAX STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND.

Respectfully, Jennifer Coleman

Isn't this woman entitled to her opinion? Rather than argue with her position you attack her personally, question her priorities, and imply that she doesn't care about homeless people (which despite the campaign for signatures, has nothing to do with reunification of the square).

She could just as easily say that your response has more to do with you than with the homeless.

Ron

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

My response to BECKY JANSSEN that I'll respond to in the PD...

---

Wow, Jennifer, you would make a great attorney! I feel honored to have you so passionately involved in putting the city of Santa Rosa, and the City Council on notice that some things aren't so easily swept under the carpet, because someone's watching and finely tuned in to the nuances of legal details that slip by the average person until their rights have all but disappeared. (Like frogs in water brought to a boiling point so slowly that they don't notice until it's too late.) I hope that someone up high in the food chain notices that you're a force to be reckoned with! You have my heartfelt appreciation for digging into the details of this dis-regard for any opposition to this 10 million plus project from tax paying voters. They may as well announce that "No opposition is allowed, and will be disregarded." But that would mean being honest, and even lowly city officials aren't well known for that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Below is an email reply I submitted to City of Santa Rosa CFO, Debbi Laucher in response to helpful references she made to me in a public email exchange...

---

Seems reasonable and very creative. How can this be presented to the city council? Is a visual draft possible?
I wonder if they would even be open to that because it could cut out some profits from their business allies who stand to gain a bit of that $10 million plus. Money is the bottom line, at least in the short term. I doubt if the small businesses would gain much in the long run, or if that's even the ultimate goal.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lauren:

...I have an alternate way they could make the square, which should keep everyone happy; even the retailers who think they're going to get more business if there is more parking on the square...

---

Thank you Shandi!

Its comments like yours that keep me and the rest of our group staying this course for all of us, really and truly. We will continue to challenge the City Council and Finance to be accountable for their actions. Even more, to challenge our voters and taxpayers to wake up and get angry. We are NOT $10 million dollar chumps.

We implore all Santa Rosan's to print out and sign our sample letter, or one of their own. Respectfully, DON'T put if off another day, or be complacent, as if you think you cannot effect change. We are ferociously POWERFUL when united!

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER NOW:

City Council and Finance,

I demand that you furnish an independently audited financial feasibility study as it pertains to the reunification of Courthouse Square project. For the study must be evidenced to be fiscally safe, sound, and transparent BEFORE moving forward with this enormous expenditure of my taxpayer dollars!

(your signature)

Thank you for Your support! ~ Jennifer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Wow, Jennifer, you would make a great attorney! ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

You make a good argument for the status quo, Tommy. ....in rejoinder I offer this: When a city's priorities are so skewed that a scheme to reunify courthouse square to keep business viable takes precedence over the human needs of that city, there remains little of the civilising impulse that once led to the formation of cities...

---

you're deliberately missing the point, I think, and making an inference that's not backed up by what he said.
- he's not arguing for the status quo. That's just an attempt to make him sound unwilling to consider change
- this has never been and is not a question of killing trees vs. feeding/housing people. God knows I've posted slathers of words regarding the imperative to prioritize human needs over economics; I'm not blind to that. But just like even Gerald Ford could (often) walk and chew gum at the same time, cities can and do provide services for their population AND develop infrastructure, both at the same time. If the goal is to change the balance of resources, spending more on people's needs and less on infrastructure, fine! That's not the question here. No-one's bothered to even try to make the connection, actually, they've just flung the words out and hoped the uncritical reader gets the impression that the issue is starving the poor.

Hello everyone,

No matter which way the city spends our money, and what faction deserves it more than another, let me at least ask if anyone agrees on this point:

We have a $10 million dollar expenditure for Courthouse Square, which invests in an expected revenue outcome; I demand that this investment MUST be rationalized by a financial feasibility study. Downtown revitalization will not be a field of dreams if we don't analyze and critically think about the expected financial outcome.

Terms like "fiduciary duty", "breach of fiduciary duty", ROI, payback, expected revenue stream, economic impact, due diligence, ethical transparency, and the rainbow of other terms that go into making safe, sane, sound investments with taxpayer dollars; SURLY I'd like to know that we, as a community are in agreement on this manner of cogent thinking?

Many of us invest in schemes. I don't imagine those of us who are good at managing our money rush into a large investment without a sober pause of data gathering to make responsible choices.

How in the world can a city not be accountable to do the same?

I have had two conversations with one city council member about this very topic. Both times that member has told me that the city has no predictive date to quantify a feasibility study on the square!!! Hence, one cannot be supplied.

"If we build it they will come" is not only based upon intrinsic value. This is unacceptable and in my opinion bordering upon CRIMINAL negligence to mismanage funds this way [if] the city goes this route. One council member even quoted on video at a meeting that this project is "worth the gamble", despite not knowing how many years it will take to payback. WHAT?

What the heck are we doing with a council that thinks this way? Is this really their agenda?

Jennifer

Jennifer, It seems obvious that some people really don't care how their tax money is spent, and believe that they have no say in it, so they willingly bend to the will of the city's decisions. They aren't willing to do what you have done even if they had the intelligence to pursue it. Also, there are people who like the plan that's been voted on, disregarding any opposition. Also, there are people who don't find the trees "inspiring" and would prefer a modern streamline look. There are others who would link hands to protect the trees, regardless of what might happen to them in a peaceful demonstration. Think jail, tear gas, or other opposition to the right to gather in protest. A majority of people are not up for that. The last time I went to a protest was about the war in Iraq held in San Francisco. The only way I can protest anymore is with my words, but I will not argue to change anyone's mind. I will support those, like yourself, who are putting forth a great amount of effort to put the city on notice.

Also, many people have other priorities to spend their time on, which is anyone's guess...the Super Bowl, standing in line for lottery tickets, or standing in line for up to 12 hours for a limited amount of signature beer from the Russian River Brewing Co. These are the priorities of many in our county.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

...We have a $10 million dollar expenditure for Courthouse Square, which invests in an expected revenue outcome; ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Seems reasonable and very creative. How can this be presented to the city council? Is a visual draft possible?
I wonder if they would even be open to that because it could cut out some profits from their business allies who stand to gain a bit of that $10 million plus. Money is the bottom line, at least in the short term. I doubt if the small businesses would gain much in the long run, or if that's even the ultimate goal.

---

I am not a draftsman, but I will try to do it. There certainly would be a much larger grassy area and I'm not sure if the fountain would have to be moved at all. Maybe, with all the money saved, there could be more in store for helping the homeless move out of that area to a safe and warm place to be.That's what everyone wants; the homeless want to be safe and warm somewhere, the retailers want to be in business without loiterers, and shoppers and strollers want peace and safety . The safe place needs to be elsewhere.
I believe the businesses would be helped by an inviting town square, because people would want to frequent it and would eat and shop and stroll, given the extra parking right there, on either side of the square. There are only a few parking spaces on that block as it is.I can see everybody's point of view.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Jennifer, It seems obvious that some people really don't care how their tax money is spent, and believe that they have no say in it, so they willingly bend to the will of the city's decisions...

---

Hello Shandi,

My comments to you at bottom of post, as I want to make sure WACCOBB readers don't miss the update. You are my last for comment... BUT not least. :-)

Up ahead:

--- We will begin posting on Craigslist this weekend in a more proliferate manner to raise public awareness. MOST OF ALL, we will target education over opposition of the City's funding scheme and LACK of an independent firm to perform a financial feasibility report on the square project.

--- We will hone our argument down to urging public to oppose the square based on lack of feasibility and financial transparency. This is the one point that I think most everyone will be most apt to agree upon and support with opposition.

--- Taking part in organizing a peaceful protest with financial opposition, as well as renters who feel betrayed by City Council in allocation of money for the square verses housing. I will let you and everyone know when and where that will take place, even those who cannot make it, if only to elicit being there in spirit.

--- Researching law on Brown Act and State Attorney General website. In essence, do voter-taxpayers to have a right to demand, as well as approve or oppose financial feasibility reports when requested?

--- Looking into enlisting an email blast campaign to hit demographic voters (especially RENTERS) who have been feeling tossed under the bus in favor of the square.

Lastly, I want to mention that since money is fungible, it can be said that voters-taxpayers may be powerless in making sure funds go to a specific need (like housing). However, the most damning thing for City Council (at re-election time) may foretell that some; perhaps small or large factions of voters do hold perception that earmarked taxes are supposed to be used as advertised. When that perception feels betrayed, for example that Courthouse Square may be more important than housing, OR any other city improvement that they personally hold dear... then the disenfranchisement begins!

So it can be said that people have lots of different places where they want their taxpayer money to be allocated. That's a good thing, as there is a need for conflict to push-pull in order to get things done. A phrase I coined years ago:

"Conflict is society's check and balance system" --- Jennifer Coleman 2000

For Shandi: Oh boy your last paragraph really said it! One silver lining though, is that the Russian River Brew "beer release" line was a great place for Norma, the tree petitioner to collect low hanging fruit (signatures from beer patrons). I was down at Courthouse Square (park) last Saturday for a strategy meeting and told Norma about the hundreds of people standing in line. She must have garnered at least 100 signatures within one hour.

Thank you for your support! ~ Jennifer

Full steam ahead for the "SMART TRAIN of Santa Rosa Voters (beer drinkers)" that didn't realize what a perfect position they were in to hear about the decision by Santa Rosa City Council to spend their tax money on the Courthouse Square project, without even a nod to any objections voiced. Thank you, Russian River Brewery!! And "Thank you, Norma" :heart: Jennifer, I don't know who the others are on your team, but I want them to know that I appreciate their willingness to support your selfless efforts and dedication in getting to the bottom of this disregard and disrespect from Santa Rosa City Council members for Santa Rosa citizens by freely deciding to spend their tax money without taking any objections into consideration. (excuse the run on sentence)

I wonder how many even knew about this. I wouldn't have known if not for the original post on Wacco. Although I'm not a Santa Rosa resident, I'm behind you and your support team all the way, in whatever way.

P.S. Message to dissenters: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but insults and put downs never reach home, (with me). :wink2::heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Hello Shandi,

My comments to you at bottom of post, as I want to make sure WACCOBB readers don't miss the update. You are my last for comment... BUT not least. :-)...

---

Here is what I sent to the City Council on January 26.

We might want to come up with our own Plan, with a Good Name, like the Good Plan, to counter the existing dead end plan, which is too small to feed anything, but the morgue.

And that Good Plan would be to shut down 4th street, to all traffic, 365 days a year, from the Library, right on down to the Mall, to all motorized vehicle traffic.

No Cars. No Trucks on that Street, and No Cars and Trucks on the side streets, or to access the Library basement delivery area. That can all be shut down, and built over. They do not need that. And they should never have built that. That is what needs to be ripped out, or paved over.

We are looking at 6 Big Blocks, count em 6, along with 31/2 or 4 Big Parking Lots, which can all be Accessed, for deliveries,from those existing 3rd Street and 5th street Parking Lots, which could be used, as Delivery Zones, with some Manual Carting About, to be sure. But that is good exercise.

Let us put this Good Plan forward, which we can all get excited about, instead of picking at what is so little, which is too much like woodpeckers looking for bugs. Give me a Break. It is not just about the Redwoods.

This is the Good Plan we want to put forwards. The Good Plan has been tried in other places, like in Germany, where the business people put up a lot of resistance.

They fought for their lives. And then it went through. And then it was so successful, because there was so much foot traffic, that they were thrilled about the final results, and everyone was happy, because it revitalized that town.

Yes, we do have an alleyway, for pedestrians, but we are not talking about shoving the kind and loving people down into some alleyway.

We need to take back the Streets. And we can do this with an Integrated Plan. The Good Plan. One that is Human Scale.

The other plan to de-humanize our town will just have to be given the Axe, along with that awful subterranean delivery area at the Library, which is only a good place to find a dead body laying around. - T

---

Noceti, Catherine Good Morning, Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts with the City Council.

Hello everyone,

Below is a NEW and much better explained opposition to the funding scheme of Courthouse Square. We hope that some of you in support of the Reunification might have a second look at this posting, which speaks to the questionable manner of financing the square project.

Thank you for your support!

REGISTERED VOTERS of SANTA ROSA

It's NOT TOO LATE!
STOP the Questionable FINANCE Scheme of Courthouse Square!

Tell City Council you OPPOSE the funding of the Courthouse Square Reunification Project until they hire an INDEPENDENT consultancy firm to perform a financial feasibility study. CITY TAXPAYERS deserve to know if this project is a sound investment before breaking ground!

WHAT VOTERS DON'T KNOW MAY HARM THEM WITH TAX IMPLICATIONS

City Council has FAST-TRACKED this project. They have under-reported vast public-survey opposition to the Square. They are considering a finance scheme that requires NO VOTE, but has tax consequences to TAXPAYERS, called "Certificates of Participation." COPs are a way to finance projects, which make it look like TAXPAYERS are not paying—BUT really are.

Our goal is to slow PHASE II of City Council's final decision to FUND this project in order for VOTERS to participate in decision-making over use of COPs which BLOCK our vote! If the reunification of Courthouse Square is such a benefit for citizens, then why not put it to a VOTE? Either way TAXPAYERS will fund this project, so why is City Council considering COPs?

ADDITIONAL POINTS OF PROTEST

· Contest Courthouse Square Plan Design, as City Council ignored the overwhelming opposition expressed by citizens in the public survey to the removal of mature Heritage Redwood trees.

· Advocate that $10 million dollars would be better spent to alleviate human suffering resulting from Santa Rosa's critical housing shortage and skyrocketing rents.

TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

COPs are a method of leveraging public assets & borrowing all or a portion of the value of a public agency’s equity in those assets in order to finance other assets, LIKE COURTHOUSE SQUARE. Taxpayers pay through the city as an off-the-books type of bond and/or lease-back of a city asset, LIKE CITY HALL. Taxpayers may pay $670,000 per year COP's X 30 years = $20 MILLION or more.

Yes, protest the money expenditures for trashing the square and removing the sacred redwood tree's...tree's are much more significant than parking spaces and parking can be achieved other ways...great idea to close off the square from Fourth Street around...the money spent on this project for parking spaces needs to be allocated for affordable housing and this is a serious issue and will become even more serious if it is not addressed. Save the tree's and save families from homelessness!

Let's find out exactly what day and tie ourselves at least 1 or more to each tree and refuse to budge. That will make it a news worthy protest!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

...Trees will be slated to be cut ASAP. I'm sure the City is being tight lipped about the exact day of cutting to prevent public protest...

---

what would get their attention -- and buy some time to stall this car-centric plan is a lawsuit.

Hey there!

Yep. So far, no cutting for Monday. Since we don't trust the City to let the public know, we call another person who has tabs on the situation. If we hear any news, then we will be certain to post here and everywhere.

Ya know. In the WORST of situations I just would like to think that City Council would have the common sense to test this $10 million turned $20 million project (after interest) with a financial feasibility study. Is that too much to ask? If Courthouse Square is such a benefit, then why not ask the citizens to put it to a vote? Either way Santa Rosans will pay for this project through the "general fund" of the proposed "certificates of participation".

Debt is debt. This time it is just a matter of calling it something else so it doesn't smell like debt. BTW: COP's have been called "tax exempt" and that makes voters think they aren't going to be "taxed", which is semantics and misleading if not clarified. So "tax-exempt" in this case really means that the COP's are tax exempt to the investors who purchase the COP from an Intermediary who works with a Trustee that holds the lease to the City asset. CONFUSING ehhh? And I probably still have no idea. LOL. So anyone who wants to straighten me out on this, please do so nicely okay?

moving on though...

The $10 million dollar proposed Courthouse Square debt is just renamed something else called a "lease-back". Hence, the term lease-back is put into a different accounting column which still has the citizens paying as if they were taxed. COP's are used when a local government knows it CAN'T GET THE VOTE for TAXATION. So just think of yourselves as unwitting participants of a new tax MINUS the referendum! Heck if we have no choice in the matter, at least let us know if the project is destined to fail or succeed by showing the voters a FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY. Doesn't that last sentence sound so bizarre to even have to say to our trusted officials?

CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION DEFINED as Proposed by Santa Rosa

COPs are a method of leveraging public assets (like Santa Rosa City Hall) & borrowing all or a portion of the value of a public agency’s equity in those assets in order to finance other assets, LIKE the Reunification of COURTHOUSE SQUARE as reported in the Press Democrat. Taxpayers pay through the city General Fund as an off-the-books (non voter approved tax) dressed as a lease-back of a city asset, LIKE CITY HALL. Taxpayers may pay $670,000 per year COP's X 30 years = $20 MILLION or more. SOURCE PRESS DEMOCRAT https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4...alk?artslide=0

Take care and please stay tuned as we prepare for the upcoming City Council meeting to OPPOSE the funding scheme. WE NEED ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ATTEND to let us know by sending a private reply to Jennifer Novascone with a phone number if possible. This makes for much easier organizing.

AND... this should go without saying. WE WILL NOT share names or phone numbers of those who simply want to connect with us at City Council meetings in a show of solidarity. If there are some of you want to participate in any way, but cannot be seen at City Council, well, we get that too.

This is just a little ole grass roots effort that we believe will take off and slow things down long enough for citizens to wake up and smell the fear. This is our goal. Not too lofty, but definitely REALISTIC to coddle the notion and grow it to a critical mass... and then to a quantum shift!

More to come on that in another commentary. Thank you for your support!

THANK YOU for this inspiration!

We have word from a legal source to confirm what others have been saying: the City does not have its tree cutting permits as of yet. We are told that if tree cutting begins on the Heritage Redwood trees, or any trees at the square, that the arborist must show permits to anyone who asks. Most of all, we can hope that the mitigation measures to work around bird nesting will kick in high gear and become too onerous for the City to work around Mother Nature. It's for the birds! This will buy us much needed time to oppose the plan on other points of finance that are still in discretionary stages. OPPOSE, OPPOSE, OPPOSE.

THOSE WHO OPPOSE PLEASE SHOW @ City Council meeting on February 23, 2016 between 5 and 8 PM. We need Santa Rosa voters in bodily presence and/or vocal presence to give commentary of opposition. Any of you reading this who reside AND are registered to vote in Santa Rosa, please send your RSVP to attend, and we will send you a reminder Peaceful Protest flyer and "opposition letter" for you to bring to the meeting.

OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESS IS: [email protected]

Also, we have some people on the square who will keep us posted on what activity takes place regarding tree cutting, so we citizens can mobilize to protest. We need all the media coverage we can get, so we can continue opposing the square on other matters, as in lack of financial feasibility study for the $10 million dollar reunification of the square, and the use of certificates of participation as a form of no vote taxation to fund courthouse Square. Please keep in mind that the city could just as easily ask voters to pass a tax, which would cost MUCH less in interest than using COP's. However, COP's are known to be used mostly when city governments KNOW THEY CANNOT GET a public VOTE to pass a tax. So they are allowed to pass this $10 million dollar high interest expenditure without our vote!

Thank you for your support!

Strategies for Santa Rosa Voters and Taxpayers to SLOW DOWN CITY COUNCIL FROM PASSING Courthouse Square:

We welcome anyone with a long attention span to learn. Really, this is NOT HARD AT ALL. It's quite a series of simple concepts.

ON THE TREE END OF THINGS:

1. Making sure trees are not cut during nesting season. If they are, then the City's Mitigation Plan must be used to prevent damage, injury or death to the birds. Lets hope that stops them.

2. Making sure arborists have tree cutting permits by asking on site. If not, we shut em down!

3. Pending CEQA and EIR conflicts and pending lawsuits that have been filed regarding Heritgae Tree protection, and the Courthouse Square being deemed a "park". (but these take time). DO NOT let that give us pause for thinking anything is under control. Because it's DEFINITELY NOT.

ON THE CITY FINANCE END OF THINGS:

1. Sheer opposition at the meetings with letters of opposition. Voters must BELIEVE IN THEIR POWER and barrage the heck out of City Council with email and letters of opposition to the funding scheme and the tree removal.

1.a. We're enlisting the help of the "California Debt Advisory Commission", aka CDAC to point out and perhaps facilitate guidelines to City Council by "soliciting public participation". Because its the ethical thing to do. See pages 41 to 50 for an eye opener.

1.b. Asking for help from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association on the question of "Certificates of Participation", COP's and guidelines for local government. There are laws to propose change here. In that ANY TYPE OF LONG TERM INDEBTEDNESS must be put to public vote.

Then within those letters of opposition we must demand:

2. To INVOKE the City Charter to find any places we can assert pressure.

For example, the City Charter has an "Annual Budget Review: SEE CHARTER ITEM # 28.

PER COP GUIDELINES BELOW: we're checking [if] City Council must report on its budget in this manner: Of course, we will want to confirm if City Council can bypass reporting of COP financing this year... and save the reporting for next year when its too late for voters to oppose.

Below is a great PRIMER for VOTERS to learn:

A key characteristic of a tax-exempt lease that distinguishes it from bond indebtedness is a nonappropriation clause. The nonappropriation or fiscal funding clause means that payments of the lease are dependent upon an annual appropriation by the governing body. This differentiates the lease from indebtedness because with the nonappropriation provision, the present-year government’s action does not bind succeeding ones to pay the obligation. However, the non-debt classification of lease-purchase financing does not eliminate the need to fund lease payment expenditures nor does it eliminate the responsibility of the government to disclose the obligation in its financial statements.

COPs Procedure

The general procedure for issuance of a COP is as follows:

The County (or in this case city) identifies the leaseable asset, the purpose for incurring debt and the amount of debt to be incurred.
The County leases or transfers the leaseable asset to a Lessor.
The Lessor leases the asset back to the County.
The Lessor’s right to receive lease payments are transferred to a Trustee.
The Trustee executes Certificates of Participation which are sold to members of the public.

All of the steps in the leaseback arrangement are performed together giving the appearance of one seamless transaction. (but they actually take some time, as in four months or so) .

3. To be a part of pubic hearings held on this controversy with the funding scheme, as a specific finance plan has not been finalized. We need to find appendices to our city, if any that would tell us under what circumstance can voters and taxpayers request a public hearing. As an example, the link above relates to Seattle, Washington and surrounding "counties".

4. To be a part of public study sessions regarding discussion of the fiance schemes.

THEN as public hearing and study sessions are taking place:

5. To demand that a public survey take place, JUST AS THE CITY afforded the public survey for the aesthetics of the Courthouse Square design plan. So WHY NOT for the finance scheme survey?

6. To demand a financial feasibility study on the square to determine if its a sound investment of taxpayer dollars.

7. To demand that a public vote take place to either approve tax by vote or by COP's

Definition of Certificates of Participation (COPs):

a method of leveraging public assets and borrowing all or a portion of the value of a public agency's equity in those assets, like CITY HALL in order to finance other assets, like COURTHOUSE SQUARE. Borrowing equity in CITY HALL by way of Certificates of Participation is paid by taxpayers through the city's General Fund at a higher interest rate then a VOTER APPROVED TAX. This finance scheme is as an off-the-books AND a NO VOTE type of taxation. "A $10 million project, if fully funded with such certificates, would cost the city’s general fund about $670,000 per year for 30 years, or a total of $20 million." Source: Press Democrat, Sept. 15, 2015.

Thank you for your support!

Jennifer,

You continue to surpass my original views, admiration, and respect. My only hope is that enough Santa Rosa voters will see your dedication, the call to action, and then be willing to commit to discovering their power in the face of an authority rarely questioned. Let's get back to "Question Authority!" It still applies, and even more so now.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Strategies for Santa Rosa Voters and Taxpayers to SLOW DOWN CITY COUNCIL FROM PASSING Courthouse Square...

---

I am so impressed by the good work being done on this issue. When I became aware of the City Council's misguided plan and attended a city council meeting, I was disgusted, insulted, discouraged and angry. I wrote my observations here and to all the local papers and felt that I would just avoid downtown SR while the massacre and installation (of a little piece of San Jose) was in progress. But you folks rise up and do the good work! The research offered here, the spirit of community, is most inspiring.

I have a suggestion that would begin the process of reunifying the square without making any permanent changes that we will regret but be stuck with: just block off the street. Put some of those cement barriers they use during Wednesday Market across Santa Rosa Avenue. Cost: less than $100. Then deal with the traffic nightmare.

A year later, having observed how the people utilize the space, design a park that we want. One that has play space, restrooms, shady seating, living ground cover, well managed trees, other plantings (food gardens?), both fountains intact, handicapped parking, dynamic art installation space, accommodations for farmer's markets, book fairs, rallies, parties.

Or take down the barriers and restore traffic flow, if the rerouting turns out to be the disaster it promises to be. Local merchants are unhappy about their sales declining and have been offered fairy gold (44 parking spaces, controlled leisure space) in return for their support of the City Council's plan. In reality, people are not shopping because they can't. Those who can go to Napa, Sonoma, Marin shops.

Will we get real on this matter? Stay tuned!

Thanks for your work, folks. ~ Diane Darling

THE TREECUTTERS ARE AT THE SQUARE. PLEASE COME TO THE SQUARE.

(This is according to an e-mail I just got from someone in our group 11 minutes ago. I'm writing at 9:37am, Tuesday.)

Janet

The Trees are being CUT as of this Writing!!!


PLEASE...

If there's ONE thing you can do to show support, even if you are not a Santa Rosa resident, it would be to show up NOW.


WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT at Santa Rosa Courthouse Square...
downtown Santa Rosa at Fourth Street and Mendocino!!!



Many thanks

Both parks are fenced off now. We need a lawsuit now, today.

A bunch of us were at the Santa Rosa Square all [tuesday] morning, including a young woman (and small business owner) who has hired a very good lawyer to contest the cutting, and a young man who is trying to get an injunction against the cutting. Kevin McCallum of the PD was there for quite a while, talked with us, and did a video of one of us speaking about why we were there. There'll probably be a story (and the video?) at the PD tomorrow morning.

Yes, the biologists were up in the trees in the Square looking for evidence of nesting activity. We learned that, once they've given the all-clear (which they appear to be about ready to do), they have a 3-day window, within which the cutting must be done. Therefore, it's not entirely clear at this point when the cuttingbegins. But very soon!

It could be tomorrow/Wednesday. A bunch of us plan to be at the square tomorrow at 8 am, to make our displeasure known. We hope a whole bunch of you will join us there. Please copy and paste this information to send to as many of your friends as possible.

Do you know about the parking garages nearby? There's a small one just behind Peet's (635 3rd St.) and one at 5th and Orchard, just behind the Russian River Brewing Co. (735 5th St).

Janet

I just came back from downtown and there are fences around the whole square now and there two biologists checking for nesting behaviors of birds and bats. If they don't see any behavior that tells them of copulation, sharing food or building nests for eggs (I talked to the bird biologist--not the bat biologist), then they would want to cut the trees down before that started.At the time I talked to her this morning, she hadn't seen anything indicating as such (about the birds).

I heard they want to start cutting the trees down starting tomorrow.The reporter from the PD came down, talked to us and he's doing another piece on this subject.

There were a couple of people who said their friend, who is a lawyer is trying to get action stopped because they don't have a Heritage tree cutting permit.

I heard of another person (not there) who has another way to get it stopped or stalled , but he has a court date which isn't for a couple of months.

I am still trying to get the council to study my alternate plan, which only fells 5 med. small redwoods, keep traffic out of the middle of the square and parking out of the middle of the square.The answer I got from one council member was that he would ask an engineer about the fact that cars would back into traffic to get out of the angled parking slots on 3rd and 4th that I propose. I believe there is an answer to that... to have an extra one lane width behind the parked cars, so that when they back up, they are in that space and are able to ease into the ongoing traffic.

And of course, there are the people who don't want the reunification until other issues are dealt with--- such as the homeless problem.

COPs(certificates of participation) let the investors have THEIR say about what THEY want to see on a project in a city that is supposed to be for US.And we will pay a lot more than 10 million for it, I'm thinking.
I don't see how making the square any different will have an effect on whether the homeless hang around downtown or not.

Eating at Flavor is still nice today.(see pic) Eating at a place on 4th St. is gross.(see pic)People will be using my services when their biopsies are processed following exposure to all that car exhaust from their flawed design for Old Courthouse square. I know a lot of people who said they will not go down there anymore.

The people who were with the lawyer said to go down to the square tomorrow (Wed.) at 8am for solidarity. Let us all hope for tons of rain all day.

Just wanted to share a picture of my granddaughter's expression of love for trees. :heart:

She's with us in spirit!

Hello everyone,

We were down there today [Tuesday] too. Opposition letters were passed out and they are well received. Many do no know the gravity of what the $10 million dollar finance scheme will mean!

Progress was made today creating potential unions to help us with opposition. I will tell about it once I make sure I've got supporters from this large organization ON BOARD.

Additional strategies are in the works too. Again, We want to make sure appointments are set and confirmed before announcement. We apologize for the mystery.

Thank you for your support!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lauren:

I just came back from downtown and there are fences around the whole square now and there two biologists checking for nesting behaviors of birds and bats. ...

---

Hello everyone,

REGISTERED VOTERS of SANTA ROSA - Join Us!

OPPOSE the Reunification of COURTHOUSE SQUARE

PEACEFUL PROTEST @ City Council Meeting February 23, 2016 between 5 and 8 PM

LOCATION: 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 95404

We Have TIME to STOP This. We NEED Your Physical Presence and/or Voice at the Meeting!

Hello everyone,

Attached is a photo I took of the City Council Meeting (slideshow on SR City video archive) which took place on January 26, 2016 and identifies that 25 of 30 Redwood trees would be preserved. I recall that the man giving the presentation let out a nervous laugh and quickly skipped this slide. I remember thinking that was odd. I went back and replayed the section to make sure. It just seemed strange that he gave that slide no commentary. Almost as if the slide had accidentally been left behind AFTER City Council changed (without public meeting) the plan from removal of five Heritage Redwood trees to eight.

If anything, the slide is a testimony to the fact that the city had publicly promised to only remove five trees, not eight.

Thank you for your support!

Thank you for your sharp eye & observations, Jennifer.

And don't forget this, everyone. Those 5-8 majestic Redwoods are being sacrificed to make room to construct and pave streets and parking spaces.

Plus, City Council's plan has always included cutting down 91 of the 114 trees now standing in the square giving us beauty & shade, sequestering significant amounts of greenhouse gases, and feeding our souls. Come to the square to register your opposition.

Janet

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

Attached is a photo I took of the City Council Meeting (slideshow on SR City video archive) which took place on January 26, 2016 and identifies that 25 of 30 Redwood trees would be preserved...

---

Hello everyone,

Do any of you have friends who live in Santa Rosa and who belong to Nextdoor.com? I could use some help to have any of you who are reading this to SEND any of your Santa Rosa Nextdoor.com friends the links below.

The links are pertinent to Santa Rosa City Council meetings regarding passage of the controversial $10 million finance scheme to Reunify Old Courthouse Square in downtown Santa Rosa. Many Santa Rosa voters want this issue put to a vote. The flyers speak to meeting this goal.

Lastly, the goal of using Nextdoor.com would be to ask your Santa Rosa Nextdoor friends to put the links on to THEIR Nextdoor neighborhood bulletin boards to help spread the word and populate the message with little effort and expansive community exposure and collaboration. And isn't this part of what Nextdoor.com is about?

Opposition Letter: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/pol/5445944503.html

Peaceful Protest Flyer: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/pol/5451542127.html

Thank you for your support!

Hello everyone,

I'm wondering if you know of any FINANCE and ACCOUNTING professionals or keen novices who are following the Courthouse Square controversy and want to participate with me in slowing down its funding scheme?

This needn't take a lot of their time, except that I would ask for their participation in some off-line meetings between me and each City Council member. I want to discuss with each member the subject of public participation as it pertains to the funding scheme and how it must move forward in a democratic manner of INCREASED public participation BEFORE Council casts its vote.

I could use a referral to a couple of CALM and well reasoned educated professionals with backgrounds in finance and accounting. I like hyperbole and drama free collaborators.

I will explain the rest of the strategy later.

Thank you for your support!

Jennifer, My Nextdoor.com site prohibits postings of a "political" nature. I don't know about others.
Sorry, Janet

We've posted about the CourtHouse Square project on Rohnert Park Nextdoor, and also about Bernie gatherings. None of these have been deleted, or questioned. I'd say try, and see what happens. This is a "community" tax payer concern above all, letting people know what's happening with their money.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BothSidesNow:

Jennifer, My Nextdoor.com site prohibits postings of a "political" nature. I don't know about others.
Sorry, Janet

---

At 8 am yesterday/Wednesday morning in a cold wind promising rain, one other protester and I arrived at Courthouse Square. The other protester had an emergency situation at work and soon had to leave. I was alone then with my homemade neon-pink sign that read: "Save the People's Trees." This is what I witnessed.

Inside the high impregnable fences on the north side of the square was the biologist the city had hired to check for any nesting or copulatory (mating) activity of birds or bats. When he seemed to be done, I indicated to him that I'd like to speak with him. Through the chainlink, he told me that he had found no evidence of the above kinds of activity in the birds he had observed there. I asked him about possible disruptions to migratory behavior, mentioning the federal act protecting migratory birds. He muttered something about the law applying only to "indigenous" birds. I asked which birds are on the indigenous or endangered list. He kind of laughed and said hundreds of birds are on that list. So I asked him which birds are not on that list, to which he responded sparrows and crows,etc. I then asked specifically about the Allen hummingbird, which, as I understood it, would fall under the protected category because of its migratory pattern. He said that birds that originate outside of California--Mexico, for instance, are not protected--and no, he had seen no evidence of the hummingbirds. Given that information, it was clear to me that the required mitigation report was about to be filed. And given the weather report for heavy rain in the afternoon, I thought it was quite possible that they might want to get started on treecutting before the afternoon.

Sure enough, I saw him hand a report to someone inside the fence--I believe it was the supervisor of the treecutting company (but it might have been a city official). Within about a New York minute after he handed over his report, security people started swarming to and opening a large area of the fence, and a juggernaut of mammoth trucks from Atlas (their slogan on the trucks read "A Cut Above") roared into the the square. These trucks offloaded at least two smaller yellow tank-like machines. I had been speaking earlier with a security man (who I learned had lost his house in Santa Rosa recently when his wife lost her job, so after the bank took their house, they had been forced to live with his daughter for 4 years. They now live in a very small apartment in Windsor.) This gentleman explained, when I asked, that those yellow machines were "grippers," used for gripping limbs that were to be cut off--as I understand it.

I immediately phoned the PD reporter who's been covering this story, but he did not get back with me (until hours later yesterday evening after he had filed his online report of this story). I asked the supervisor of the treecutters to see the required permits for cutting heritage trees. (By law they must have those permits before they start cutting, and citizens have a right to ask to see them.) He said he had no such permits and didn't need them, as they were authorized by the city to start cutting. I called the police to report that cutting was being started without permits required by the law. The person I spoke with there became very hostile (I was not hostile) and told me that what was happening was none of my business and that the city's authorization was sufficient. The only other thing I could think to do was to speak with the attorney hired by the other activist. So I took the elevator up to her office in a nearby building and was told by the receptionist that she was in a meeting that had just started. I left a message with the receptionist to please inform the attorney as soon as possible that the treecutters were at the square.

When I returned to the site, the chainsaws had begun "limbing" (I believe was the word)--that is, cutting off the limbs of trees. I couldn't watch. By this time, two other activists had arrived. Several people walking by who saw what was happening were shaking their heads in disbelief, so I gathered more signatures from them for the petition to stop the project. But I was fairly traumatized by the whole thing, and had to leave.

I am sorry to be the bearer of this bad news. But there it is. Today's PD story that says no protesters were there as the cutting began is not accurate. I was there from 8-12:30 with my neon-pink sign.

I will say it again (and for the last time): Dies irae, dies illa--day of wrath and day of mourning (from the Catholic requiem Mass of my childhood).

Janet

Janet, Thank you for sharing this distressing report. I only wish you'd had a fellow protester witness. It's hard to believe that after all the preliminary information that's been posted here, there was such minimal protest on site. Thank you for showing up, and bearing witness to what must have been heartbreaking for you, on many levels.

Important Addendum:

In my exhaustion, I neglected to say that I was getting phone instructions from Jennifer about taking those uncharacteristically assertive actions and calls of moral support from sealwatcher!
Janet

Thank you for being there and sharing this devastating news. A sad, rainy day indeed it was. Another era gone. I have seen this repeatedly over the years, and it's always traumatic to watch the destruction of nature in the name of progress. What about the destruction of progress in the name of Nature ?? My sincerely and heartfelt condolences for each and every murdered tree, and all those affected by it. You did your best Janet, and I am grateful and proud of your efforts.

Hello everyone,

Please see attached image of the latest refined peaceful opposition FLYER.

I deeply apologize that the trees are not one of the oppositions. Please know that I am trying to SPARE TREES by stopping the project funding from moving forward. Its a back door way of doing it, but I think that stopping the finance is the only way to potentially save remaining trees. As well, to inform voters of the surreptitious manner in which this funding scheme has taken place. This is why I'm so doggedly focused upon the funding issue.

Sorry. Just had to paste this here, as the definition below is so true in this case.

adjective: surreptitious
kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of.

I'm getting ready for next Tuesday's City Council meeting. Even if no one shows up, I feel strongly that the principles on which I argue are enough to slow the Courthouse Square project funding. It's a sense of intuition or gut level knowledge.

And in that spirit, I want to ask an incredible gesture of all of you. For if you knew me well, you would know that I NEVER ask anyone to help me, because its one of the HARDEST things for me to feel deserved.

I COULD REALLY USE YOUR SUPPORT in the form of your presence at the City Council meeting. Its a kindness I would NEVER forget. You do not have to be a Santa Rosa resident to do this. You do not have to stay long, but it would be nice if you stayed long enough for City Council members to witness your presence.

And did you know? Even if you're not a resident, you may still COMMENT to the City Council? So now you have a reason to come out and make a statement if it inspires you.

It's my deepest desire to be awestruck and amazed and at seeing many of you converge at at next Tuesdays meeting; to those of you who have supported me on these threads.

And a special thanks to Janet, Annie, Dalia, Norma, Jen, Shakeyna; these women have inspired me in doing great things, as we've all given our contributions . And to Janet and Annie for their respective editing expertise! Thanks! I needed that.

Thank you for your support! Jennifer

Occupy Courthouse Square Now!

The Entire Square has now been Fenced Off, not just a few trees as it was before.

Logging has Begun. They have moved in overnight and under the cover of bad weather.

One of the Biggest Corner Trees has already been cut down as of Friday Morning. It is a great big stump.

We need to Occupy CourtHouse Square Now. - T

Re: Edenman's call to occupy Courthouse Square

TOMORROW, SATURDAY, 1:00, MEET AT COURTHOUSE SQUARE

to OCCUPY/ RALLY/ PROTEST

THIS SICKENING TRAVESTY

AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S TREES


Meet outside the fence in front of Favors restaurant on the east side of what used to be our park.
Bring signs. Bring yourselves.

I will not be voting for any of the current city council members the next election. This has been such a shameful process.

I'm with you, diaba! Today in Kinko's I saw this flyer (which I suspect was made by Norma)--which tells us the month and year each council member next comes up for a vote. I kept a copy and will now pass it on for your information and that of any other interested SR voters (wish I had a scanner but I don't, so here goes).

This is how the flyer reads:

WHO CUT THE TREES: MAYOR JOHN SAWYER

WATCH THE DATES: VOTE THEM ALL OUT

Erin Carlstrom, Julie Combs, Ernesto Olivares, & Gary Wysocky all come up for a vote this June (2016).
Chris Coursey and Tom Schwedheim in June 2018.

The flyer didn't say, but I just looked it up, and it appears that John Sawyer's term is also up this June.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by diaba:

I will not be voting for any of the current city council members the next election. This has been such a shameful process.

---

I am especially disappointed in Combs, Wysocky and Coursey.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BothSidesNow:

...Erin Carlstrom, Julie Combs, Ernesto Olivares, & Gary Wysocky all come up for a vote this June (2016). Chris Coursey and Tom Schwedheim in June 2018....

---

Respectfully: City Council and all CAB members,

The following email to all of you has been published on Craigslist and Waccobb.net. We have done so as a matter of URGENT pubic concern. Please answer to our concerns and clarify if we have misunderstood.

As you know, the Reunification of Courthouse Square Project has been met with controversy over tree removal and its $10 million dollar funding mechanism. As a result we have resorted to public plea in order to help resolve any misunderstanding.

THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS US. Please see attached scans.

As published on the Santa Rosa City Website: The following CAB seats are filled EXCEPT Downtown Core. Everyone please ask yourself WHY and read the answers below.

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/cityadmin/cab/Pages/Members.aspx

NORTH HWY 12 AREA
Cecile Querubin

SOUTH HWY 12 AREA
Cerena Burns

NORTHWEST AREA
Lacinda Moore

SOUTHWEST AREA
Sarah Lewers, Vice Chair

NORTHEAST AREA
Cherie Alvarez

SOUTHEAST AREA
Tiffani Montgomery

DOWNTOWN (CORE) AREA VACANT = WHY?

If this vacant Downtown Core position had been filled then there would have been a lot of answering to public opposition about Courthouse Square Reunification in design, tree removal AND in finance scheme. Furthermore, public input on the "Capital Improvement Program", aka CIP BUDGET would have taken place per the Official City Charter, sections # 10 and #11 for public participation and community outreach on capital improvement projects.

Although we are aware there was a "Downtown Subcommittee" for the square, we know of no minutes or community outreach and public participation regarding the Courthouse Square funding scheme. Furthermore, a sub-committee chaired by any City Council member does not make it a "community advocacy board" since that seat must be chaired by a citizen appointed by a council member.

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/cityadmin/cityclerk/Pages/CityCharter.aspx

Santa Rosa's Community Outreach (website) PRIDES itself on public participation and states as such in proliferate manner within the City Charter. Which means the City declares in its own CONSTITUTION to ASCRIBE to this type of public transparency. Yet, at a most crucial time for Courthouse Square we know of no community representation in an APPOINTED SEAT for the Downtown Core. If this is true, it is completely unacceptable and must be retroactively rectified to repair the lack of community input to the CIP which never took place in the Downtown Core during the discussion of the Reunification of Courthouse Square.

However, we are happy to be corrected if the city provides EVIDENCE of fact that the DOWNTOWN CORE seat was filled at the time of soliciting public participation for Courthouse Square, as in the Capital Improvement Program. And not only as the CIP pertains to its use as a park in Downtown Core, e.g. as design review of Master Plan, but to the Courthouse Square funding mechanism ITSELF, as used within the CIP guidelines (or even outside of CIP guidelines).

For we have only one study session for the Courthouse Funding and we find NO EVIDENCE of amplified public disclosure to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC about the funding mechanism used for courthouse sqaure, insofar as the public is not fully aware is a form of TAXPAYER INDEBTEDNESS that will cost more than a conventional taxpayer referendum. If citizens had been afforded the opportunity, the CIP for Downtown Core may very well have addressed this.

Furthermore, [if] the Downtown Core Seat had been filled, then we see no evidence of any of the aforementioned discussions in the listing of meetings and minutes.

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/DEPARTMENTS/CITYADMIN/CAB/pages/default.aspx

And really, what is a "Downtown Open Space"? We want clarification on this. Is it a park. Is it private property? How is "Downtown Open Space" categorized under the City? See attached image.

So lets HYPOTHESIZE and go back as if we were starting over before City Council's resolution of the Courthouse Square Reunification Project:

There would have been a need for community outreach for the city public park space as managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Hence, there would have been discussion over CIP to that end relating to "downtown outdoor spaces". It's interesting that it is NOT called A PARK, but a "downtown outdoor space". Yet it is maintained by Parks and Recreation and will continue to be maintained by Parks and Recreation AFTER the Courthouse Square Reunification. By PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT: if it walks like a park, talks like a park, then it is a PUBLIC park.

And now we question:

Was the RESOLUTION to Reunify Courthouse Square PASSED by City Council in violation of its own City Charter Section 10. and Section 11 due to lack of public participation and an unrepresented seat under the CIP or other branch for the Downtown Core? Please advise.

Even if Parks and Recreation HAD NOT managed the Courthouse Square before the reunification plan, it nevertheless WILL BE MAINTAINED in the future by Parks and Recreation. Hence once more, the Courthouse Square should have come up for public discussion on the CIP as a future expenditure to give support or opposition! Again, by PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT if it walks like a park, talks like a park, then it is a PUBLIC park.

City Council: We expect answers to the above observations.

WE DEMAND that a the Downtown Core seat be filled so that we can RETROACTIVELY resume on the legal and correct path per the City Charter to allow for community input to the CIP for Downtown Core, as we believe the Downtown Core WAS GROSSLY UNDER-REPRESENTED. I, Jennifer Coleman will be happy to fill such vacancy.

1. We want retroactive Capital Improvement Program discussion for the Downtown Core as the Courthouse Square pertains to a park OR any other type of category that the city attributes the $10 million dollar Courthouse Square reunification expenditure.

2. We want public participation to the under-disclosed funding of Courthouse Square using "Certificates of participation, aka COPs. We want this taken via a city INTERNET survey to test public polling for support or opposition of funding mechanism. (just as City Council allowed for the courthouse Square design review).

3. We want public hearings on the subject of Courthouse Square funding

4. We want retroactive study sessions for funding of Courthouse Square

Lastly, this email be sent to all neighborhood groups and home owners association listed on your city CAB website.

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/cityadmin/communityengagement/Pages/Neighborhoods.aspx

Sincerely, Jennifer Coleman

Thank you Jennifer, for continuing to expose the underbelly! Also, I appreciate the bios and contact info on the CAB members. I'm seriously curious about the response to your continued digging for the "ugly" truth. I do have a concern about your safety, on all levels. Whistle blowers aren't usually well received, except by those who benefit, as we've all witnessed. Exposure of corruption isn't taken lightly by those exposed.

You're a bright light, shining on some dark corners to reveal what's been hiding and undisturbed, like many women before you. I hope to see continued support from other courageous, caring people who are kindred spirits.

Thank you!

I know the previous post and email to City Council went out in haste. A flurry on type-Os and grammatical errors, including lengthy. But it made the point. I've been particularly busy!

I hope to use the information regarding City Council's potential violation of Santa Rosa's City Charter to compel the City Attorney to have a look. If the city violated its charter, then that is a bigger problem on many levels of trust, breach, ethics, legality. It may be too late for the trees, but not too late to significantly slow the city's funding of this project. We still have about 1.5 months to question the funding scheme. In particular, to use the charter and the city's "community advisory board" to point out inadequacies over how the city is dealing with public participation for a finance mechanism called "certificates of participation", which will cost us much more than a convention tax referendum.

I know I keep pasting the explanation here. I'm hoping to reach many readers with this definition.

Definition of Certificates of Participation (COPs):

a method of leveraging public assets and borrowing all or a portion of the value of a public agency's equity in those assets in order to finance other assets. Borrowing equity by way of Certificates of Participation is paid by taxpayers through the city's General Fund at a HIGHER INTEREST RATE than a voter-approved tax. This finance scheme is a NO VOTE form of taxpayer indebtedness typically used when a city government knows it cannot get the 2/3 required vote from a conventional referendum. "A $10 million project, if fully funded with such certificates, would cost the city’s general fund about $670,000 per year for 30 years, or a total of $20 million." Source: Press Democrat, Sept. 15, 2015.

Thank you for your support!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Thank you Jennifer, for continuing to expose the underbelly! ...

---

EMAIL SENT TO: Emerald @ "Occupy Sonoma County"

Momentum is building:

We now ask ALL SONOMA COUNTY citizens to show PUBLIC PRESENCE on Tuesday, February 23 between from 4-8 PM. Please help us URGE Santa Rosa City Council to be ACCOUNTABLE to the way in which it has polled public participation in finance and design review for Courthouse Square, or lack thereof as it pertains to it City Charter Constitution.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?

Please send a compassionate message of encouragement to Emerald urging Occupy Sonoma County to attend the City Council meeting.Visit the link below to their Facebook page where you can post your support..

https://www.facebook.com/OccupySonomaCounty

Hello Emerald,

GOOD NEWS RE: TREES @ COURTHOUSE SQUARE

While some of the trees (our prized Heritage Redwood trees) at Courthouse Square have almost all been cut, we have far from lost the fight.

The good news is that we have discovered a potentially EGREGIOUS violation of the Santa Rosa City Charter, which we are bringing to the attention of an attorney. The City Charter is a precious constitutional document that carries the same weight as the Constitution of United States. It is a violation that is widely known not to be taken lightly, and we will be bringing that to the attention of the City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 23. click link below to find Santa Rosa city Charter, items 10 and 11.

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departme...tyCharter.aspx

This discovery could very well stop the process of the Square project moving further. The City Council may have covered it self (questionably w/ its downtown sub-committee) in getting public input for the Courthouse Square design review. However it would seem it may have failed a necessary mechanism in getting public participation insofar as the FINANCE STRUCTURE of taxpayer money, including the failure to solicit public participation for Courthouse Square as a capital improvement during the city's "Capital Improvement Program Study". This participation would have relied heavily upon documenting public input of which there is none that we can find, and hope to stand corrected. The solicitation of public input from the Community Advisory Board for "Downtown Core", as well as during "Capital Improvement Programs" is one of the very constitutions of the City Charter; items 10 and 11.

Also, we are seeking explanation as to "why" the "Community Advisory Board" DOWNTOWN CORE seat was left VACANT during the time of all Courthouse Square decision-making. One might ask how convenient it was that the seat for the downtown core was the only seat empty throughout all districts in Santa Rosa. Please see link below, as the Downtown Core seat continues to remain VACANT... to be chaired-appointed for one of our citizens to solicit public participation for the "Capital Improvement Project" public participation process. (Click link below and scroll down left column to see the seat remains VACANT).

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departme...s/Members.aspx

Given this news we ask you to please gather peaceful opposition for Tuesdays, February 23rd City Council meeting from 4-8 PM! For it may be the only way to stop the city from moving forward in the removal of the remaining trees on the Square.

We URGE you to please advise on what your plan of action would be to mobilize as many people to attend the meeting. Now more than ever we could use your help.

Thank you for your support!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dwv...ature=youtu.be

I made this video because I love Santa Rosa, my home of 22 years. I love the beauty of our natural world, and like thousands of others believe I Sonoma County is a slice of paradise. I wholeheartedly support the reunification of Old Courthouse Square and am not so concerned about the cost of the project. I understand it's been debated for many years how to go about closing Mendocino Ave. to reunify the square, but the current council has moved forward with such a short-sighted, outdated vision that has included brutalizing trees older and more beautiful than most of us... it is shocking. And frankly, it's a vision largely based on fear.

I believe one of the driving factors of this current proposal has at it's core mission a notion that by making the square nice and bright, with no hills so the police have a clear "line of sight", that somehow this will make the homeless/druggie element disappear from downtown. Not gonna happen.

Another travesty...the council wants to have us believe that the majority of the storeowners/merchants want this proposal. Not true. After canvassing 17 storefronts along 4th street, 83% did not agree with the trees being removed. The owner of the luggage shop is the loudest proponent and in the minority. The fact is, the city could put temporary barriers to close off Mendocino Avenue tomorrow and make a few changes to the square without removing ONE large tree and most people would be happy. The two side streets are TOTALLY unnecessary.

A vibrant downtown should include car-free areas for pedestrians, like we see in cities all over the world. Taking out Mendocino and adding 2 more streets with parking is going in the wrong direction. Think about the events that are so much fun in Santa Rosa...the old Handcar Regatta, the Railroad Square Music Festival, the Wednesday Night Market, the Tour of California. One thing they all have in common...NO CARS! Freedom for people to mill around without worrying about getting run over.

Santa Rosa has a history of protesting peacefully, but sadly also a history of the politicos making decisions behind closed doors without taking into account the voice of the people. This is why I included the Occupy protests in this video, because We the People came together, stood up and said, "THINGS AREN'T FAIR." We can do it again, and we will. And like the crows who have been displaced from their home in the redwoods, the ones who 86 year-old Norma will tell you come to roost just before sunset every night, we will remember. Like crows, we have long memories, and come election day, we will remember the unanimous city council vote that took away our heritage trees. I hope Norma will run for Mayor. She has been protesting every day for months and is a true hero.

Hello Ms. Wilson,

My GOD! How incredible a video.

We assemble to OPPOSE City Council's Courthouse Square on Tuesday between 4-8 PM.

Please, would it be too far out of reach for you to appear and show your video to the public on city Council media equipment? I will call and see if they have the media capability for you to show the video.

The beautiful thing is you need not be a resident of Santa Rosa to show the video. Even if you can not appear, perhaps you have a friend who will take you place? You see, in order to show your video you will need to fill out a "Comment Card". You can simply fill in your name and state that you will show a video. You are allowed three minutes for the video and/or any commentary. How you use the time is up to you.

Please, your video speaks like nothing else! We need your support at City Council. Be a heroine. :-)

Lastly, may I post your video on other websites?

Sincerely, Jennifer

Hi Jennifer,

Please share the video far and wide. I am a resident of SR and was planning to come tomorrow night, but could get held up at work so if for some reason I am late, anyone could pull up the You Tube link and show it. But...I will most likely be there by 5 p.m. and will plan to request to show it. If you could get the permission from the city and let me know what is needed....I could just use my phone to play it from You Tube if they can provide an adapter.

I am also planning another video, one in which I ask passers-by downtown to give a one-liner on why they are against the tree removal. I hope to get 25-50 people and edit it all together in another short 2-3 minute video.

Thanks, Kate

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:

...Lastly, may I post your video on other websites?

---

Thank you so much for doing this. I had hoped that someone would at least take pictures, and you went even further, with your video, which will be a historical testimony for all who feel grief over the trees and anger at the corruption that caused them to be butchered in the name of progress. Your heartfelt words of wisdom speak for many of us. I will share this video on Facebook and Nextdoor.com

a few weeks ago i wrote Julie Coombs and quoted Big Yellow Taxi to her. she wrote back to me, and said it wasn't "All" the Trees....ugh
Don't it always seem to go, no matter who you vote for, they are a BIG disappointment!

We want so much to believe in someone, and most of the time the reality never quite measures up to our expectations.

But then there are those heroines who rise up armed with factual truth and a call to action and those who hear the call, and respond with creative energy to fight the destruction in process.

Women leaders have emerged, as a transparent and powerful guiding force for all to witness and support.

I also want to acknowledge the men who are part of this expression in finding justice for the trees and the citizens. Mostly, it seems to be women who've stepped forward.

MORE FODDER FOR OPPOSITION

Following is a summary of points fully detailed and substantiated elsewhere by civil engineer Richard Canini. He sent a similar version to City Council:

A. Santa Rosa City promised by City Council Resolution 9540 and 9533 to maintain the Rosenberg fountain:

"... City shall at all times keep said water feature and surrounding area and said plaque in first class condition and repair, including,witiiout limitin the generality of the foregoing, shall maintain all lawns and plantings in green and fresh growing condition ... "

​This promise was made​ on the occasion of the city accepting money from Mrs Rosenberg for the fountain, aka "water feature." Maybe the city can be compelled by court order to keeps its promise. Maybe a lawyer would know. Maybe the district attorney or state attorney general would know and care (or not).

B. The city has a history of illegally using water and sewer funds for the council's pet projects. The city may do so again on the OCS project.

C. The new parking spaces are to be metered, and the money from the meters is to go to the downtown parking district. Apparently the tax payers will pay for the parking spaces--but only the downtown parking district, aka property owners, will get the money from the parking meters. Is this legal? Maybe a lawyer would know. Maybe the district attorney or state attorney general would know and care (or not).

D. The construction of the parking spaces unquestionably increases the value of the adjoining properties. This increase in value, enrichment, is a free gift of public funds to for-profit enterprises. Is using tax payers' money to enrich for-profit enterprises legal? Maybe a lawyer would know. Maybe the district attorney or state attorney general would know and care (or not).

E. If the city did not disclose the cost of the OCS project during its required budget hearings, to spend public funds on the OCS project may violate the law. Maybe a lawyer would know. Maybe the district attorney or state attorney general would know and care (or not).

Yours for government accountability, Richard M Canini PE

************************************************

A reminder:
Tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 23, citizens have 3 minutes each to speak to City Council about the Old Courthouse Square project, starting "no earlier than 5:00pm." You won't be alone! (And there are still some trees standing.)

And here are Jason Nutt's responses (in purple) to Richard Canini's questions. After Canini sent the questions, Mr. Nutt took 2 months to respond, sending his responses 5 days after the city began cutting down the people's trees. Please dig in.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nutt, Jason <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM

Mr. Canini –

Sorry for the delay in responding to your email. I have worked with the Finance, Parking and Water departments on the responses provided below. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Very truly yours,
Jason Nutt | Director of Transportation and Public Works
Transportation and Public Works Department|69 Stony Circle | Santa Rosa, CA 95401


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Canini <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:59 PM

Greetings,

How will the financial co$t of the Old Courthouse Square project be met. Where will the money come from to pay for this project ?
At their September 22 meeting, the City Council approved expenditure of up to $10 million with approximately half coming from existing project fund sources and the other half from certificates of participation or other traditional borrowing.

How will the loan(s) be repaid ?
The General Fund will pay for the debt service.

The parking spaces will be metered, correct ?
Yes, newly constructed parking spaces will be metered to be consistent with the existing downtown parking practices.

Where will the money from the meters go?
Consistent with existing practices, metered parking will be the responsibility of the downtown parking district. Parking user fees are recorded in the Parking Fund and are used to develop, maintain and operate parking facilities, including on-street parking.

Who or what gets the meter money ?
The downtown parking district.

What happens to the money collected from the meters ?
Parking user fees are collected by the downtown parking district and utilized to develop, manage and maintain the parking facilities.

Where will the money from parking violation tickets go ?
Violations will follow current practice which helps support the parking enforcement team.

Who or what gets the parking violation ticket money ?
The General Fund.

What happens to the money collected from the parking violation ?
The General Fund provides funding for parking enforcement. Funds are used to pay for the parking enforcement team.

Will the parking meter money and parking violation ticket money go into the general fund ?
Parking violation fines go to the General Fund and are used to support the parking enforcement team. Parking user fees are recorded in the Parking Fund and are restricted to use for parking purposes.

Will this money be used to pay for the Old Court House Square project ?
The Parking Fund has allocated $300,000 in FY 2016/17 for its proportional cost of construction of parking spaces on the new Hinton and Exchange Streets. Consistent with current and past practice, the downtown parking district funds will be used to pay for the parking management equipment and striping of the new parking spaces.

It is clear addition parking will increase the commercial value of buildings and businesses adjoining the square. The property and business owners will be enriched, by this public project. Will the properties will be reassessed [ interesting word ] for property tax purposes ?
The Courthouse Square Reunification project will not specifically result in the re-assessment of any adjacent private properties.

Will the properties and businesses adjoining Old Court House Square pay for their enrichment or will the cost be borne by all the general fund tax payers ?
As described above, the project is being financed through existing project funds and certificates of participation.

Water and sewer funds will only be spent for direct water and sewer cost correct ?
Yes.

Extraneous ancillary cost will not be charged to water and sewer funds, correct ?
Correct. Sewer and water funds would be used for the design and construction of sewer and water mains and include related items such as; excavation, contaminated soil disposal, installation of pipe and service laterals, valves, manholes, testing, backfill material, trench paving and other disturbed surfaces restored to original or better condition, portions of traffic control and storm water pollution prevention.

The bid tab and contract will be open for public inspection, correct ?
Yes, all Public Works projects are advertised and posted for public viewing at the Public Works Dept and on the City web page at: https://webeditor7/departments/publicworks/capitalprojects/contracts/Pages/ContractandPlanholderLists.aspx
The contract award is also posted as part of the agenda for City Council or BPU public meetings.

If you allow water and sewer funds to be spent on things other than water and sewer you could go to jail, correct ? [NO RESPONSE]

Santa Rosa City promised, gave its word, no public funds would be spent on the Old Courthouse Square project. Will you keep this promise ? [NO RESPONSE]

Yours for the common good, R Canini

I know I will probably get stoned for this, but really, aren't there a lot more important causes than this to activate about? Yes the trees are beautiful, but they are not that old, not old growth, there will be more trees than we started with when they are done. This is not a natural place for redwoods. Unifying the square will make a much nicer community gathering spot, than two spots with cars whizzing through. There are whole forests of old growth trees and rain forests being destroyed everyday - and all the wildlife that depend on them. Let's focus on that. This is really just not that big a deal.

Also the trees are going to be used in some creek restoration projects that will help heal some of the destruction we have done.

AND Julie Combs is a wonderful representative on almost every issue - let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

a few weeks ago i wrote Julie Coombs and quoted Big Yellow Taxi to her. she wrote back to me, and said it wasn't "All" the Trees....ugh
Don't it always seem to go, no matter who you vote for, they are a BIG disappointment!

---

If we are to have a square then it must be "fair and square". It's not wanting the square that's wrong, but the several questionable practices to which the process (getting there) seemingly EVADED insofar as full disclosure and transparency.

Thank you for your support!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

I know I will probably get stoned for this, but really, aren't there a lot more important causes than this to activate about? ...

---

Maybe this City Charter Section below will help explain if the Rosenberg fountain is protected.

Sec. 53. Continuing Ordinances in Force. All lawful ordinances, resolutions, and regulations in force at the time this charter shall take effect, and not inconsistent with its provisions, are hereby continued in force until the same shall have been duly amended, repealed or superseded.

A. Santa Rosa City promised by City Council Resolution 9540 and 9533 to maintain the Rosenberg fountain:

"... City shall at all times keep said water feature and surrounding area and said plaque in first class condition and repair, including,without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall maintain all lawns and
plantings in green and fresh growing condition ... "

​This promise was made​ on the occasion of the city accepting money from Mrs Rosenberg for the fountain, aka "water feature." Maybe the city can be compelled by court order to keeps its promise. Maybe a lawyer would know. Maybe the district attorney or state attorney general would know and care (or not).

Jennifer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BothSidesNow:

Following is a summary of points fully detailed and substantiated elsewhere by civil engineer Richard Canini...

---

you are right in some respects. i think we must choose our battles, certainly seems there are too many fires to put out...however, it always helps to gather information and in doing so you can bring people along in a gentle way, perhaps, even trying to think in terms "we are all in this together". OUr elected officials get elected, and then don't seem to give a damn or at least not enough. this particular issue (and there are many) was pushed through, ignoring the concerns of the public in the guise that we are children and they know better for US. We could only wish and pray they would be so expedient when it comes to taking care of our homeless, or leaning on Law Enforcement when they step way over their bounds, or why did it take the killing of a child to annex Roseland (only 27 years) or why not annex Moorland (oh that's right they don't have the $$).

the way i see, it is about THEIR priorities. just saying, this could have waited and something else more important and dire projects $$$ could have been spent on...

julie coombs is wonderful. she makes mistakes too.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

I know I will probably get stoned for this, but really, aren't there a lot more important causes than this to activate about?...

---

I can understand your point (and won't stone you for it :wink:). Yes, there are much more important things in the world to be outraged by. But, for me, this is about a sense of place, and the fact that I live less than a mile from these trees and have enjoyed them for over 2 decades. Generations have grown up with these trees in our collective downtown backyard. I keep hearing that redwoods are not native to the area...and that is simply not true. Redwoods are native to the entire north coast, including the Santa Rosa plain. They are living, breathing things that should not be killed for the sake of parking and pavement.

Yes, unifying the square will make a nicer community gathering spot. But, installing 2 new streets along the east and west side of the square will only add more traffic and it would be much nicer without them. We have at least 4 parking garages that are always half empty within blocks of the square. It appears the art of walking has been replaced by the need to drive everywhere, at a time when most of us could use the exercise.

There are many cities that have a block or two where no cars are allowed and it makes for a vibrant pedestrian cityscape (Grafton Street in Dublin, Ireland comes to mind). Places like this invite people to get out of their cars and shop, dine, enjoy live music on the streets, etc. They make the city what it is.

Instead, our City Council chose to push through this plan which, once the tree removal became public knowledge, has elicited more opposition than any issue in recent memory. They had their minds made up and the tree cutting work out to bid before we even got a chance to speak at the overflow council meeting. It is a combination of the lack of respect for nature and the lack of respect for the voices of the people that they claim to represent that has made this a big issue, for me.

Lastly, Sonoma County is known for it's progressiveness. We have been at the forefront of the permaculture movement. We have a young, vibrant community of people who care deeply about the environment. How out of touch are the city leaders? Very much so, it appears. The ideal reunited square for me would be one where the city hires someone like our local Sebastopol Permaculture Artisans, ("

an ecological company that designs, builds and maintains regenerative and resilient landscapes and settlements." )

Imagine a downtown landscape that captures and treats polluted storm water runoff, at the same time highlighting native plants and beautiful landscaping. One with a park-like setting with the beautiful old redwoods and cedar trees, and a playground for kids made from the wood of the limbs that were just freshly cut from the poor trees. It's not too late for the city to stop the destruction in its tracks, admit they were wrong, and come up with a much less expensive, regenerative plan that is locally designed and approved by the people of the city!

Instead, what we'll see is business as usual, politicians out of touch, nature plowed down for pavement, and a disheartened populace angry at the government....sigh.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

I know I will probably get stoned for this, but really, aren't there a lot more important causes than this to activate about?...

---

the heart of the redwood empire is being torn out - the redwoods there cut!
symbolic and actual.
jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

i know i will probably get stoned for this, but really, aren't there a lot more important causes than this to activate about? Yes the trees are beautiful, but they are not that old, not old growth, there will be more trees than we started with when they are done. This is not a natural place for redwoods. Unifying the square will make a much nicer community gathering spot, than two spots with cars whizzing through. There are whole forests of old growth trees and rain forests being destroyed everyday - and all the wildlife that depend on them. Let's focus on that. This is really just not that big a deal.

Also the trees are going to be used in some creek restoration projects that will help heal some of the destruction we have done.

And julie combs is a wonderful representative on almost every issue - let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

---