Although negotiations between businessman Merritt Paulson and the Sonoma-Marin Fair Board to build a baseball stadium for a minor-league baseball team at the fairgrounds ended when the two sides were unable to agree on financial terms, the majority of people who responded to an Argus-Courier online survey would like to have a professional team and ballpark in town.

Sixty-four percent said they would like to have a minor-league baseball team in Petaluma and 57 percent said that they think Paulson should look for another site to build a stadium.

Fifty-five percent said the city should actively pursue a minor-league baseball team, but only 36 percent feel the city should offer financial incentives to attract a minor-league team. Forty-nine percent said "no" to financial incentives.

Finally, 25 percent said it is too cold for night baseball in Petaluma, while 66 percent said it is not and 10 percent were unsure.

Here are some comments by those who took the survey:

1. I am for baseball, just not at the expense of the race track. We can have both in Petaluma if it is thought through.

2. No ball field. No ball team. Spend the city money where it will benefit all and not just ball fans. Use the money to clean up the city and fix up some of the city. A ball park is something for the few and not the many. It will only cause more traffic and noise.

3. I hope the fairgrounds site can become viable for a stadium by exploring additional year-round uses for this underutilized facility in the heart of town. A million-dollar gap seems within striking distance if a broader view of the opportunity is explored.

4. A baseball option in the North Bay would be a tremendous asset to the entire community, drawing fans from at least four counties. With the fans comes increased business both before and after games at local businesses.

5. There are so many more important issues at hand in this town, and traffic is already a disaster.

7. The minor-league in Rohnert Park did not work, what makes Petaluma any better?

8. IF THE BASEBALL STADIUM IS SUCH LUCRATIVE DEAL THEN WHY CAN'T MERRILL PAULSON FINANCE IT OR FIND PRIVATE INVESTORS TO SUPPORT IT? PETALUMA CAN'T AFFORD THE FINANCIAL RISK.

9. I hope that talks could resume. More than anything, I don't want to lose the fairgrounds to development. If a baseball team would help us keep the fairgrounds, then let's make it work.

10. They should try again for the Car Track. The track is a real nuisance! I live approximately three miles from the track and I can hear it perfectly. Sometimes they don't quit until 11:00 PM way past the curfew time!

11. If I'm Mr. Paulson, I would look at San Jose - much better climate.

12. Minor league team failed in Rohnert Park and also wouldn't be successful long term in Petaluma in my opinion.

13. They need to spend the money on our streets and on the city, not building and maintaining a baseball field.

14. A minor-league team can only help a community like Petaluma and attract extra revenue for the city. It's a no-brainer, the pros outweigh the cons. Baseball is America's pastime and what better city to celebrate it, but in lovely Petaluma!

15. Get that white trash track out of Petaluma.

16. I enjoy attending sporting events " especially if they are local and affordable. It would be great if the idea is still investigated and not abandoned because the fairgrounds as a site didn't work out.

17. Baseball is for drug addicts and loosers.

18. Is Petaluma any colder at night then San Francisco? I don't think so.

19. He's another entrepreneur hunting for welfare, that is the only way he can operate! Why is the fairgrounds the only place for further expansion, when it is serving the public broadly now. The truth of the matter is that without a $1 a year lease and who knows what else, baseball is a loser, and the speedway is a winner. What am I missing?

20. I hope the team is called the Crushers.

21. Baseball in Petaluma... you bet. Give this town something to rally around. We should be so lucky Mr. Paulson wants to invest $25M of his own money in our community. This stadium will not only bring baseball to our town, but it will also bring in other venues. I hope the new Fair Board members have a little more sense.

22. I think it would be great to have a minor league team in Petaluma. I am especially tired of the car races at night that now go on until 11 p.m. I think a baseball team would be a great financial boost for the city.

23. Anyone who has watched baseball over the last few weeks knows that the weather is not a problem in Petaluma if tens of thousands of Detroit and New York fans can brave the wet and sub freezing temperatures to root on their team. It is short-sighted to worry about weather and fair receipts. This would be a great medium for bringing the community together, and having a place where all ages of residents can go to have fun. If you ever went to a Crusher's game in Rohnert Park, you know it wasn't just for baseball fans. Baseball is an event that can unite and entertain all ages, sexes, and political leanings. And, it's time for Petaluma to find its roots, its history, and its community with endeavors such as this.

24. Should have already happened! We were let down by city leaders once again ... tsk, tsk.

25. Baseball! Yes! Great opportunity for a local treasure. We can experience the joys of the game without the obvious money-driven mindset of the major leagues. Bring back the Crushers with their great sense of humor and sense of play and model of fair play. See players up close. Chat with the those in the dugout or bullpen. Weather has no effect on real baseball fans ... see East Coast teams in a deluge or in sleet or in high heat and humidity. In fact, check out those Giants in fog and wind chill. We will be there with our children and grandchildren and friends for a true American pastime. Pass the CrackerJacks.

Petaluma residents are concerned about the safety of local schools, according to an Argus-Courier online survey on Oct. 11, 2006..
Sixty-nine percent responded that they are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about school safety, while 27 percent were either "not very concerned" or "not concerned."
Asked how safe schools are from outside dangers, 49 percent said "not very safe" or "unsafe," while 42 percent said "very safe" or "somewhat safe." The rest were not sure.
Fifty-four percent said schools should implement better security measures, while 34 percent said "no."
Parents of school-age children were asked if they feel their child is safe going to school without parental escort, either walking, riding a bicycle or driving (if old enough). The results were fairly even, with 50 percent saying "very safe" or "somewhat safe" and 43 percent saying "not very safe" or "unsafe."
Here are comments by those who took the survey.
1. The "duck and cover" drill at Casa Grande last week for the gang arrest (several miles away) was truly sad.
2. School safety is part of why we homeschool.
3. Take the time to teach your kids and take the time to just talk to them and be with them. They need good values taught to them and they will grow up to care for themselves and others. They won't grow up caring for nothing but themselves. This will lead to a good child, student and adult. You had children, now spend time with them and teach them and care for them.
4. You let your child get in your car every day. There is a far more likelihood of a safety issue with that than going to school.
5. Since the school campuses are large and open, it would be hard to control who is on and off campus without spending millions of dollars on security measures.
6. Schools generally work hard to be safe places for children. Short of making all schools absolutely "closed" and with guards, it's very hard to imagine how to prevent the random acts of disturbed individuals. Young children and students of all ages need constant reminders and practice about what to do in any emergency.
7. I believe the proliferation of gangs has affected the attitudes of parents for several years, now. Any school age child knows not to wear the wrong color clothing to school. It's a good way to get yourself in trouble. What a shame that this kind of thing has to be on the minds of our students.
8. The location and condition of bicycle paths is such that children can't safely use them to go to school. Why the mayoral candidates argue about the Rainier connector and not bicycle paths is beyond my comprehension.
9. Our local schools are full of gang members, drug dealing and violent crime. Just look at the number of expulsions for weapons on campus!
10. It is safer than the drive to school.
11. Petaluma schools need better security; many Santa Rosa schools have installed security cameras, Petaluma schools need to be more proactive " not reactive!
12. Petaluma schools are pretty safe. However, you can't protect from kids that go wacko. The root cause of kids going or being allowed to go wacko are parents who either don't have the time to watch their children or just don't take the time. I put all the problems with children squarely on the shoulders of the parents. If you can't afford them or you don't have the time to take care of them, don't have children! If it takes a village to raise a child, don't blame that village when it tries to discipline that child. Of course, when the village does try to discipline the child, you'll just sue. Keep allowing your children out to all hours of the night. Keep not caring
as to with whom they associate. Keep not taking the time to care about your child and society will have to pay the price. After all, you're just trying to make a living. It's going to get uglier before it starts to get better.

If the results of the Argus-Courier's online poll on Oct. 4, 2006 are any indication, proponents of a ballot measure to extend funding for open space acquisition have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
Measure F would extend an existing quarter-cent sales tax to fund open space acquisition for another 20 years. It needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
Asked directly how they planned to vote on Measure F with less than a month until election day, 59 percent of the respondents to the Argus-Courier survey said they would vote for the measure, 28 percent said they would vote no and 13 percent said they are not sure how they would vote.
A little more than half the respondents (54 percent) said they felt the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has done a good job preserving land since it was formed in 1990. The question received 26 percent negative responses and 20 percent of the survey takers were unsure.
The response was about the same for the question about whether on not the district had spent taxpayer funds wisely to protect areas from growth and development " 52 percent said yes, 26 percent said no and 22 percent were unsure.
A majority of those responding to the survey believe south county is not getting its fair share of Open Space District funds. Of those taking the survey, 39 percent said south county was not getting its fair share, 24 percent said it was being treated fairly and 37 percent were not sure.
Here are some comments by those who took the survey.
Open space is great, but we in Petaluma have very little recreational opportunities close enough to get to. The Tolay purchase is OK, but it is miles away from most Petalumans. Why are they not interested in preserving Sonoma Mountain? It could be the Mount Tam of Sonoma County with trails connecting Petaluma to Sonoma. I must be dreaming.
How about preserving Petaluma? Stop the growth, and we will have open space like we used to.
Open space creates higher home prices. Look at Marin and don't do what they did.
Voting yes on Measure F ensures continuation of the Open Space District with opportunities to bring more of our sales tax dollars to South County. Even if people disagree with some purchases or that south county hasn't gotten as much as other areas, now is the time to vote yes so the future will be promising for us in Petaluma ...
I'd like to see the Open Space District acquire more land in the Petaluma area. For example, the property at Paula Lane and Sunset Drive, which is an important wild life corridor.
If I had it my way, I would purchase all Sonoma County land for open space, then make the builders try to buy the land from us. Then we would need some sensible and responsible leaders in our city and county governments to preserve this area and plan ahead. The growth in Sonoma County and the city of Petaluma has been planned pretty poorly to date. Proposition F is the only thing at present that is preserving more open space for future residents and the wildlife that inhabit this beautiful landscape. I will vote Yes on F!
Three projects recently passed by the Petaluma City Council will help bring our sales tax dollars for broad uses to south county " McNear Peninsula, Paula Lane and the Benson pumpkin patch property. Tolay Lake Park is also going to be a south county regional jewel.
The Petaluma City Council is to be commended for its recent support of projects involving the McNear Peninsula, Paula Lane, and the Benson property " good use of tax dollars, and hopefully we'll see more of these efforts to enhance our community!
No more taxes. If taxes are needed, they should be to stop the gang problem and graffiti problem in Petaluma. Get your priorities straight. Only raise taxes to get more policemen and judges who will prosecute as needed to preserve our city.
By answering "not sure" to all the questions, I really mean to say, "I just don't know." Perhaps I haven't been paying attention. Perhaps the proponents have not found a way to "get my attention." Whatever the case, I view this as a "backdoor" means to control growth " which while laudable "does not address the real problem: Too many people and too little resources.
Stop the vineyards. They are a blight on society.
All I see is landowners getting wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer. If there was guaranteed public access, I'd probably think differently, but not as it stands now.
The Open Space District has about five times the amount of funding for preservation as any other entity. Without it, our air quality will be worse. With it, we can eventually hope to get our Lafferty Park opened.
Sonoma County is very special in part due to the open space. The rapid growth and the influence of developers in the recent past is of concern to me. I think that future generations will be grateful that we had the foresight to protect land.
The nature of our economy is to expand or die. Business, by the way it must be structured, will never take care of open space or the life within it. It is the role of the government by means of its involved citizenry to be the watchdog; to create space, watch over it, and insure it cannot be developed. Otherwise, in our society, nothing would be left in a pristine state within a generation.
Petaluma's supervisor needs to be a better advocate for county dollars coming to south county.
The current open space initiative is great for elder homeowners and lousy for young people who want to try to find a home. It helps inflate home prices. The county's stingy approach to development is forcing residents out of the area. It is, if not mean-spirited, at least a thoughtless approach to solving the problem here.
Keeping open space is critical to preserve lands for future.
I'm open about it.

Nearly three-fourths of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll Sept. 27, 2006 feel the Petaluma Police Department should continue to conduct Internet sex predator stings.

Seventy-four percent said the stings should continue, while 21 percent said no and 5 percent were unsure.

Thirty-six percent said the stings should be conducted "constantly," 26 percent said "often," 16 percent "occasionally," 9 percent "rarely" and 12 percent "never."

Forty-five percent said the amount of resources directed to the stings was "about right," 21 percent said it was "too much" and 10 percent "not enough." Twenty-four percent were not sure.

Asked if they would feel comfortable if a house in their neighborhood was staked out by police while being used to lure sex predators to a sting operation, 54 percent said yes, 35 percent said no and 11 percent were not sure.

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1. There are so many of the creeps out there. Let's get 'em.

2. Virtual crimes are easy to commit because we do not have enough focus in this area. But we also need a DA who will prosecute all of these offenses. They need to get registered as offenders! If they aren't prosecuted, they aren't registered!

3. I don't like the light in which Petaluma is being portrayed in the media. Internet stings are very important, but Petaluma is a great and safe town to live in. Polly Klaas was an extremely sad time in our town, but it was many years ago; it doesn't happen every week. John Mark Karr was an outsider and one man out of thousands in our town. And the Internet predators are from out of town. I just wish our town would get some good press for a change.

4. With all the local concerns regarding violent crime, gangs, etc., police should be focusing more resources on existing crime and not import it into our community from other areas.

5. The police can use my house anytime they want if it helps catch any more of these creeps.

6. They should spend their time protecting me, not some imaginary 13-year-old girl. I am worried about gangs, theft and vandalism. I think once they have that taken care of, then go after these people.

7. The police should protect and serve the whole community, not just a very small part of it. I am sure there are more pressing issues in town than this. Go after the gangs and vandalism; when this is taken care of, then go after the extra fluff. Hold parents responsible for what their children do. If they let their kids go into chat rooms, they are idiots. Wake up and take responsibility.

8. According to your own paper, Petaluma has a far larger problem than this. Here I quote, "The number of violent crimes and aggravated assault incidents in Petaluma increased significantly in 2005, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report issued last week. Violent crimes rose by 51 percent, from 142 to 215, and aggravated assault incidents increased by 83 percent, from 86 to 157, according to the report." The police should fix these issues before worrying about Internet chat rooms.

9. We need to get those sick predators off the streets!

10. The police lure these perpetrators on, give them their address and invite them over. It does not sound right. We always convict instead of help. We could be using resources to help those minors who feel they have the need to have sex with adults. If there are minors looking for sex with adults there will always be adults who respond accordingly.

11. What a waste of police time. This should be the parents' job. Round up the gangs and erase all graffiti. It looks horrible. That's the police department's job, that's what we pay taxes for.

12. There are far more important issues in Petaluma than this. What a huge waste of time and money. I am sure the people who got beat up or robbed during this time think the same way.

13. Protecting our children should be our No. 1 priority and I don't really care what it costs. It is our moral obligation.

14. Great proactive law enforcement to protect our children. Thank you, Chief Hood!

15. All in all, a significant police operation that reveals much about our times and society " more than most of us would like to admit. I really don't know how I feel about all of this. Certainly I have no sympathy for the predators. Something about the whole thing just seems sleazy. I can't imagine how police officers cope with this kind of "work." The "perps" are pathetic.

16. If arresting 29 guys keeps just one from molesting or raping a child, it's worth it.

17. The city needs to be more adamant with news agencies to report the origin of the captured predators as evidenced by Friday night's "NBC Dateline" segment that made it seem like Petaluma was rife with pedos, when in actuality they were all from outside of Petaluma, even though the sting was conducted here. I think your article mentioned this, but NBC certainly didn't, and their reference of Karr and Polly was an obvious attempt to stir up fear in Petaluma. It reflects badly on our little town.

18. People who don't want this are probably the ones we are going to see on "NBC Dateline" on Friday night!

19. I commend the honorable efforts of our local police, but I feel we could likely set ourselves up for retribution by some criminals who want to prove a point that these stings are not effective. We need to worry about our own local sex predators and not import those that are out of county.

20. The Petaluma police must have too much money, time, staffing, and resources. Every time I turn around, it seems that I see another new Petaluma police vehicle. Now it seems that the Petaluma police has decided that it has the wherewithal to be the sexual predator enforcer for Northern California. Most of the people arrested were from far away. I think Petaluma's sexual predator policing should be Petaluma-focused. The Petaluma police must have too much funding. Maybe we should re-examine that funding.

21. I think any measure possible should be taken!