Eighty-six percent of those who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll last week oppose an Indian gaming casino proposed on a 277-acre parcel one mile south of Petaluma along Highway 101.

The same percentage of respondents said they would not frequent such an establishment.
Sixty-eight percent feel the city of Petaluma should put an advisory measure on the ballot to gauge sentiment about a casino in the area.

Eighty-one percent believe that a Senate bill sponsored by Arizona Sen. John McCain intended to eliminate off-reservation gambling should restore a March 29 cutoff date for applications by tribes. (Such a move would mean recent applications for such casinos in Sonoma County would not be considered.)

Last week's survey generated 331 responses " by far the most since the Argus-Courier began conducting weekly online polls in mid-March.
Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1 Get real! We don't need this! I can't believe it's even a consideration! What about our youth? Or is it still "All about the money"?

2 Gambling breeds negative societal impacts, period. Can you name one positive aspect of casino gambling on a family-oriented community?

3 When is enough ENOUGH!!!!! Do we have to have a casino every 20 miles? Is this something we really need? Must we butcher and sewer more land for things we don't need? According to one of your other surveys people think its to expensive to live here and do not have the money. But they will have the money to through away at a casino? I don't understand when everyone started to think we need a Costco a target a casino a Wal-Mart (the list does on) every ten to twenty miles apart. Destroying every piece of empty land to build trash! Can that question be answered? Yes it can money and greed! WE DON'T NEED IT!

4 Enough is enough with the Indian casinos. Petaluma does not want or need it.

5 Kastania Road is already a traffic problem with the merging traffic and the crossing traffic. We certainly don't need gamblers and drunken drivers making it worse after a visit to a casino.

6 I think a casino in Petaluma will completely ruin this almost ruined "small town".

7 I would be in favor of the casino as long as the city of Petaluma received a percentage of the profits from the casino.

8 Isn't a casino in Rohnert Park enough for the area? The Pomos should invest in that one and curb their need for greed.

9 The impact to highway congestion is only one issue that would make this a very bad idea.

10 It's getting to the point where Indian Gaming Casinos are almost as ubiquitous as Starbucks. If this proposed casino gets any further along, I would hope Petaluma would do what the city of Hercules just did to stop a Wal-Mart from going in by invoking eminent domain.

11 No way! It would completely alter the family character and community orientation that has been created over the years.

12 I feel there are better things the Indians could do with their time. Enough casinos!

13 I believe, when the California voters agreed to casinos on reservations, it was intended only to apply to existing reservation property.

14 it takes over an hour to get home thru the area they are thinking of using now. That is without a major accident happening.

15 There are too many now.

16 We are so fortunate to live in such a naturally beautiful area. Why would anyone want to turn it into Las Vegas? If we want Las Vegas we can go there, they would love to have us, but coming home to Sonoma County is always a reminder of what a beautiful world we live in. Let's not let anyone take it away. If the casinos come life will never be the same. Traffic, crime, and family tragedies due to those addicted are sure to follow.

17 A CASINO IN PETALUMA OR JUST OUTSIDE OF PETALUMA IS A HORRIBLE IDEA. AS IF TRAFFIC ISN'T BAD ENOUGH AROUND HERE, THIS WOULD MAKE IT MUCH WORSE. STUPID IDEA!

18 Hopefully, Petaluma has the foresight to see what Rohnert Park does not ... that residents of these two cities do NOT WANT A CASINO!

19 I oppose any attempt to place an off-reservation federal-trust lands casino in the Petaluma area since local, regional and state statutes and regulations including planning and zoning requirements do not bind such entities. Given the tremendous planning and growth issues facing the Petaluma area an unregulated casino would be a travesty.

20 Casinos are ALWAYS a net loss to a community.

21 I am opposed to all reservation shopping in CA! The tribal casino system is broken and needs to be fixed. As it exists now, it is a tax shelter for non-Indian backers, who are the real beneficiaries of Indian Casinos. The average tribal member in CA is barely better off than 10 years ago, yet Indian casinos last year took in more money than Vegas. There is something wrong with this that needs to be fixed! We do not need another new Indian casino. -- James O'Connor

22 What can I do as a Petaluma resident to ensure we don't get a casino? Please advise me at wendyalbrecht326[at]aol.com. Thank you.

23 Neuroscience and crime stats have shown that government sanctioned casinos have the same types of negative social and economic impacts as government sanctioned crack houses.

24 Being the case that the leadership of Petaluma is all about money, a casino is what they really deserve. This is a perfect diversion of funds out of the antique stores and nail salons that are replacing stores where Petaluma residents actually shop. Since the casino is south of Petaluma perhaps people will go no farther north, improving the quality of life for the people that actually live here and hopefully this will discourage the developers/carpetbaggers from taking advantage of our community.

25 Considering Petaluma's water crisis, how can they even consider allowing a casino, which would have Federal water rights that would trump local rights in the area? Casinos need to stay on the reservations...they were established as a means of drawing revenue into those areas, not as a tool for developing gambling in new areas.

26 Casinos come with a high price tag. Who is going to pay for the negative impacts? Grinols, an independent researcher, has the per capita benefits of a casino at $34 and the per capita costs at $190. The question to ask is, "Why are these even being considered?" In Singapore, every LOCAL gambler must pay a DAILY LEVY of $100 to help defray the economic price tag of the negative impact. In our country, those costs are dumped on taxpayers, social service organizations, the faith community, etc. but not put on the gambling interests. Why aren't the casinos treated like other businesses, which are liable for the damages of their product or service? Just say "NO" to this stupid idea.

27 Casinos help only casino owners. Everyone else loses.

28 Casinos are a parasite to any community within which they exist. They are financially, socially, morally, and psychologically damaging. You can do better.

29 Indian gaming casinos take loads of money out of the surrounding area and then dribble a little bit back to make it look like the community is gaining a new revenue source. How do you compare a little new revenue to a great loss of wealth?

30 Why put people in a position to ruin themselves? It happens so easily.

31 I'd love it! Better then a bunch of new housing and more people in Petaluma!

32 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act opened the door to Indian gambling in 1988 and tribal casinos have grown into a $20 billion a year industry. It's no surprise that, as IGRA remained virtually unamended, abuses unanticipated by Congress followed the money into the industry. The Abramoff scandal has prompted attention in the form of House Resources and Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings. These led to proposals to tighten IGRA provisions governing "reservation shopping," the practice of tribal acquisition of land off-reservation for casinos. For residents of communities threatened by tribal casinos, these proposed changes may not be soon enough, or effective enough to mitigate the menace and prevent the damage of this ill-conceived public policy. Over the years, we have tried to right past wrongs by attempting to guarantee that discrimination would not bar an individual's way to opportunity. Brown vs. Board of Education's recognition that "separate but equal" was not equal in law or in practice is emblematic of America's commitment to assuring the individual a place in the larger community. The flagrant exception to this commitment to the individual is the policies and practices accorded Native Americans. To the rights Native Americans have along with every other American, their tribal governments have been imbued with a "sovereignty" inconsistent with the basic American credo of equality under the law. Tribes have a "separate but favored" place in the community. This separate-but-favored status has protected individual tribal members from the predations to which they, historically, were victim. But, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act transformed that shield into a sword that has been thrust into established, non-tribal communities whose citizens are left defenseless in the face of tribal sovereign immunity. The fee-to-trust process enables tax-exempt, local-regulation-free tribal casino entrepreneurs to shop for the best commercial locations without regard to the adverse and unfair affects on local citizens. Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia warned in a letter to Pres. Bush, "Casino gambling ... is now coming to cities and even small towns across America and bringing with it all its social ills, like higher crime and suicide rates, increased personal bankruptcies, and the breakup of families." In communities from Connecticut to California, residents are being left with eroding tax bases and increased municipal and social costs. Local land use and community planning is disrupted, local, tax-paying businesses are put to a huge competitive disadvantage, and tax-supported public and social services are burdened. Ironically, the American ideal of non-discriminatory equal protection under the law has fallen victim to special treatment for the race-based political entities who are casino tribes. There are now 245 applications pending for new federally recognized tribes, plus some 74 applications for "off-reservation" land acquisitions, and a number of fee-to-trust requests by recognized tribes. Each new "tribe in waiting" represents a potential addition to more than 375 Indian casinos now up and running. Patching up holes in IGRA is an exercise in futility. It's time to insist Congress declare a moratorium on any further expansion of tribal casino gambling until our entire Indian gambling policy has been reviewed in light of its unintended consequences.

33 It is my belief that gambling creates more problems than benefits. That's why it's illegal in most areas.

34 There's precious little justification for on-rez casinos. There's absolutely none for off-rez casinos.

35 This country needs to put a stop to the expansion of state run gambling as well as casinos. We have to many people hurting themselves and their families because of addictions.

36 No casinos, please. They destroyed at least one place I lived ... no more, please.

37 The disastrous effects of casinos on local economies across the nation are well documented. It won't be any different in your town or city -- casinos suck money out of the community, and the only benefit is to those few who own the casino. The only thing that strengthens local communities are family oriented activities and strong infrastructures with visionary leaders. If all your local leaders can envision is a bunch of flashing lights inside a dark room where time seems to disappear, then you need new leaders.

38 Why should a BUSINESS under the guise of a "sovereign nation" be allowed to do business and not pay taxes - PLUS receive government monies for their little programs?

39 Re: Q2, There's no point in a plebiscite. That's what our elected solons are for.

40 The public needs to know that an Indian gambling casino is exempt from all the property, sales and other taxes needed to pay for all the public services and community infrastructure they use extensively and the patrons and employees have no rights or protections under state law if they are injured, discriminated against or cheated. The slot machines are unregulated and unlike Nevada are not inspected and need not pay any minimum fair rate of return to players such as that required by Nevada rule 14045. In addition all the state and local laws enacted to protect the environment, health and welfare and quality of life for the public and the whole community and do not apply because of the court created doctrine of tribal immunity. Even though these casinos are essentially tax exempt and make hundreds of millions of dollars from the losses of non-Indian gamblers (most of whom cannot afford to lose that money) the tribes operating them still collect federal welfare and grant money in the millions and are allowed to operate in virtual total secrecy. Finally the huge amount of cash from these unregulated and immune gambling casinos has a vastly greater influence and even a corrupt influence on federal and state politicians depriving the public of a voice in many important matters. How can any non-Indian business compete with such largesse? That is one of the reasons Indian casinos have such a negative effect on the local economies and communities into which they are often thrust involuntarily, all the while touting they will create "jobs" and somehow that will be a benefit to the non-Indian community sufficient to overcome the many negative off site social and economic impacts like increased crime, divorce and family neglect, bankruptcy, traffic congestion and noise, littering, loitering even suicide by those who have gambled away money they needed to live on or provide to their families.

41 Protect the sovereignty of the United States and stop foolish cessation of our country to get gambling into every community in America.

42 I have learned that casinos devastate communities. Casino operator Steve Wynn has been quoted as saying -- "If you want to make money at a casino, you'd better own it." It may have been the most honest thing the man ever said.

43 Casinos are the antithesis of community well-being. Crime, traffic, alcoholism and pollution escalate, while local business diminishes and school enrollment explodes. Go to www.NoSaugertiesCasino.org. On the right, click on "Learn about Crime Impacts." This is a PDF of a study (which you can download by right-clicking on the link and selecting 'Save Target as...'). This study included at least a dozen casino locations around the country. The first nine pages is an Executive Summary. Anyone concerned about quality of life will not have to read more than this to be convinced that living within fifty miles of a casino is guaranteed disaster.

44 This is a horrible idea - the land grab and the whole concept of BS gaming. Nothing but a money grab with a perpetual growth potential due to the enormous sums of money being raked in then and doled out as hush money to the willing hands of policy making officials. I am frankly terrified on how to get this monstrous genie back in the bottle. Good luck Sen. McCain!

45 I am disgusted at the common practice of reservation shopping. Whenever one of these casinos is proposed, there's always a big effort to talk about the jobs they are creating -- but they never talk about the social effects of gambling and the effects on traffic, police, and hospitals. These costs far outweigh the benefit of a few dozen low wage jobs. Casinos are always a raw deal for communities.

46 No casino.

47 We don't need a casino in both Rohnert Park and Petaluma. I prefer the RP choice but probably because of a not in my back yard attitude.

48 The casino building frenzy is totally out of control. It is the de-regulation genie let out of the bottle in our community. The impact of an urban area casino on our systems will be grave and very difficult to remediate.

49 Petaluma needs the shot-in-the-arm that the casino would provide. A minority of voters with big voices and deep pockets is interfering with what many others want and need. They are forcing their personal beliefs and 'ethics' on everyone else. I for one don't agree with their opinions and resent them for their bullying tactics.

50 Casinos are devices for extracting maximal cash from an economy and creating wide swaths of social damage that somebody else has to take care of.

51 We visited a community in southern California that too was surprised with the advent of a casino in their back yard. Beautiful homes, beautifully landscaped gardens and, oh yes, 15-20' security gates across their veranda style front porches. The down and out sleep in their yards and 'borrow' their cars; all since the casino opened. If casinos are built they need to be on established reservations away from communities. Thank you for listening! -- Linda M. Long

52 Build the freeway and infrastructure first, then build your Casinos and Malls.

53 Your talking about failed Federal Indian policy In 18 years since its passage, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has flooded America with gambling, pitting tribes against States, States against communities, tribes against tribes and citizens against citizens and greed against cultures, but the tide is finally beginning to turn. It's easy to see the intent of congress to provide cultural autonomy and economic development for Native Americans has become a twisted parody. It has become a tale of big gambling money polluting and perverting both the process and some of our most vulnerable citizens. Indian gambling may also become one of our Nations most deceitful and damaging promises to Native Americans. Don't allow another casino to be built in a beautiful area, it would forever be destroyed. -- Richard

54 There is vast research available that shows no good to come from casinos. Recommend that everyone read "Gambling in America" by Earl Grinols and see research available from John Kindt.

55 How many casinos do we need? How about some real jobs?

56 I am adamantly opposed to any casinos in Sonoma County including the Rohnert Park plan. I plan to fight any plans of building casinos and will never patronize these casinos.

57 Our nation is saturated with casinos, and they have been destructive to the local economies wherever they are.

58 Casinos destroy civilized communities.

59 I am adamantly opposed to the building of Casinos in Sonoma County.

60 Just say NO to a casino in Petaluma.

61 Casinos do not help an area, only create problem gamblers, increase infrastructure costs, add crime, etc. NO casinos -- just not a good bet.

62 Petaluma and the general area do not need the problems associated with gaming. Refer to Nevada's problems with alcohol, drugs and gambling addictions to understand why.

63 Freeway travel is backed up enough without added traffic from gaming.

64 Just because I'd rather not see it built doesn't mean the law should prohibit them from building it. It seems to me they have as much cause, reason and justification to build a casino, as others have to build office buildings or shopping centers. As long as they adhere to safe design and construction, respect for the natural environment, etc. and make a fair contribution for support of fire, police and other municipal services, then in my opinion, they have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

65 My take is that there is a limited amount of money in a region that will be spent at Indian casinos in California. Soon, Indian casinos' will start closing because the thrill is gone and the money is diluted with new casino's opening. I have heard that Sho-Ka-Wah in Hopland wants to relocate because their revenues are down so much. Many people go to Nevada to vacation and gamble. Unfortunately many people go to the Indian casinos to try and make money because the economy is in such sad shape. Usually those people lose big time.

66 I don't want to see any more casinos in Sonoma County, including Rohnert Park.

67 I'm eighteen years old and I was born and raised in Petaluma my whole life. I think that a casino is a terrible idea, which will bring nothing but trouble. Our town is too small and too nice to add a cheap thing like a casino. The land that is not being used to build a far too many unnecessary track homes should be kept how they are. It keeps our town true and wholesome. A casino is not needed and doesn't fit in with our town's feel. Petaluma is great how it is!

68 Absolutely NO Indian reservation casino should go up in Petaluma. It's more than enough that we have the poker casino on the north end of town. The planned casino on the outskirts of Rohnert Park is already too close for comfort! Petaluma is a family community already struggling with an influx of gangs and crime. A casino would steer the crime rate even higher.

69 It would bring revenue and jobs to our town.

70 Too many casinos now in Calif. Don't need another one. Casinos cost communities -- they only profit the casino owners.

71 Casinos suck the lifeblood out of any community.

72 Casinos are exploitive and not true economic development.

73 McCain rides both sides of the Indian casino issue. Any legislation re this issue must be CAREFULLY scrutinized for the inevitable legal loopholes. It applies to any legislation submitted by POMBO.

74 casinos are for losers.... literally it is what cities, towns and people do if you have NOTHING ELSE. You might as well die.

75 AS A RESIDENT OF SAUGERTIES, NY (100 MILES NORTH OF NYC), WHERE TWO CASINOS ARE PRESENTLY BEING PROPOSED, I MUST STATE THAT I AM DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO CASINOS ANYWHERE. OUR ANTI-CASINO GROUP HAS ESTABLISHED A WEBSITE: WWW.NOSAUGERTIESCASINO.ORG IT IS FILLED WITH INFORMATION TO INFORM ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE TRUE EFFECTS OF CASINOS ALREADY IN OPERATION. I BELIEVE ANYONE EDUCATING THEMSELVES ON THIS ISSUE WILL AGREE AND FIGHT TO KEEP THEIR VILLAGE, TOWN, CITY, COUNTY AND STATE CASINO-FREE.

76 Casinos corrupt communities. Once again average Native Americans are being sold "contaminated blankets."

77 Casinos are bad.

78 Why is it called "gaming industry" what does it produce? How will the traffic, water shortage, crime and general further degradation of our community be of benefit?

79 Casinos mean chaos for the community!

80 I'm from Saugerties, N.Y., a small town in the Hudson Valley region. We are threatened with a casino in the middle of our town. In short, casinos make the host town a "sacrifice zone". Rather than being an engine of economic growth they suck the life out of local businesses. The casino becomes a sovereign nation and is not responsible for taxes or any of the normal regulations placed on in by the state. They will not enter into normal contractual agreements because they must protect their sovereignty. Please, be wary and grow gracefully; casinos are fool's gold.

81 No one needs to gamble. The few jobs it gives do not help the vast numbers who loose everything.

82 We don't need another casino in Sonoma County. Enough is enough!

83 I am not from your area, but received notice of your questionnaire from others. I am responding because I live in a town, which is also a proposed Indian casino site, and have therefore consulted people in other towns who already have Indian casinos and have also done a lot of reading. The Indian casino business is the biggest and most cynical scam operating now, all over the U.S. Casinos don't help towns, they suck them dry (by requiring more town services -- schools for their workers, fire, emergency, police etc. -- and by creating gambling problems for people who would never have them if a casino wasn't close by and by competing with and eliminating local businesses -- typically casinos have restaurants and retail stores where tax needn't be collected as well as overnight accommodations.) They bring in crime. They are sovereign areas answerable only to the federal government, which has so far had no interest in regulating them. All in all, they are a disaster for any community, big or small. In the congressional study of gambling completed in 1999 there is a line that says when a casino comes to a small town the town becomes a dependent partner in the gambling business. Unless that's what you want for your town, reject the casino. Naomi Rothberg, Saugerties, N.Y.

84 I'm from Buffalo, NY. In this area due our leader in the state's capital, we did not have ANY SAY/INPUT about these casinos. We were forced into having Indian casinos in 3 cities in the Western New York area! The people do not want this. So far there has been a 50% increase in gambler's addiction, FBI investigations, and broken promises. Wake up people! -- Joe Sullivan

85 Consider the QUALITY of life that casinos bring against residents!

86 Casinos do nothing for the communities they are in except increase the number of problem gambling, up the welfare rolls and take advantage of vulnerable poor and elderly residents. The tribe benefits hugely but for the jobs they bring, many, many are lost. I suggest that people READ ABOUT THE RECENT HISTORY OF CASINO GAMING SO THEY KNOW WHAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

87 This will bring more employment in the needed area.

88 I live in Saugerties, N.Y., a charming and thriving small town in the beautiful Hudson Valley of New York. We are fighting to preserve our town against the imposition of a casino. Casinos are cancers on the civil fabric of American life- the consequences of casinos are crime, poverty, bankruptcy, increased domestic abuse, pollution (Indian casinos are not required to uphold even the ridiculously lax environmental standards of the federal government.) Casinos are the epitome of the 'race to the bottom.'89 When are we going to wake up to the fact that sovereignly immune tribal casinos are a plague on community governance and a burden on tax-paying, law-abiding citizens? 90 It's shameful that Native Americans whose values were about the Earth and Spirit have turned to large glitzy Las Vegas style casinos to help their tribes. I wasn't living here when people voted on Indian casinos on reservations. I think the public was hoodwinked, not realizing that a reservation could be anywhere - on any land they purchased. They voted to support Native Americans but never considered the true effects on their town. own. Now it's tribe against tribe in a race to get a casino closer to San Francisco. Where does it stop?

91 Not in my backyard! Buuuuut, it they build it I will go.

92 Why don't they have as right to build what they want? How does it hurt, I am tired of not in my back yard, I don't want a school in my backyard but it gets built anyway. Everyone who is complaining will be there when it opens.

93 Casinos will seriously hurt this area; traffic and polution would be horrible.

94 NO NO NO on casinos Never ! Not in our town, not in any town. We will all be paying for the results for years to come.

95 Politicians who promote off-reservation gambling lack vision and ideas and are not fit to hold office.

96 I really hope they put one in.

97 No casinos in Petaluma, Rohnert Park, or anywhere close. You don't need a vote on the issue. Our elected reps are letting us down. They should stop this stupidity!

98 Casinos are a blight on any community.

99 Casino's do more harm than good. How many jobs to the local community surrounding an existing casino have been lost? Has crime increased in the casino surrounding area? It has been proven that jobs are lost and not gained, Crime goes up and not down, and much of the poorer community is at risk of losing more of their living money.

100 What the hell. Let them in.

101 Casino gambling is a losing proposition for the citizens of a town. Residents are more likely to visit than if the casino is further away and spend dollars they can't afford or spend the money they would otherwise spend in venues that, unlike an Indian casino, recirculate that money in the community.

102 Pls. don't ruin the beauty of Petaluma. Casino will just create a lot of problems.103 gambling will destroy our way of life; we need positive examples for our children, not get rich quick false hopes. Only "the house" wins, others have their lives and their families destroyed.

104 A casino near Petaluma should be fought with all the political pressures we can put forward. I think there is nothing for our community to gain and many reasons to oppose a casino.

105 Indian gaming is harmful to everyone.

106 I think casinos foster addiction, and will have a very negative impact on family life in Petaluma. I don't see any benefits to Petaluma or the community in having a casino here. It's all negative -- traffic, crime, addiction, etc. Thanks for doing these surveys. I think they provide a real service to the people of Petaluma.

107 It's another time bomb trying to grow. Just like the immigration issue, if left unchecked it will grow out of control and ruin the personality of our area or whatever area it is allowed to thrive in. Look what happened to Nevada.

108 We need to look in the mirror and wake up. This country is heading in the wrong direction in a number of areas and we need to all take responsibility as individuals to change the negative trends. Gambling is out of control and the damage it is causing communities will take years to correct and for some families it is already too late. Stop the spread of this cancer where the greedy few benefit at the losses from many families.109 Gambling of any kind is a big negative -- whether it's an Indian casino or State lottery. It's an unfair tax on fools.

110 Casinos only benefit the owners and those closely tied to them. "Gaming" a promoted misnomer for GAMBLING preys on the poor, those with addictive personalities, more and more elementary and high school age individuals. Gambling, any type, is anti-work ethic, anti-family, greed-based trying to "get something for nothing" in which "the house" ALWAYS wins. Dangled carrots of occasional slot and other winnings are just a vehicle to keep the addiction in full force. Do people actually want to write/err gamble their rights and privacy away filling in forms for requisite "Player Advantage" cards so the casino can monitor your spending/err LOSING and "winning" and know when the right time is to send you a "complementary free" buffet lunch or weekend in Vegas, Where some poor slob has already paid for this "free lunch" 200,000X over with all their accumulated losses? Why aren't there more published stats on the suicides, divorce, bankruptcies, etc. associated with GAMBLING? Time will bear out all of the serious negative consequences of communities in favor of casinos -- just get rich quick schemes with devastating effects. Retired people sitting on a slot stool for hours depending on "Depend" underpants/"pampers for grown-ups" -- so one doesn't have to give up their slot machine before their big win -- how gambling STEALS a persons human dignity? Look in the journal "Neuron" (May, 2004?) for a study done comparing PET scans of gamblers with those on crack cocaine -- there is a physiologic change that happens in the brain of GAMBLERS! Please wake up everyone!

111 A Casino does not add to the culture of Petaluma. It would be a civic black eye and a failure by our community leaders if it built.

112 Gaming casinos in general are poor business all around, sucking money from people who in many instances can't afford it; creating a loss of jobs in other area small businesses; creating and fostering more social problems including domestic abuse, addictions, and bankruptcies; and funneling money away from being locally spent to out-of-town investors in the casinos. Not to mention taking property off the tax roles if the owners do not have to pay taxes. It's a false way to appear to be able to increase local business.

113 Haven't the American Indians suffered enough?

114 If I wanted to live by a casino, I would move to Nevada.

115 Indian gaming casinos are a fraud and I will never support them in any way, shape or form! I will never permit them to build this in my back yard!

116 A business that brings outside money into the City is good. Maybe our streets can be repaired without new taxes.

117 Adding gambling casinos increases the risk of crimes and drunk driving in the area.118 Yeah right, let's build MORE in Petaluma so that next year we all need an ARK to survive all the flooding. The town government is so corrupt they can't see the trees through all the money from developers. GET A CLUE!

119 I would be in favor having seen the benefits to other communities, however the current 101 traffic is now intolerable, just imagine what it would be like with a casino right there. Long time resident.

120 Casinos cause a negative impact on communities and California should not get into the business of Las Vegas style casinos. No one built a casino for the benefit of humankind.

121 If the Indians want casinos, they should be on their historic Indian reservations. They should not be able to violate local land use plans outside their traditional reservation properties.

122 Reservations do not distribute their proceeds to other Indian reservations. Just like the average socioeconomic division in society, the rich reservations can afford to build casinos, while the poor reservations, like Zuni suffer and live in filth and 3rd world poverty. If they would distribute their wealth to those that really need it then more people would accept the casino plans. But hey, the Lotto was the same way.

123 What makes Petaluma unique and safe is that we don't have that crossover traffic that happens when cities are run together like in the south bay. A casino will create traffic hell. Petalumans will be tempted by gambling, forfeiting their earnings for nothing. Poverty will rise and crime will rise as well. Gambling is for vacations, like going to Vegas etc.

124 Gambling is not for every community. And no group living outside of the community should be invited to provide it without the consent of the community.125 The casino developers have unlimited resources to seduce towns and citizens into approving a casino. Don't listen to them! Land intended for a casino is put into trust and then becomes a sovereign nation in the midst of your town. They are not obligated to follow your laws or keep any promises made. Yet the local community has to foot the bill for all the ills brought on by a casino: increased traffic, increased crime (think 50 mile radius, at least), decreased property values, increased taxes, increased bankruptcies and home foreclosures, need for low-income housing, huge burden on local schools -increased population and English as a second language programs, increase in social ills and services needed to treat gambling addiction and its consequences for families and communities, destruction of local businesses as the casino becomes the only game in town...the list is long. If you value your quality of life, a resounding NO to a casino is the only answer!

126 ENOUGH CASINOS ALREADY!

127 This proliferation of Indian casinos (run by Nevada corporations) is a ridiculous scam. Petaluma is a family community. We don't need gambling and drinking in the community.

128 I actually like to hit the slots once and awhile, but I always liked heading to Nevada--a kind of adventure every 2-3 years. Having closer will not get me there and I strongly believe that whatever land we have left in Sonoma County needs to be developer--free. Another casino is a real turn-off.

129 1) Indian gaming is racist and continues to create an even greater divide. 2) Reservations should not be allowed to relocate to urban areas. No land entitlement exchanging, EVER. Only Indian Casinos can get away with this practice. 3) Existing reservations victimize the poor. 4) The lack of regulation allows them to take advantage of their customers. 5) Existing casino don't pay their fair community and public expenses/taxes. 6) Indian casinos and their managers use deceptive advertising and public relations to fool the public.

130 Reasons not to -- increased traffic in an already impossible bottleneck, increased crime from desperate gamblers, and an increase of people coming to our beautiful town who don't care about our way of life.

131 The off-reservation casinos benefit organized Nevada Gaming only, and will not help California's Sonoma County residents, Native or otherwise.

132 Indian gaming has been a failure for the citizens of our state and a financial boon for a handful of tribal leaders. The winners (?) are the Las Vegas groups that help the tribes set up the gaming establishments. Shame on the California and U.S. governments for allowing this to go so far.

133 My only problem with the whole thing is non-existent tribes with only a handful of members claiming both tribal status and then sacred land. If the casino issue weren't on the table would there be a claim on the land? I also believe that legitimately recognized tribes should have economic options besides simply casinos.

134 I do not agree that purchasing land then calling it tribal land all for the intent of gaming should be allowed. The casino in Alexander Valley is a prime example tribal "big box" business and what should never have been allowed.

135 A casino would be a horrible idea for this area. We moved here to get away from the type of people and surroundings casinos bring to a community.

136 I hate casinos. And never a casino near the wetlands - But when we consider what the very first illegal immigrants did to the native people through disease, lies, violence and treachery -- it's pretty amazing seeing us white folks get worked up about another casino.

137 If you want to gamble...go to Nevada. I do. I refuse to go to an Indian casino and never will go. People should be saving their money not gambling it away. Indians should also pay individual taxes. We are in the 21st century.... Everyone needs to get off their lazy rear ends and work for a living.

138 Gambling brings more revenue to the city of Petaluma and Sonoma County. It also creates new jobs. The Indian community will be able to afford living in Petaluma as well as provide funds to schools and other organizations. Also police and the revenues can pay for fire protection from the Indian casino. It is a win-win situation for everyone.

More than three-fourths of those who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll May 17, 2006 favor a Petaluma law that would hold adults accountable for all nuisance-related problems occurring at teen parties where alcohol is consumed by minors.

More than 90 percent of the people who participated in the survey believe underage drinking and binge drinking by teens is a serious problem in Petaluma.

Sixty-three percent said it is a "very serious" problem and 28 percent said it is "somewhat serious."

However, about one out of five respondents said they think it is OK for parents to allow underage drinking in their homes.

Eighty-six percent think more needs to be done to prohibit minors from obtaining alcohol.

Eighty-two percent believe parents in Petaluma should voluntarily pledge to host alcohol-free parties.

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1 I think the underage drinking is relative to other cities in our nation. I grew up in Petaluma, and with little options out side of movies and loitering we often took to drinking. If Petaluma can't provide safe, and fun alternatives for underage youth then they are destined to make there own fun (i.e. drinking/ partying). Nonetheless, there will always be youth drinking, and parents will always say they are concerned. It is like the sex issue. You can ask your kids to take a pledge of abstinence, but it is rarely shown to work. Teaching our youth about safe sex, and educating them about drinking risks truly will help in the long term.

2 Allowing a bar to serve nonalcoholic drinks to teens is outrageous! This can not be tolerated.

3 It is not okay to host a teen party and think that taking away the underage drinkers' car keys is responsible and will keep them safe. Property damage, physical abuse and sexual assault are unintended consequences that frequently result from binge drinking

4 I wanted to respond intelligently to this poll. I found it very difficult to do that clearly in the structure provided. For one thing, the failure to provide for as simple a response as "I don't know" asserts that not only "supposed to know" about a particular question, but also that it is a question that is intelligent and moral to answer by a Yes or No. Thank you for considering this. When you publish the results of a "poll" such as this, the results can influence the way members of our community regard ourselves and each other -- you know, "community tensions." When I insist on a free and responsible press, my emphasis is on the free. Nothing wrong with responsible as well, however.

5 If adults were to be held accountable for the drinking of minors, the penalties should not be as severe as if the adult had caused the problem himself. I greatly appreciate the efforts of the Argus to draw attention to this problem. Parents need to be educated to the reality that you don't have to give in to the idea that "teens will drink no matter what you do". I have actually read some great research that contradicts that theory. Thanks again.

6 It's sad to me that we're raising young adults with such low self esteem that they can't have fun without getting completely drunk.

7 A parent that I know in Santa Rosa (not Petaluma) allowed teens to drink in her home. Her rationale was that she required kids to deposit their car keys in a basket at the door and then required them to stay at her house all night ... The problem was that one of the girls woke up in a stupor, let herself out, and walked home barefoot all the way across town at 2 a.m., because she knew her parents would have a fit if they found out she'd been drinking, let alone spending the night at a guy's house ... Fortunately and surprisingly she made it home without incident but it certainly shed new light on the short-sightedness of the "take their keys and let them drink at home" strategy.

8 I believe it is completely irresponsible of parents to provide alcohol to their teenage children. By doing so, they're saying it's okay to break the law (let alone that it's okay to put alcohol into their growing minds and bodies). If they set that precedent, teenagers will free to break other laws they feel are "stupid" or unnecessary (such as the provisional license law). Parents have a responsibility to first be good role models for their children (so maybe they need to cut down their own drinking) and second to guide their children to make healthy choices in their lives.

9 This is an very old issue, as it was when I was a teenager growing up in Petaluma. Today there is more for teenagers to do then when I was a kid, so I don't buy the excuse 'there is nothing to do'. Parents need to be more involved with the kids, and helping them learn the dangers of drinking. The schools are doing all they can, even more so then when I was growing up (Human Interaction class, Every 15 minutes, Dare, Project Grad) so my thoughts are parents need to do more.

10 To many deaths through drinking by teenagers. Also rowdiness; unwanted sex, later always regrets; emotional development impaired and missing out on other ways to connect with people and have fun.

11 As a parent, I feel that it is the parents' responsibility to set the example and instill the message of drinking in moderation. Do I let my kids drink alcoholic beverages in my house? Yes, but only for special occasions (i.e., Christmas dinner) and NO hard stuff. Do I let my kids' friends drink in my house? No way! That would be irresponsible.

12 I believe parents who allow underage drinking in their homes are enabling their children to begin drinking prematurely, as well as implying that alcohol consumption is a prerequisite to having a good time.

13 There shouldn't be a need to "pledge to host alcohol-free parties". It is illegal!

14 Question 3 can be misleading. No parent should allow underage drinking for someone else's children. I may not agree with allowing underage drinking, but I don't have the right to tell someone else how to raise their own children,

15 I have been determined that my underage children not drink, but other parents provide alcohol to our children, and I am frustrated and find it mind-boggling that they would do this (and in many cases profess publicly that they are anti-alcohol for the teenagers). If only we were really on the same page, and could provide safe fun for our kids. I know there are studies they say that if we can keep our kids away from alcohol and drugs until they are over 18, they will not become addicted in later years (because of the exaggerated hormone surge in teenage years that exacerbates the high). These parents just don't know the facts -- they want to be friends with their kids, not parents. We really need more education on this subject, so we can safely get our kids through the teenage years.

16 Well, I think that it is safer for teens to drink at home than elsewhere. If they want to drink, then drink at home where it is safe. The idea of the alcohol-free parties is a great idea, but I don't think that the parents of Petaluma need to pledge to host one, if they are going to have one, then have one. No matter what the city does, it isn't going to STOP teen drinking, they do it because they know they aren't supposed to...

17 #4 sometimes parents are not home and children host parties they are unaware of. I think more should be done to the people buying the alcohol for these minors and those selling it to them.

18 do not create an enforcement nightmare.

19 It is a no brainer, do nothing to promote youth drinking.

20 I am 22 years old. I went to St. Vincent's, Casa Grande, and finally San Antonio High Schools. I began drinking at the age of 14, and so did a huge percent of my peers. During my High School years I really messed up my life, not graduating, and getting arrested for alcohol-related offenses several times. I am in college now, and have learned to be a productive citizen. Although I am being productive, alcohol still plagues my life. I have noticed that more recently the youth of Petaluma has been using harder drugs at an earlier age, and drinking is still a major problem. The whole culture surrounding drinking and substance use seems to be accepted and all around in Petaluma. In order to combat this, the youth should be better educated on the realities of using alcohol and drugs. Stepping up enforcement will have some impact, but from personal experience, kids will always find a way to get "f---ed up." Focusing on the true dangers that kids can relate to, rather than saying "Just Say No" will do a better job.

21 A recent health survey of Petaluma kids indicated that the most common way they obtain alcohol is from their parents. This is very concerning. Adolescents can become alcoholics in 1-2 years, whereas it can take double that time for the same response in adults. Alcohol is not a 'fun' drink. It must be used responsibly, and parents have the responsibility to keep their children alcohol free.

22 Give the kids alternatives -- there is very little for a 17 year old to do in Petaluma.

23 As a cashier who works at a local convenience store that sells alcohol, I have made some observations that some might find interesting: 1. The way the younger of a species grows and learns is by consciously and unconsciously imitating adults around them. What I notice is this: The "romance" surrounding alcohol when adults order their hard liquor behind the counter, the full hilt pride with which young adults place their 12-pack on the counter, the long loving and lingering sweetness the older hip woman displays over whether its going to be a jager or a jaaaak ... oh, baby I just cant decide ... the kids are watching more than listing to your hypocritical lectures ... the know where you derive your pleasures and relief from, they are merely imitating you, as they should. 2. I am also very saddened by teens coming into the store and not quite knowing what to do, so they spend as much time as possible in the store, when I ask them what's going on, they are often lost and respond with some version of "there is nothing to do". Ask yourselves this: Is there anything much to do, some mind heart and soul stimulating activity in Petaluma for kids who are not kids but not adults yet. Specifically on the east side ... it's quite the cultural wasteland. 4. let us also ask ourselves a very important question, why are these kids so "low" to begin with that they need to get "high". As adults do we not know that we are more prone to drink when under undue stress and there is a lack of love and genuine connection in our lives. When we drink we usually find it OK to pour our hearts out ... the surface hate and the love underneath. Do we as adults arrange and organize a context in these kids lives where this is possible? 5. Finally, there has GOT to be away to solve community problems without this mass societal orgy on criminalization and fine imposition on literally everything we don't like. Punishment of an ill, IN THE LONG RUN, will undoubtedly bring much of the same, perhaps in a more insidious and perverted manner. Instead how about this: A superb high-tech modern and warm facility that's open 24 hours, with competitive games, card room, pool, basketball courts, stress release rooms-punching bag and all, ping pong, music room, meditation room, reading room, study room, you name it ... a counselor on site and perhaps even an assigned peace officer. At the bottom of it all what these kids crave is authentic connection to each other, an arena to express their soul passions and creativity. Not that expensive I say ... considering what we spend on the other end in drug rehab, jails, policing, property destruction and other dysfunctions of the likes we know all too well.

24 So many parents are the suppliers of their teen drinking parties ... we do not have enough education about drugs/alcohol in the junior highs and high schools. Drug abuse is rampart in our high schools, and most people turn the other way ... our police department will not do anything to a minor unless they are committing a crime ... they can be high as a kite and the PD's. hands are tied. We have a real BIG problem here and in the U.S.

25 Thank you for your commitment to this serious issue. By all members working together we can make a change in the long run for the betterment of all ... young and old.

26 I do not condone underage drinking, but teens are going to experiment, that is a fact. When I answered "no" to question #3, I answered no to the excessive/party type drinking. I think that if parents let their children have a bit of wine with a family meal that is not the issue. The issue is when parents allow parties to be held at their homes where alcohol is consumed in excess. These are the adults who should be held responsible for the consequences of allowing this to happen on their premises.

27 There are too many parents who turn the blind eye with their teenage children. Kids use the excuse of spending the night at someone's house, only to go to a party where there is drinking and spend the night there. Parents need to ASK their children where they're going/where they've been AND occasionally check up on them at the places they SAY they're going. Kids need their parents to care! Honesty and concern with your kids equates to trust and a better relationship in the end.

28 People who start drinking at an early age -- example, 14 or younger -- increase the chance that they will develop alcohol problems at some point in their lives. Help our youth and don't make it easy for them to drink until they are of age. Supplying youth with alcohol is not being a friend or a good parent.

29 This is a problem everywhere, not just Petaluma. But if there were more things for teens to do on the weekends other than "hang out" maybe they would be distracted from drinking.

30 There have been several good attempts in the past to address this issue - grant funds ran out and the interventions stopped. The "party ordinance" came from that effort. - Parents do not see alcohol as a drug - Most Adult in town events serve alcohol - Parent groups, PEF, PTA rely on alcohol sales to fund programs.

Two-thirds of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll May 10, 2006 said they are considering leaving Petaluma because it is too expensive to live here.

Asked if they are thinking of moving to another county or state where housing is less expensive, 66 percent said "yes" and 34 percent said "no."

Four out of five respondents feel that too much of their income is going to mortgage or rent payments. Eighty-two percent said they're spending too much for housing while 18 percent said they are not.

About three-fourths of respondents (74 percent) said they are concerned that their children will not be able to afford a home in the town where they grew up.

Here are the comments that readers who responded to the survey on housing costs wrote:

1
It's a beautiful place to live, and I believe it is worth it. I will pay what I can to live in the lovely city. :o)

2
IT IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE! I AM A YOUNG ADULT AND CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO BUY A HOME!!!! AND IT WORRIES ME THAT I WILL BE RENTING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE AND GAIN NO EQUITY!

3
Thank goodness we bought our home in 1988. We paid 149,000 for our little house on B Street and since have added on. We could not afford to move (because of property taxes, mostly). We love Petaluma, but are worried that our kids won't be fortunate enough to settle here.

4
We are lucky that we bought our house 15 years ago, so it is affordable for us to live in Petaluma, but we could not afford to buy own home now. We would love to get a bigger house, but it is just plan impossible and we make good money!

5
You should not use an opinion of anyone who's lively hood depends on realestate, nor that of the Homeless, both are not objective, they cant be by nature. Numbers talk. When affordable is $530.000 that means at least $2,700 a month on a bad loan, add 1.2% +/- property tax. lets not add in the potential mellorus or intrest paid to the money borrowed to get the loan or god forbid you bought in a special assement district, and where are you? There are plenty of people who bought lately on Neg Amm or 110% loans who might possibly be relying on COTS soon or adding to Ms Harris's low inventory of affordibility. The fact is that it take's a minimum or $110,000 a year to afford to own here. So yes it is not affordable, and no kids will not buy here, the smart ones anyway.

6
I've lived here for 50 years and have to say all the building of new homes and buisness properties have made this town out of control and not the great place it was even 25 years ago. The building boom has made everything skyrocket in price. It is not a place that is affordable to live if your home is not paid for. My kids were lucky enough to be able to buy a home here but that was just because they were old enough to get in before the price gouging of homes. Everyone trying to make the big buck and the realtors egging them on for the bigger profit. My grandchild cannot afford to by a home here even with some help from us. She is forced to move out of state. Is that what we want? Our familys seperated because they can't afford to live in their own town? Its not right that children who want to stay cannot. And people who happen to have alot of money keep just buying and selling. Not because they like this town or want to be here. Its because they can make a fast buck. Example:all the developers who have come into this town sewered it with cheaply built development and then moved on to another poor town and does the same. And the city lets them for MONEY. same as the other towns will and then it will be to late for them too.

7
In fact we did move! To florida - where we pay $825/month for a 3 bedroom - 1-1/2 bath on over 1/2 acre lot in a good neighborhood. Where as when we left we were paying $1200 for a 2 bedroom-1 bath apartment!!!

8
no place in the world like Petaluma

9
I love this town. I was born and raised here and it saddens me that one day I may not be able to see my children stay here because the cost of living is so high. We are so fortunate to live in such a wonderful area, but do we have to pay such a high price?

10
We are feeling the northern expansion of Marin County. The realtors and developers know this, and they respond accordingly, leaving the rest of us unable to afford our own hometown.

11
Kids need to start saving a a young age. We're not teaching our children enough about the value of saving. People who can afford higher priced things got that money not just by having a good education and a good job, but through saving. It's never to early to start!

12
The survey does not contemplate those who happen to own their homes w/o mortgage. We are "trapped" if retired on fixed income. Can't afford to sell if we want to stay in Petaluma as replacement would cost more and the taxes would go outta sight. Frankly if you sell, you gotta leave The whole situation is more than scary

13
It's not just Petaluma

14
I have lived in Petaluma all of my life, it is sad that I will have to move in order to retire. Over half of my income goes to mortgage & HOA.

15
Looks like people think the Telecom companies are still here with lots of money, stocks and stock options to put into the housing market. Too bad they are all leaving for cheaper pastures.

16
I have lived here for 15 years. I certainly couldn't afford to move here now. I have already acknowledged that my children will never be able to buy a home here.

17
We moved to Petaluma two years ago from the city and we love it here. But the high cost of living and the fact that we will never be able to afford to buy a home here is leading us to leave within a year to the Midwest. Thankfully we can rent a house reasonably, but we could never afford to buy a comparable home in the neighborhood that we love.

18
We bought our home in '98 for 216,000, it would sell for 650,000 now, we would not be able to afford this house now.

19
Although our mortgage payments are reasonable as we locked into a great interest rate a few years ago, we cannot afford to purchase another home in the area, even with the sale of our current home. We're pretty much stuck in this location until my spouse or I can find employment in another area where the cost of living is not as high as it in the Bay Area.

20
whatever happened to the cute small homes with character? These newer huge box houses are ugly, with no yards, and out of the price range for many locals. A sad addition to our community.

21
After living here over 20 years we would love to stay here if we could downsize but even that is hard in Petaluma!

22
I can't afford a home in the county where I grew up and can barely afford the rent I pay in a "low rent" neighborhood.

23
We are relocating to the East Coast, not really due to home prices but the homes are cheaper and the schools are much better.

24
I am BARELY making ends meet and I have a good job and very cheap rent. By the time you add in groceries, gas & utilities there really isn't anything left for clothing, entertainment or paying down debt!

25
This is a stupid survey. I mean, what do you really think you can accomplish? Even if the obivous answer of "yes, I think it is too expensive" is 100%, what will you do with it?

26
Home prices have gone up so much in recent years that we cannot even afford to downsize! The selling commission would be outrageous and we would actually have to pay MORE property taxes for a smaller home at today's prices. We feel trapped and are faced with a decision to either hold on and hope it all turns out okay financially in the long run, or to pack up and move. Moving is hard though because we have been here for twelve years and have so many friends and love this community.

27
We are moving to Idaho as the cost of living in much less there.

28
Petaluma has gotten to be so expensive! You cannot make enough on the wages here to even support yourself on a single income. You have to either have a roommate or spouse to help support with all the expensives. It is almost impossible to buy a home here, with morgages as high as $3,500 Unless my children gross over $100,000 a year they will not be able to buy anything!!! Thank You

29
We had to move out of Petaluma in order to buy our first house. Now we have to commute 45 min. one way to our jobs, which are still here in town. It's a drag.

30
Cost of Living is to high in Sonoma County. Having to work almost 25 to 100 miles from home just to make it here in Sonoma County is out ragious.

31
We can't afford to buy so we will rent until we can find a job out of state!

32
I am lucky that I bought a house 13 years ago but the cost of living in California is getting out of control. Just when I plan my budget I get hit by some other expense the city decides to throw the home owners when they can't figure out who will pick up the tab. For example: Green Waste, the city decides that they will pass some leftover fee from the other garbage company to the residents in Petaluma rather than telling Green Waste, "if you want this major contract in the town of Petaluma you will take care of this fee," I am disappointed in the handling of Rainer, the eastside needs an alternative to get to the westside. This was in the plan long ago. Still nothing is happening. Now we may have a water shortage and who knows how much the sewage plant will end up costing us. I am going to check an area where I can plan my budget more effectively and leave something for my child and perhaps when he gets old enough he can invest in the same town I will be living in. But as for Petaluma, the crime is increasing, the public schools aren't that great and this past 5 months of rain. Hello Oregon!

33
We are paying off our home and it is just over half way paid in full. We can't afford to move out of state because of the job problem and it would not be as easy as you think (many reasons). We are better off for now to finnish paying off the house and leaving it to our two wonderful children whom are in their teen years now... At least they will have someplace to live or start from......... Yes, the payments are high and it takes husband and wife incomes , but children are always worth everything ..... thank-you

34
I always tell my boy... Hey son stop spending your money on stupid s**t.

35
There's always good and bad w/ an issue like this...The tax revenue for our infrastructure is good, but the average family cannot afford a home in this area. If we had not bought 9 years ago, and if Prop. 13 were dismantled, we would could not live here; and I have lived over half of my life in Petaluma/Sonoma County.

36
We moved here over 2 years ago because prices were so bad on the peninsula, but now it's about the same here. We gained some nice equity in that time, but we're getting squeezed on every end, so it's getting harder and harder to pay for our mortgage and we may be forced to downgrade. If so, I'm afraid we'll be pushed completely out of the area.

37
I am in Sacramento, I miss my hometown of Petaluma but cannot afford to ever live there as mortgages for the same & smaller houses over there are at least 3-4 times more pricey. I am going to answer the questions based on the assumption of what it would be in todays market. As expensive as housing is even in Sacramento, My 2 daughters did somehow purchase a house this last year, one in Folsom & the other in Lincoln Ca.

38
The only way to survive with the fanancially challenged is to have multi-family dwellings, which has a set of problems in itself to compound with the already existing problem of high mortgage and rent.

39
expensive for a town with gangs and nobody wants to pay a decent salary.

40
The Rich get Richer!

41
Why is accomodation so expensive here? It's a lovely area, that's true albeit the price of a place to live isn't justified.

42
The only reason I am still here is because of my family

43
The issue locally is being blown somewhat out of proportion. Formerly a home owner in Petaluma, I have relocated to West Los Angeles with the same income, and am unable to affort property here. While the price verses average income is high in Sonoma County, the problem of affordable housing for moderate income earners is still worse in more urbanized areas.

44
There are many areas in the Bay Area where housing costs more than Petaluma. When we address Affordablity we also need to address incomes. How can we attract better income jobs to Petaluma?

45
My daughter and I moved here 12 years ago, now she has moved on to college and beyond. I never was able to get enough to put a down payment on a house, it just kept going up to fast. Now, I have to ask myself, is it worth the outrageous rent to continue to live here? It breaks my heart, to admit that as I get older, it will only get more difficult.

46
The rents are outragous and are not justified by the shape, size or condition of rentals.

47
It has already happened. I had to move out of the area because I could not afford to live here. I miss it terribly.

48
We were lucky to have bought in 1997 in Berkeley and moved here in 2004. Our has has appreciated a lot already but for new families it is very difficult.

49
I was born and raised in Petaluma and after being away for awhile due to employment, cannot even afford to come back and live. I must live an hour and a half from my family in order to afford the housing.

50
I have lived in Petaluma for 26 years. I am grateful that I purchased my home long ago when prices were affordable. I would not be able to live in Sonoma County if I had to purchase at these prices. Most of my friends feel the same. Good news for us & bad for younger people.

51
Although I make over 100,000 dolalrs a year, I cnanot possibly afford to buy a house for a minimum of about $600,000. I have had to prioritize my children's college education and my retirement over purchasing a home. It is no longer possible to realistically do all three, at least not without assuming some serious debt. I live in a rental home I cannot possibly afford to buy. I believe that creative financing has placed a burden on our economy, encouraging people to spend more than they can actually afford on housing.

52
secure our borders woolsey! stand up against the invasion!

53
My son, mid-twenties, recently moved back home to save money for a down payment. But the more he saves, the faster the home prices rise. Over half a million dollars for a run-down fixer-upper? Yikes.

54
Prop 13 took away funding linked to property values - artificially keeping taxes low and public services underfunded. Coupled with low interest rates - our homes are really over valued. We live in a $900,000 home. Oury property taxes are that of a $200,000 home - thats not equity.

55
We've lived here for over 35 years. Our home mortage is affordable for us. We are lucky. However, the whole uncontrolled development of "our town" is causing us to think whether or not we want to continue to live here.

Nearly three-fourths of those who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll May 3, 2006 said the May 1 boycott was not an effective way for immigrants and immigrant proponents to get their message across.

Seventy-one percent felt that the boycott was not effective while 29 percent said it was.

Readers were also asked if they thought there should be a program that would allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens provided they pay a fine, learn to speak English and pay taxes. Of those who responded, 48 percent said "yes" and 52 percent said "no."

A total of 195 people participated in the survey and 102 wrote additional comments. Here are their comments.

1 We should have open borders between the US and Mexico; US employers in Mexico should be held to the same labor laws as the US to raise the wage standard

2 What part of illegal don't these folks understand. Legal, hardworking immigrants are the backbone of our nation. However, they need to come through the front door, not the back. I think we should increase the immigration quota from Mexico to accommodate more legal immigrants.

3 We offer the land of opportunity. However, like all of our fore-fathers, one must contribute to making a better society and life for you and your family ...We must stop providing blank checks (Free 'emergency' Healthcare, free schools and free jobs to those who are illegal. Illegal, is Illegal for the workers as well as those employers who capitalize on them - severe penalties should be levied on those who employ the illegals ...

4 Imprisoning people within national borders was a characteristic of the Communist tyrannies of the 20th century. The Berlin Wall was constructed to prevent people from exercising the freedom of moving about. The coercive powers of the United States Government should not be used to deny freedom. The immigration laws should be revoked.

5 The word illegal says it all. If they truly had wanted to become responsible tax paying people they would of taken the legal route in the first place. By taking the illegal route shows it all. They wanted the free ride, the easy way that required no work or effort. I'm not saying everyone has to be a citizen who lives here. But they have to go through the proper channels like people who obey the law and no what the law is. You also cannot force people to learn English, but we should not print everything including driving handbooks and ballots in Spanish. These things and many others should only be printed in English. This is the U.S.A. and these are our rights. If you want to be included in these rights then you will do what is needed to be included. We need a check on every immigrant that comes here. They need to be employable and able to take care of themselves and family without being a burden to us financially. We did a mass citizenship once we don't and should not let it happen again. You don't reward someone for breaking the law.

6 There already is a way for them to become citizens. It is legal immigration and has been in this country since its birth. We, as a country need to not reward illegal acts. Thanks.

7 Another amnesty program will again encourage millions more illegals to flood our boarders further bankrupting, polluting and the state

8 Let's face it; immigrants are an integral part of our economy. If the concern is about citizens losing jobs then maybe we need to look at how corporate greed has kept wages so low that most people can't afford to take these jobs. I am an educator. More than half of my students are here illegally. Most of their parents work two jobs just to make ends meet. Perhaps we should also consider how NAFTA affected Mexico's economy and working conditions. This issue is so much bigger than the individual illegal immigrant, but no one is really willing to address the real causes.

9 The boycott was effective to show that there is a problem that needs to be addressed - not sure it was an effective forum for immigrant and proponents to communicate their message.

10 I feel that the boycott goes to show how uneducated they are. If we go to Mexico, they do not speak English to help us out. We need to learn Spanish. How would they feel and what would happen if the Tourists stopped going to Mexico. Their economy would be hit badly. If they want to come to this country to get a better life, they need to pay taxes, become legal, speak English, not look to welfare as a way to get free medical, etc. Would they do that for us in Mexico? NO!!!! Also, would they appreciate it if we took their National song and put it in English? NO!!! They need to realize that this is not going to be a free ride!

11 I cannot understand why the illegal immigrants cannot go through the same process as those individuals that abided by the laws of our nation and became legal residents. It is telling them that they are fools for following the law. A legal immigrant should be afforded all the benefits of citizenship once they become citizens.

12 Existing immigration laws need to be enforced, a fence on the border needs to be erected and border patrols need to be beefed up. Corporate greed and globalism are creating financial disruptions worldwide. The economies and political corruption of Central and South America countries requires solutions or people will continue to migrate north. This is now a sovereignty issue for the U.S. and the middle class will soon disappear if solutions are not found.

13 Who besides the Native Americans are not immigrants? Many of our ancestors came to this country "illegally". It is how this country was built. As far as the silly claim that they "steal" our jobs ... I can't remember the last time I heard a Caucasian say they would not mind bending over in a farm field and pick vegetables. And I AM Caucasian!

14 I agree that they should pay taxes and most immigrants are already paying taxes, the employer automatically deducts it from their checks. Granted that there are employers that pay them cash (under the table), these employers do this to avoid paying there own taxes. To become a citizen you not only need to learn the language but also our country's constitution. All immigrants should have the same requirements and should go through a background check. The bottom line is that we need the immigrants, they provide a service that many of us do not want to do, Pick Grapes, Process Poultry, work at fast food chains ect. The economy in Sonoma County prospers due to their hard work.

15 stop the invasion!!!!

16 I do not believe the fine is necessary in allowing immigrants to become citizens. I do believe all should be documented as non-citizens with a work permit or other identification mandatory so insurances and drivers licenses can be issued.

17 We need to stop the leakage at the boarder and fine employers who hire illegal. Petaluma feels like Mexico. It would be nice to hear people speaking English again. It doesn't feel like America anymore

18 legal means legal. We have laws and we should not pick and choose the ones we want to follow.

19 It seems that breaking the law is fashionable these days. Why should people who perform illegal acts; be rewarded. I don't care who or what they race they are! Let's disrupt everyone else's rights and protest; it is just not right and never will be as far as I am concerned.

20 I am very much in favor of this law! My parents came from the state of Jalisco, to the U.S. as illegal immigrants and have been very successful people. They came here for a better future! Everyone comes for a better future for them and there families. We all pay Taxes, so we all have the right to become legal in a country where we should all be treated the same. I have always heard that this is the country were we all have freedom, isn't that right?

21 I don't think that a program should be funded with taxpayer's money. If anyone wants to take a course they would need to pay for it. Also as a person in retail the boycott maybe helped us break even, as we didn't have as a high thief day, which never gets any airtime. That would be considered racist.

22 I believe any fine should be nominal. We should welcome the new immigrants who contribute so much to our culture and our economic well-being. All of us should take pride in being part of a nation of immigrants and glad for our own sake that our ancestors showed the same courage and tenacity that the current wave of immigrants shows today.

23 The Mexican illegal immigrants need to follow the rules as any other person has to coming from any other country. What makes them so special to make demands on the U.S. when they are here illegally?

24 Close the Borders. Deport the illegals. Take a census and then allow people to apply to enter. Period. Enough with this amnesty stuff ... This is our country. We don't need to create and support a middle class for Vicente Fox. They have a labor shortage in Mexico. They should stay home and develop their own country. And employers here should be heavily fined for hiring illegals, as well as companies, like Wells Fargo, helping them send money to Latin America. This is disgraceful behavior and could be considered treasonous. My family did not fight and die in the Revolutionary, Civil and WW I & WW II give it away to illegal immigrants. It's time the paid off politician got the word that this is America. It's time the lobbyists and the Catholic church stood down and put their interests behind the good of all people.

25 Question #1 - What was their message? Do they want full amnesty? Do they want to reclaim parts of the USA? Question #2 - We have a program that would allow them to become citizens. They have chosen to not abide by it, thereby breaking the law.

26 They should follow the rules that are set in their country for this country

27 Instead of a program for illegal immigrants to become citizens, they should first concentrate on becoming legal residents in this country. There is a big difference! I know for a fact that to become a U.S. citizen you have to be in this country as a legal resident for 10 years with no criminal record and a means of self-support.

28 A nation-wide anti-law-enforcement demonstration simply hardened/polarized opinions even more. They came across as a form of threat and the choice of the communist/socialist worker's day of May 1st was counter-productive. [Does anyone doubt that under communism, the plight of low-income workers was made worse?]

29 I think that immigrants need to come in legally as I have done some 40 years ago. We should deport all those that are here illegally and have them reapply legally. This way you control the numbers and not overwhelm the country. It is unfair to make the people that here legal compared to all the other countries that comply with the law.

30 Enforce the current laws and make all aliens legally apply, test, and earn US Citizenship like both of my parents did.

31 We already have a program for becoming an American citizen; it's called legal immigration.

32 To reward those who broke in line legal status and a path to citizenship would guarantee millions of brand new line breakers. That's what happened after the 1986 legalization, billed as a one-time-only amnesty of 3 million illegal aliens. We reap what we foolishly sowed -- twenty years later: 12 to 15 million new illegal aliens.

33 Tax-Paying Americans are having their RIGHTS stripped away under the guise of "homeland Security" - - -yet anyone can see EXACTLY how wide-open our borders are! Good Grief! It does not take a rocket-scientist to figure out that unchecked immigration is out-of-control! Does anyone honestly believe any portion of those crowed protestors is going to VOLUTEER to come forth and pay a fine? Pay Taxes?? No WAY!

34 If foreign nationals wish to immigrate and assimilate, they should do so LEGALLY. Those who break our immigration laws (and then DEMAND to be given the benefits of citizenship) have committed a CRIME and should not be rewarded with amnesty, "path to citizenship," "earned legalization" or whatever other euphemism the politicians dream up. Allowing them to "cut in line" is a slap in the face to those who follow the rules.

35 Someone, who got here breaking the law in the first place, is not entitled to DEMAND anything, and those attempting to blackmail / scare America into changing our current legal framework to accommodate illegal behavior patterns should be deported in short order.

36 Illegal aliens are nothing more than opportunistic line cutters. They do not come here to share in the American Dream, they come here to steal it from those who are respectfully waiting their turn in line by coming here legally. They should be entitled to one right only: DEPORTATION.

37 We've always relied on immigrants, but immigration should be a controlled, legal process, as it is in any other country of the world. Illegal immigration is unfair to prospective immigrants trying to enter the US properly, a security risk, a health risk, and ultimately is unfair to illegal immigrants themselves, because they have to lay low and accept less than standard working conditions and pay. I've heard some say that illegal immigrants aren't criminals, but if they are here illegally, then by definition they are breaking the law. If we need more unskilled labor, then we need to adjust our immigration laws to allow more legal immigration, not forgive those currently breaking the law. We need a controlled, common-sense approach.

38 No matter what it's dressed up in, illegal border crossing is illegal.

39 I say no to question #2 because I don't believe in blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants or automatic citizenship. These immigrants deserve to have a guest worker program. They deserve to be treated with dignity. I don't believe that fining them is productive because they really are economically disadvantaged. Forcing these immigrants to learn English and become literate is not reasonable when some American born high school students are not. Most of these individuals have not gone past the third grade in their homelands. Do the American taxpayers want to provide English classes for each illegal immigrant? Or do we ask their employers to foot the bill to teach them English? There are no easy answers. But I for one do not want to punish people who do contribute to our society; whether we choose to acknowledge them or not.

40 We first need to close the boarders from illegals from coming into the US. Then we can start working on getting everyone documented and become citizens. It should be mandatory for everyone to speak English. We need to stop catering to immigrants. It is ridicules that we need to have everything written in 20 languages. If people want to protest and complain about the US - Move out of our country. Quit complaining and get your rear-ends into gear.

41 We should deal with the larger problem: wage inequity between countries. We should ban any products from foreign businesses that are not paying a living wage to their employees. We should stop subsidizing U.S. agricultural products to other countries, forcing their citizens to abandon farming and look for other work. We should require all U.S. employers to pay a living wage to all their employees. With these three policies in place, Americans will willingly do the jobs that immigrants are doing now, and immigrants won't have the incentives to come here.

42 Illegal IS illegal! "We" need to follow the rule-of-law. There are MANY good reasons for LEGAL immigration - two of the MAIN ones are: 1.) Checking for criminal backgrounds...DUH!!!! Terrorists! 2.) Screening applicants for diseases 3.) Pledging ALLEGIANCE to the USA! 4.) Coming to become an American - NOT to TAKE the freebies - and maintain a flag-waving allegiance to another country. 5.) A quota that allows a certain number of people from various countries is necessary so ONE "nationality" doesn't SUDDENLY change the American culture. 6.) Cutting to the front of the line by BREAKING into the USA should NOT be rewarded. Leave - and go through the LEGAL process!!!

43 These people are deluded if they think that we need them. This was all about breaking&entering, then complaining about the food and accommodations.

44 What part of Illegal does anybody not understand? We should reward Illegals on the basis of how long they were Illegal. 5years or 3 years etc. Why are there laws if no one will obey them?????

45 why don't they put the passion energy and strength they show here, in their own country? Maybe they could make a difference

46 I FIND IT LUDICRUS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY FOR 15 OR 20 YEARS AND PROFESS TO LOVE AMERICA CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH.

47 first of all they should enter here legally. Secondly learn English. They are draining our system wake up. AMERICA bye MEXICO.

48 Illegal people participating in illegal protests; what more is there to it? It depends on what your definition of "is" is...
49 The #2 question - "*Should there be a program that would allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens provided they pay a fine, learn to speak English and pay taxes?" - is too restrictive. It should be a simple "*Should there be a program that would allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens?"

50 What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

51 Illegal Aliens should not be able to jump ahead of Aliens who legally came to America and are legitimately waiting to become citizens.

52 Americans should feel outraged that illegal aliens, who don't even have the right to be here, should be mobilized by Mexico to demand U.S. citizenship!

53 when people knowingly break our law (illegal entry is a misdemeanor crime) why would we suddenly expect them to become respectful of American law, good citizens if they are amnestitied? They would then pay their taxes, pay their car insurance and pay their own bills? Not!!! And as CNN reported May 1st--their average taxable U.S. income is $9,000 a year. Now how on earth can they actually pay rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, medical bills on that? They CAN'T!!! So who is paying it? American taxpayers.

54 The protesters are not immigrants, they are foreign illegal aliens who break numerous laws. They have no right to be protesting in our cities, since they are not supposed to be in our nation. The only "right" of illegal aliens is humane deportation to their home countries. I believe that instead of amnesty for 20 million+ illegal aliens, we should instead be compassionate toward American, non-violent lawbreakers in U.S.prisons. Then our own non-violent lawbreakers will be able to find jobs and homes upon their release into society.

55 Legal immigration is one thing, but what is going on is nothing short of sanctioned invasion, and it should be stopped.

56 These people are criminals. Enforcement of the law IS the appropriate option!

57 Illegal immigrants are breaking the law and have no rights in our country.

58 If they don't like the policies here in America then go back to Mexico. If they care so much about being treated fairly then go back to Mexico and protest the corrupt government that's in there own country. They also need to remember who signs their paychecks an American!

59 I regret that Mexico does not take care of its people and welcome those who enter the United States legally. I also supported a well-supervised guest worker program. This boycott was a defiance of our immigration law making it appear they believe themselves to be above the law. If an American citizen breaks the law he/she must answer for it - why should those who enter illegally be rewarded it? It angered me to see so many waving Mexican flags and I was infuriated by the Montebello High School students who flew the Mexican flag over an upside down American flag. It is unacceptably disrespectful and shows me their bodies may be in the U.S. but their hearts, minds and allegiance is in Mexico.

60 It sickens me that most of our Senators are spineless when it comes to standing up to the "demands" of people who do not even belong in this country. The 1986 immigration law (IRCA) needs to be enforced to fine and otherwise sanction those who employ illegal aliens. While Bill Clinton conducted himself in a personally immoral manner and disgraced the office of President, and Jimmy Carter "gave away" the Panama Canal, Pres. Bush may go down in history as the one who sold America down the river. This is a nation of laws, and those who flagrantly violate our immigration laws should NOT be rewarded with a "path to citizenship" or whatever the "euphemism du jour" is for amnesty. As Pres. Reagan said, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."

61 Our nation's laws should be upheld. Those in our country unlawfully should be returned to their home countries - that is what Mexico does. The U.S. should follow and do exactly what Mexico does to its illegal aliens

62 The U.S.A. has laws, which are fair and forthright. People who illegally skirt these laws should be punished, not rewarded.

63 This was nothing but an Illegal Immigrant intimidation rally organized by liberal democrat socialists who are bent on re-couping political power any way they can. The sad part of this was every single "marcher" was being used as political pawns for an entirely different agenda and they didn't even know it. American people aren't at all fooled by the rhetoric of Big Media, Big Business, Big Labor, Big Academe and Big Religion that we need to flood this country with even more giant waves of illegal immigration. The borders need to be sealed any way possible and the immigration laws that are on the books need to be followed with NO exceptions. That means NO AMNESTY of ANY sort. -- Roger in Petaluma, Mexifornia

64 Legal immigrants are great. There should be no benefits for illegal. Those hiring illegal should be penalized. Our border needs to be protected.

65 I think they should learn the American Way. If we went to their country we would need to speak their language and follow their laws. They should do the same here.

66 Illegal's are taking over everything. I feel like I'm going to be forced to learn Spanish before they all learn English. Which is the language spoke in AMERICA last time I checked. Why is ok for them to come in illegally and force American's to accommodate to them? They don't do it for us in Mexico - Why should they have any rights here they ARE ILLEGAL!!! Criminals - I have family in Romania and they can't even come to AMERICA to visit us ... Why is that?? Because they do it legally they are told NO?

67 People who break immigration laws show no respect for the laws and society of this country.

68 I thought the boycott was impressive but didn't change my mind about illegal immigrants. All immigrant applicants should follow the same legal procedures to become a US citizen. If we all only follow the rules and laws that we as an individual think are necessary, then crimes would be nonexistent and we wouldn't need police, courts, jails nor any other services or rules that we didn't agree with. I wonder where it would end?

69 Illegal Aliens with their in your face attitude of you owe me and waving that damn Mexican flag. Then having the guts to say we just need togo on and die. Hell no, I don't want them for neighbors in my country.

70 What needs to happen and this is for all races, Mexican's, White's, Blacks, people from all over the world that come here for the freebies, is that it all stops. There are way too many perfectly healthy people living off of free medical, free prescriptions, free food (food stamps), Government supported rent, free clothing ... the list goes on and on. I say the only way to solve the problem with anyone coming here illegally is to stop supporting them completely. I'm much rather see our tax monies go to the elderly and disabled citizen's of this country. The billion dollar homeless shelter in this town is filled with prescription drug addicts, which they don't pay for, the drugs on the streets are as read about in the newspaper mostly provided by illegals. Drunken driving arrests seem to be more Mexican names than Americans. Yes, a lot of people are sick of it, but it isn't just the Mexican's causing the problems. Society as a whole is because not enough people are protesting the right stuff. Thanks for letting me vent, a little white girl.

71 Immigrants from anywhere should have to meet the same criteria and go through the same process. There should be no special program on behalf of a specified group.

72 We need immigrants!

73 I just think the main part of this whole thing is that these people are here illegally, plain and simple. You can't expect to be a citizen if you are illegal. When these immigrants are waving Mexican flags and talking about their pride they have for their country (Mexico), it is not making me as an individual want to accept them into America. However, if they were waving an American flag and chanting "I want to be an American!" I think people would take their whole approach differently and possibly be more accepting.

74 the first thing that has to be done is to secure the border. The only way to really secure the border is to put troops on the border. The employers of illegals should be fined and put in jail, for not only hiring illegals, but for not paying taxes, social security and medical. The employers are the real bad people and are causing most of the problems our country has with illegals

75 We need MUCH tighter border security, stiff and swift enforcement of illegal hiring practices, higher minimum wage, a more expedient and effective legal immigration system (reform), and a strict and swift immigration policy for illegal immigrants that does not constitute amnesty or a long waiting period. We do NOT need a protracted guest-worker program that tries to legalize the illegal practice of hiring illegal immigrants. There has to be a humanistic balance somewhere between the two.

76 The boycott did show how the federal government has failed us. We have been ignored here in California for way too long. The roads were clear for rush hours - The fed owes us to build more, schools were not crowded- fed should build more, etc. Pretending that it was not a problem for 20 years has stretched us to the breaking point. The Anti-American forces behind the boycott do not care of course, and the sellouts in Washington will just sit on their hands and do nothing. Why not have a poll on when the race war will start?

77 I don't begrudge LEGAL immigrants their rights, but I do strongly feel that the ILLEGAL immigrants have no rights in this country.

78 ALL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND BECOME LEGAL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY! DO NOT CRIMINALIZE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

79 Legal immigrants wait five and more years to get into the country. Then they wait another five years before they can apply for citizenship. The protesters were slapping the legals in the face.

80 Illegal is Illegal ... send them back, and then they can go through the system the right way.

81 The day of the National Boycott was GREAT! There was no traffic & grocery shopping was a breeze.

And, our street corners were not littered with illegals looking for work. They can go back to Mexico & do that!
82 If a person is illegal they should be deported back to the country they came from, PERIOD.

83 The national boycott message was very unclear. Do they want free citizenship? This is what is coming across and is going to get the country in a fervor against immigration. My suggestion to the folks who support immigration is to make the message clear. Free access will NOT be granted.

84 Legalization should come only once health and background checks are completed, and an oath to uphold the sovereignty and laws of the United States, just as was done at Ellis Island, where my ancestors came through.

85 I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BOYCOTT IN THE FIRST PLACE. DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND BOYCOTT THEIR LAWS??? THEY NEED TO GET A YEAR WORKERS VISA LIKE AMERICANS HAVE TO DO TO WORK ANY WHERE BESIDES THE USA. I THINK IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BOYCOTT AT ALL.UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANOTHER CULTURE TO BOYCOTT AMERICA. AND WHO EVER ALLOWED IT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR FRAUD.

86 The ones who are in gangs and the criminals plus all the others who are sponging of off the taxpayer should not be given free care or education in the USA and sent back to Mexico.

87 First we must fund and construct the fence on our southern border to keep the illegals out. Illegal immigrants already here should not be rewarded for breaking our laws and other immigrants who have gone thru the legal process or awaiting the legal process should not be disrespected by allowing the lawbreaking illegals to benefit from their illegal entry into the U.S. Finally, employers should have to verify authority to work and check social security numbers in a national database. Employers who violate this should be punished harshly.

88 I am considered Mexican American although I have never lived in Mexico nor did my parents or my grandparents.... but with a list of last names such as Martinez, Lopez, and Arredondo... well Mexico runs somewhere in my blood. I have lived and worked here in the United States all my life. I have always had to pay our annual Income taxes and property taxes and school taxes..etc. I only speak English but understand Spanish, as my grandparents were Spanish speaking only. So, my point is simply this: When I visited France I walked around with my "How to speak French" book, trying to communicate in THEIR native language certainly not expecting THEM to learn English so that I would understand. I knew I was visiting another COUNTRY and if I wished to remain, I would be the one to adapt! Not them! If and when we choose to leave our country to live in another...that is what we do, we LEAVE our old and ACCEPT the new!

89 Measures must be found to regain control of our borders. As a nation with a budget that is already deeply in debt, we simply cannot afford to provide a comfortable living for everyone who enter this country unless the process is controlled and much more orderly than the setup presently crowding our economy and our governmental support systems.

90 If so many people from Mexico wish to seek a better life here in the United States, perhaps the United States should become much more involved in improving the economic conditions in Mexico. We must work with the Mexican Government to help fix the problems in their country that make it so difficult for the people to live a prosperous life there. We may help those that are already here by making them citizens but does it really solve the root cause of the problem? Do we not care about the millions more that will no longer have a means by which to easily enter the United States? The economic crisis in Mexico will not go away simply because we close our borders.

91 President Theodore Roosevelt said it best ..."In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but also something else, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American Flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

92 What a great day for me! No traffic, no lines, no wait at the DMV. Let's have more of these!

93 While providing an effective view of the scale of the problem, the number of participants points to our country's problem of creating laws of good (or not) intentions that have no backbone. If we wish to establish limits on the number of people being welcomed to our country, we need to ensure those limits are enforced. If we wish to have supply-side cheap labor, there's always another low-bidder. The problem with cheap labor is the impact on the laborer. When we feel sorry for cheap labor's choice to be underpaid and provide government services to make up the difference, we push the cost from the employer to the taxpayer. I'd prefer to pay more for products and services produced by legal and more expensive workers and give less to the government to fund programs (and administration) for underpaid workers and their families.

94 Just come here legally and you are welcome. Come here illegally I have no sympathy for you what so ever.

95 A national boycott was the ONLY way for immigrants to voice their disdain. Immigrants are not only pushed from their homeland, but they are also pulled to the US. The call for cheap and effective labor is as loud as ever. The way to the Americans heart is through his/her wallet.

96 Breaking the law is breaking the law. We need to close the borders to stop the influx and then figure out the handling of those already in the U.S. Companies need to be fined a huge amount, EVERY TIME, for hiring illegal immigrants which would do a lot to stop the networks that are trafficking the illegals.

97 Regarding #2 which is actually three questions not one question. (1)- Do all immigrants have to pay a fine? (2)-Learning to speak English - Although, I think that this is a good goal - English is the national language - However, how would this be monitored? (3)Yes - paying taxes should be a requirement - If they were legal - they probably would, because they would have the opportunity to secure legal positions, thus income taxes would automatically be removed. Unless you are a Native American - WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS!

98 The illegal immigration problem is not created by people breaking our counties laws coming here to find a better live. The problem has come about due to greedy employers wanting to continue having large amounts of cheap and exploited poor working people in our county. What's even sadder is the US government apparently is in agreement with that same policy. The US government could quickly stop the illegal migration problem simply by increasing the fines and punishment to employers who are hiring illegal immigrates. More importunely the US government would actually have to enforce those same new laws as well. We just need to make it so jobs available here are only for legal immigrants and US citizens and if we truly secure our borders the immigration problem would quickly fall to the wayside.

99 This legalization program has to be in conjunction of real efforts to stem the tide by requiring ALL EMPLOYERS to require proper ID before hiring

100 We have procedures in place for immigrants to become legal citizens. Use it or go back.

101 A lot of people think they are only taking the jobs we don't want, but that's not true. My husband is a cook and now cooks are almost all illegal immigrants, my son is a painter and there, it's almost all illegal immigrants also. They are taking all our jobs, not just the ones I named but many many more that people don't realize. When my children were in school there were very few illegal immigrants in the schools and now only one generation later most elementary schools children are illegal immigrants. If we don't do something what will it be in just one more generation?

102 Many illegal immigrants already pay taxes. Since they are undocumented, their Social Security taxes go into a special account and add to Social Security's reserves.

More than half of those who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll last week said water conservation was very important to them.

Twenty-five percent felt that it was somewhat important while just 9 percent didn't feel it was important at all.

Readers were also asked if they would be interested in having a city water technician evaluate their home to identify ways to save water. Of those who responded, 56 percent said "yes" and 44 percent said "no."

More than three-fourths of respondents " 81 percent " would install new technologies such as water-saving toilets and washing machines that are available for a discounted cost.

Those that have a yard were asked if they'd be willing to plant landscaping that uses less water: 72 percent said "yes" and 21 percent said "no." Seven percent of the respondents said they did not have a yard.

Here are some of the comments that readers who responded to the survey on water supply, use and conservation:

1 Humans are doomed, especially Californians. Overpopulation will eventually lead to a very low water supply. If we don't stop planting lawns, having babies and building golf courses, we will all die!

2 First the building has got to stop! How much more water is used to keep these new buildings going? Housing and buisness. Every new home should not have a yard that needs watering and the same for every new building being built. Also a fine should be placed on every property that refuses to turn off their automatic sprinkling in winter. They should be shut off between nov. through may. How many times do you go around town and it is poruing rain an their are sprinklers going because of people being to lazy to turn them off! That includes private homes and the us post office on McDowell, Taco Bell watering the street many on the buisness parks, I can go on and on. Waste of water! Also many of the new homes being built BIG HOMES WITH BIG YARDS wasting water. It is also amazing to me that all the breaks in peoples bills only go to the wasters. If you are someone who always conserves and can not cut any more (pge water) no break for you. To get a break you have to cut your usage. Hard to do if you are and have always been at your limit. Easy to do if you'r a waster. What is a little cut back? And you get a refund for being someone who has wasted all their life.

3 We reside outside the city limits and use well water. However, we have implemented water conservation measures.

4 We need to go much further than washing machines and toilets for our conservation. Sebastopol now allows greywater. It's an inexpensive way to save a lot of water. There are also innovative rain catchment devices and there should be no lawns allowed with new housing - native and low-water use plants only. I'm in favor of the conservation, but question all of the new growth if we have a serious water problem. It's not going to go away. It may get worse if the Eel river stops giving us water. Who are these new houses for? Who do they benefit? Most of them are unaffordable to most of the population. If we have new housing it should be green housing and affordable, that's what Petaluma needs. With our energy crisis and water shortage, it doesn't make sense to build the type of houses that are going up in Petaluma.

5 STOP THE BUILDING,NOT ONLY WILL IT INCREASE THE FLOODING,IT WILL QUICKEN THE END OF OUR PRECIOUS WATER SUPPLY.

6 We have installed low flow toilets and shower heads. We have landscaping that uses less water, and have a drip system for the plants. A lot of Petalumans already conserve due to the high cost of water. The developers should pay the price for the development of new water systems, and be mandated to have low flow toilets, showerheads, and natural landscaping in their residential homes and businesses.

7 It appears whenever any government agency has a problem, it always is announced as sudden and unexpected....and generally will require a new tax of some sort to rectify the problem. (Pres. Clinton on taking office, not understanding the size of the national debt...Ha!) Perhaps we had the beginning of a...refused to be recognized..."Crisis" when hundreds of new homes and buildings were added in Petaluma initially. A water crisis did not materialize overnight...! Planning got paid for doing poor job, and as an old tiime resident I refuse to participate in any form, for their lack of foresight.

8 Vote for those running for city council who are in tune with the real needs of our community and not those who are in the pockets of the developers and receive maximum contributions from out of town interests. Elect those to the city coucil who, as they do now, rubber stamp each and every development that comes their way.

9 I have already replaced grass with low-water herbs. The rest of my plantings are for food production, so I would not want to replace them with xeriscaping. I WOULD be willing to look into household graywater systems and heavy mulching to offset higher water needs.

10 This attention is long overdue. We live in an arid area. We import most of our water for a reason.

11 Why has the city allowed so much growth when they must have known there was insufficient water supply to support such expansion? It is their job to understand the overall picture and not to be recklessly supporting development.

12 why are we having record rain fall and a water shortage?

13 How come the City didn't recognize there is a problem before allowing all the building that has been going on around here for the last several years, including all the new businesses, the Sheraton, etc, they all take lots of water and sewage disposal. Common sense, should tell them to to stop building if the infrastructure like sewer, water, streets, etc., Why should we who are already here have to suffer with rationing and ballooning charges for for these things?

14 #3 recirculating pumps for hot water are very affordable and conserving #4 landscaping doesn't use less water--its the person who manages the site.

15 businesses must begin paying higher development fees, and stop taking as many financial handouts from the city to accomodate business' growth.

16 City should require mandatory removal of all lawns from residential properties, and provide incentives for drought tolerant plantings.

17 think about all the new houses and developement -- that's where we need to look for water conservation. several cities Petaluma sized, in CA have instituted building moratoriums, restricted new water hook-ups etc. shouldn't take an expert to figure that more houses means more water needs.

18 After this wet winter, and a snow pack twice as large as normal, isn't silly to be talking about a water shortage?

19 The city should extend plans for recycled water beyond parks and golf courses. Requiring it for irrigation at apartment and condo complexes, shopping centers and making separate irrigation hookups mandatory for all new construction will reduce the fresh water being poured down the drain. It can also be used for flushing toilets in any facility that has substantial water usage (schools, restaurants, theaters, big stores) reducing fresh water use more than any low flow toilet. It should also be made available at a lower price to further encourage its use.

20 When we know the water supply is at its maximum theb why do we keep building new homes? Shouldnt the resources dictate how many people can populate the area?

21 Our family conserves water to lessen out water bill, other than that I don't really think about conservation. When I say "turn that faucet off you are wasting water" what I really mean is " you are costing me a fortune in water bills"

22 It seems to me these questions miss the point. The price of water determines how much is used. If it's costly, then people will conserve it. The individual households and businesses should each pay the fair and full market value for the water they consume, perhaps with the exception of a "lifeline" minimum monthly quantity billed at a low rate. How they consume it, whether they use low flow toilets or plant a yard full of tropical plants or simply pour the water down the drain is a matter for the bill-payer to decide.

23 The population continues to grow while the supply of water stays constant. When are our leaders going to acknowledge that "growth" is like cancer. It will eventually kill everything?

24 I think water conservation is very important, however, I object to having to conserve in order to allow the massive growth that the city has been promoting.

25 We ALL need to take this seriously!

26 I will be using my own septic outflow for irrigation; rain runoff during the winter is collected in a pond and underground tank for summer irrigation in the dry season; I have re-plumbed my home so the sinks,laundry,and gutters all go to the grey water irrigation tank, the only real outflow to the septic are the toilets and showers.

27 The recent report regarding water shortages in Petaluma, comming on the heels of the winter floods, illustrates the paradoxical nature of water that has largely defined California history: Too much water at one moment, not enough another; too much in one place, not enough in others. The message is clear. We must learn to live within the essential constraints of our natural environment. It's time to recognize that Petaluma is built-out.

28 With all the talk a few years ago about selling Lafferty Ranch a few years ago, I find it funny now that we are talking about water concervation since Lafferty is a major water shed. Think ahead Petaluma!!!

29 I am angry that I have lived here for 24 years and building continues at a rapid pace. Now I will be asked to conserve so developers will make their huge profits! Where is the sense in this? I am sick of these developers coming in to this town and ruining what was once a lovely place to live. Think about how in the past 20 years this town has doubled in size. Do we want to be like San Rafael or Santa Rosa in the future? The traffic is going to continue getting worse, there will be water shortages and who Knows what else! I understand progress and all that but at what price to all of us. I live in Cherry Valley and a large number of residents fought the development on Magnolia. The city council didn't listen. They only listen if someone threatens a lawsuit such as the land owners on Sonoma Mountain who threatened legal action if the city were to open a park up there on city owned property. What kind of a message is that for the city council to send to the citizens of Petaluma. Be polite and we won't listen but threaten legal action and we will? It's not right. I hope that people will wake up and vote those self serving council members out of office and that somebody with a sense of this community will occupy those seats.

30 Replacing lawns with less water greedy plants would save millions of gallons of water a year.

31 We got enough rain, this is ridiculous

32 The water shortage seems like an environmentalist grab to try and curb growth,,,,Stopping freeway construction worked for 30 yrs, now that the freeway will be expanded to three lanes, they need to dream up another issue,,,,,