Seventy-eight percent of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll July 19, 2006 said they believe that the 2017 deadline for fire sprinklers in downtown buildings should be moved up.
Eighty-six percent believed that the boundaries of the area where sprinklers are required (the area is bounded by Washington, Kentucky/ Fourth and B streets and the Petaluma River) should be expanded to include other downtown buildings.
The city is offering to reimburse landlords $5,000 for the cost of basement sprinklers and $5,000 for the cost of above-ground sprinklers. Sixty-four percent said the city should offer more incentives for downtown property owners to install sprinklers.
Here are comments by those who took the survey:
1. Only one thing to say on this topic. Yes.
2. Our historic downtown buildings are priceless and would never be rebuilt with the same detail if destroyed by fire.
3. Pass a law stating that if your building does not have sprinklers, you will pay for damage to the others if a fire from your building causes damage to others.
4. It seems to make good business sense to put sprinklers in as a fire prevention method to protect inventory and other assets. Maybe business owners should work together to get bids that will reduce the overall cost of the project, but even in retrofitted buildings, it seems to be a smart cost of doing business. There may be tax savings that will offset some of the cost as well as insurance premium savings.
5. I hope the city is willing to help the public sector, also. Will they give us some money to replace all the thatch roofs, add sprinklers above gas appliances or replace old wiring? Absolutely not. So why are they helping out rich business owners? Putting in sprinklers is a business owner's expense, not a taxpayers' " period. But since you are going to give them my money anyway, here's my two cents. Use a declining monetary allowance. The first year you can rebate 100 percent of the $10,000, the following year drop it to 90 to 95 percent, and so on. This gives more incentive for the business owner to install the sprinklers sooner, as more money will be available up front.
6. It's just plain common sense to install sprinklers in your place of business. There should be no incentive. I think the business not burning to the ground is incentive enough. And given that much time to install them is a bit much. We have lost beloved businesses in just the past weeks. Think of how many more could be lost between now and 2011. Remember the Great Chicago Fire? Old buildings, no sprinkler systems.
7. Let's not lose or have damage to any more of our old buildings and homes. Surely there is a way to help property owners install the sprinklers. There have been more fires this year than ever. Let's use this opportunity to keep our old buildings around for a long time.
8. If the city previously gave a fixed deadline of 2017 for installation of sprinklers above basements, then it should stick to that requirement. It's quite far in the future, however both the city and the building owners should keep the commitment to that date, rather than changing the rule. I don't understand why a building owner or insurer would regard waiting till 2017 as reasonable.
9. Grandfather regulations are just that, OLD and outdated. Time to comply with what everybody else is mandated to deal with in every aspect of buisness throughout Petaluma. We shouldn't discriminate, neither should our city government. Party is over, time to play by the rules. Our community safety is at risk.

Eighty-six percent of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll last week say they are very satisfied with their garbage and recycling service since Green Waste Recovery started its contract with Petaluma in January.

The same percentage said they are recycling more since Green Waste began providing service " 65 percent said they are recycling a lot more and 20 percent said somewhat more.
Seventy-two percent said they are throwing away less trash.

Here are some comments by those who took the survey:

1 Love it. I keep the recycle container by the back door, every week it's full to the top, my grey can is half empty - sometimes it only has one bag of trash in it. Brilliant.

2 Great service.

3 I am so appreciative for single-stream recycling!

4 Great job. More expensive, but great job.

5 I am very satisfied at last. In the beginning, there was a big mix-up with the size of cans. I had more cans than I knew what to do with. Now everything is good. I never recycled before. Everything went into the trash. That was because those bins they gave were to heavy to take down my long driveway to the street. They kept promising cans with wheels but never delivered. I know many people who did not recycle because of this reason. I also like the yard waste picked up every week. I used to have piles and piles of yard waste at my home because they only picked up every other week, which is fine in winter but not in summer and spring.

6 Can someone explain to me why, if they are making money off my recycled goods, why I have to pay for them to take it away?

7 We are recycling nearly all of our trash. We have the smallest garbage (grey) container and on average it has just one brown grocery bag of trash per week. Our neighbors love it, as they fill our empty can with their overflow. We really like the new service and have become relentless crusaders for recycling.

8 Based upon the previous waste hauler, I originally asked for and received a "small" blue recycle can. When I asked for a "medium" size recycle can recently, it was exchanged on the next pick-up day. Also the weekly yard waste pick-up is definitely a plus. One last note: They answer the phone with friendly and prompt help.

9 No flexibility " if the lid isn't on tight, forget your pick up. Isn't going to happen. Empire would have taken it no problem.

10 I am especially happy that Green Waste picks up the landscape materials every single week. The street sweeper is out cleaning the streets far more often, too!

11 I still don't believe they are saving us any money. By single stream recycling, it's more manpower intensive as they have to sort through all the stuff. And once a can is contaminated with wet newspaper, etc., it just goes to the landfill. I think the city council got hoodwinked on this one. We'll see when the numbers are published by their third party analyst.

12 Would like them to answer questions about battery disposal and other toxic wastes.

13 This is an ideal way to clean out old files and saves trips to the 2nd ST reclying center for boxes, cans and stuff that wouldn't fit in the baskets.

14 We're very happy with Green Waste Recovery. It's terrific having organic waste picked up weekly and the one bin recycling is so much easier. We like the new clean trucks too!

15 Green Waste is doing an excellant job!

16 The best recycling service I've seen!

17 The street sweeping is not being done this summer on at least some of the residential streets. That is a disappointment.

18 Love the mixed recycling. Hate the 50% price increase.

19 I like the blue can versus the bins. I can put everything in one container.

20 The big recycling bins are GREAT. And the people, too. I completely overloaded my recycling last week, so it spilled everywhere when the driver tried to empty it into the truck. I came rushing out to apologize and clean up, and the driver was already out of his truck, cheerfully picking it all up to recycle.

21 Excellent company so far. Too bad we are paying higher rates because of the delay in selecting them caused by four Councilmembers in 2005.

22 The bins have been a "godsend" compared to the crates for recycling. We are much more diligent about seperating and recycling.

23 We have always recycled, but not sorting is easier. I do notice that my neighbors are recycling, when before they never did, so I am hopefully this has helped Petaluma's recycling efforts!

24 I thought we recycled a lot before, but now we hardly ever fill our smaller trash container. It's great!

25 My garbage rate is up about 30% over what Waste Management charged, however with current fuel prices and other escalating costs, Waste Management would have raised their prices. We now have quieter, clean running trucks picking up our waste. I appreciate those that live in close proximity to Green Waste truck yard. I can emagine how they feel getting awakened so early in the morning with trucks starting up and just the added noise in general. I certainly hope that something can be done soon to eleveate or reduce the inconvenience these residents are suffering. Until that time, I, for one, appreciate the sacrafice these people are making for the betterment of Petaluma.

26 I'm more than pleased! Helped influence the vote by speaking up for Greenwaste at Council.

27 new firm new trucks and sweepers once a week recycling and yard waste pick up. im very pleased and thankfull for green waste recovery

28 It is nice calling a company and having them respond in a timely manner. Glad GreenWaste has come to our town.

29 We are exceptionally pleased with the garbage service. We are very happy to have the green waste picked up weekly instead of every other week. The crew is so efficient and quiet. Thank you.

30 They do a good job, no complaints. I would like to see more mail on what I can/can't recycle. I get confused on yogurt/gogurt containers, plastic six pack holders, plastic bags, styrofoam, batteries, light bulbs, small electronics, etc...

31 Actually, they have skipped my bins entirely on a couple of occasions, and don't always take the recycables. I'm not sure why. Maybe they don't think it's full if it's not overflowing???

32 Those old plastic recycling crates really discouraged much recycling (we have a long driveway to haul them down). With the new big blue wheeled bins, we're recycling much much more. And therefore disposing of much less trash. We also like how consistent the company is with their scheduling.

33 I wish the recycling bin were bigger! We are doing a much better job recycling! Our family of four has the smallest garbage bin they offer, but our recycling bin is always overflowing. I also appreciate that they p/u the Green/yard waste weekly. The City council/mayor finally did something right by hiring this company.

Nearly two out of three people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll July 5, 2006 support a "living wage" law in Petaluma.

The poll asked: Should Petaluma adopt a "living wage" law for its government employees? Sixty-six percent said yes and 34 percent said no.

Given five choices, 41 percent said one person needs to earn more than $16 per hour to live in Petaluma if he or she is working a 40-hour work week. Twenty-four percent said $16 per hour, 17 percent said $13 per hour, 8 percent said $10 per hour and 10 percent said less than $10 per hour.

Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) believe a "living wage" law would help the local economy. Thirty-eight percent said it would hurt the economy.

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1. Earn more, spend more.

2. Would take the burden off social services -- people could afford food, housing, and would have time to spend with their children instead of working two or more jobs to make ends meet. This would nourish a healthy society.

3. I don't see how a local living wage law is going to correct the absurdity of living in Petaluma -- or anywhere in Sonoma County -- with the housing costs being what they are ...

4. By implementing a living wage law the City of Petaluma will join two other cities in the county and become part of a nation-wide movement. This movement is changing public opinion at the local level and bringing pressure from below on the state and federal governments to raise the minimum wage

5. First, I think a living wage should be for everyone NOT just certain employees, but EVERYONE! A living wage would help the city because people would have money to spend on things they cant afford now. People could eat out once in awhile, go to the movies or just buy better food to eat and some new cloths to wear. Employers who say they can't afford to pay people a decent wage just don't want to cut into their own pockets. I am an employer who pays what I think a very good wage and also have medical for my employees. Both those things are a must. If you don't offer medical then pay them enough money so they can get it. I would be totally embarrassed to be an employer who had employees that could not even afford to pay their rent, food and utilities.

6. Everyone deserves a living wage for the work that they do. I had to leave a wonderful job for Petaluma People Services where I only made $10. an hour. I couldn't afford to work for those wages

7. If a person needs to earn more money to live on they can always go and find a new job. It is not up to the city.

8. This will just cost the city more money which will be paid by more taxes for you and I to pay. Low paying jobs were not meant as a career but a stepping stone to higher paying jobs. Government jobs should not be treated any different than private jobs. We have a minimum wage which is difficult to get by on, I was there. I chose to continue trying and now I am able to live on my own. Lets not set some arbitrary salary for folks to live comfortably. You have to try if you want to succeed. It would be nice if everyone made 50K a year, but then I think we voted down communism.

9. Oro es, lo que oro vale. Y no mas!!!

10. "A rising tide lifts all boats." Unfortunately, this has not been the case for wage earners for some time in our country. The state and federal minimum wage levels have fallen into poverty status and are a national disgrace. The living wage movement is one of desperation and a clear sign that we can no longer rely on our state and federal government to do what's just and right with regard to setting decent and moral standards for a minimum wage. It's all about community and making changes locally and spreading that across the nation. Grassroots activism at its best! This writer believes the debate is over on this subject.

11. Question 2 is misleading.

12. The Living Wage sets a community standard that helps pull up private sector wages, and generates a virtuous cycle of economic activity.

13. So exactly how does The City of Petaluma think they can afford this? Are they going to try and force other businesses to have the same rule?

14. It is right and just that contracts paid for by our tax dollars will lead to "living wages" that minimally support an average Petaluma family.

15. When low-wage workers get a raise they spend it all on pent-up needs so local businesses benefit.

16. Living Wage is in place in San Francisco and other towns and is helping keep good people living and working in their choice of places to be.

17. The cost of living continues to rise while wages and salaries continue to fall or become stagnant. It is very difficult for families and single parents to make ends meet. This is something the city can do for its workers and in turn for local business. In the long term everyone will benefit.

18. Many of the problems of this area are well-known -- sprawl, unaffordable housing, congestion, etc. -- and sooner or later we need to start working on solutions or all the retail workers in Petaluma will be forced to live on welfare or who knows where.

19. When people have money they generate demand for goods and services. If they have only subsistence income, they do not have the means to patronize Petaluma stores or to pay for services.

20. Minimum wages cannot support local workers. No one complains about CEO wages or Bill Gates, Warren Buffet. Non-profits have been paying slave wages, every small business expects cheap labor or seasonal labor. The Student, the retired have fixed incomes, folks trying to get by to improve their lives working for governments or subsidized taxpayer general funds need decent wages to continue services the community needs. Everyone loves the service but finds it indignant to pay a living wage. Time we change and understand the ethics, morality and how to enhance our economy by giving it a moral-economic boost with a living wage. Historically across the Nation where Living Wages have been implemented it has benefited the community and economics. The Federal Minimum Wage is institutional poverty-ridden slavery where Congress says, oh let them work for Wal-Mart, which in the end the cheap prices end up costing the community local jobs and subsidizing emergency room health care. Pay a living wage and be moral and economically sane. High road economics create a better playing field where everyone has a chance at the American dream without holding down three jobs and contributing to urban sprawl.

21. If you cannot afford to live here then move to the Midwest or somewhere where the cost of living is lower. California is a paradise and the cost of living should reflect that and it does.

22. I've read that this would include any person or company doing business for the city and those that receive public funds to operate (as in non-profit entities). Some want to exempt non-profit groups. Why cherry pick? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we have a "living wage" the company profits will have to be made up somewhere, probably in the form of higher prices, which leads to inflation. Eventually, prices will go up for services and products, leaving those that would be the recipients of higher wages would eventually still be in the same place they are now. Besides, these are not "career" jobs that are targeted, they're "stepping stones" on a path to move up to a more lucrative career.

23. THINGS COST SO MUCH THESE DAYS THAT A LIVING WAGE WOULD BE GREAT

24. With respect to the wage issue: It is irrelevant what it costs to live in Petaluma. Wages should be dictated by the free market, not City Hall, state or federal government. The wages of everyone other than city, county, state and government Employees are subjected to free market forces -- why should city, county, state or federal employees be protected from this? This absurd attempt to preempt Market forces for a small, select pressure group should be resisted in the strongest manner possible.

25. Any economist knows that implementing a "Living Wage" or minimum wage hurts the economy. It will increase taxes if applied to the private sector and if applied to the public sector the cost of goods and services will increase and many seeking entry level work will not find it.

26. What is a living wage? I would like to live like Bill Gates so you should be forced to pay 1 billion dollars a month? Come on the city employees already are bankrupting the cities in the surrounding area. They have the sweetest retirement and health benefits. I get a supposed living wage and get no benefits I would rather have their deal.

27. Communist Russia tried a living wage and failed. Taking money from tax-payers to overpay someone for work the market deems worthy of a lesser amount is nothing short of a free ride. Why shouldn't my employer over-pay me?

28. A "living" wage equals higher taxes for all Petalumans. It will also place Petaluma at a disadvantage in getting bids from contractors, as the bids will be higher and some contractors will simply decide not to bid. If there is to be a "living" wage law, it should be enacted statewide, not only in select communities creating an economic disadvantage to businesses, residents and taxpayers in those few communities. Advocates for a "living" wage should be lobbying their state legislators. If they can't get it enacted at a state level, there is something wrong with the idea.

29. It's too bad people are not happy with the wage they earn. Perhaps they should have studied harder in school. Better yet, they can stick their own necks out and open businesses and pay a living wage to their employees to ease their conscience.

Methamphetamine use has touched about half of those who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll June 28, 2006.

The poll asked: Have you or your family been affected by a methamphetamine user? Forty-nine percent said yes and fifty-one percent said no.

Nearly two-thirds said methamphetamine use is a major problem in Petaluma. Sixty-two percent think meth is a major problem, 26 percent say it's somewhat of a problem, 9 percent feel it's a minor problem and 3 percent say it's no problem.

Seventy-eight percent believe sale of over-the-counter medications that can be used in the manufacture of methamphetamines should be more tightly regulated.

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1 All you have to do is read the police logs stating someone was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Petaluma citizens, the City Council and the police department need to be aware of this problem and nip it in the bud.

2 It seems to be a easy drug to make.

3 Stiffer punishment for having it in possession and for manufacturing.

4 We need harsher punishment for anyone caught making or selling it.

5 We must make effective treatment available to all meth addicts rather than forcing them to become criminals in order to be eligible for effective treatment.

6 "Drugs are not cool," says Michael Roberts (6) of Petaluma.

7 The conversion of pseudophedrine to meth is only done by very small meth labs. Most meth created by super labs which do not use pseudophedrine. Restricting pseudophedrine to a behind the counter drug will make drug companies remove this ingredient and replace it with phenylephrine. Now you as a consumer have less choices to combat your cold; we lose. Most crimes today are drug related. The only way to fight it is to legalize it, tax it and prevention programs. Remember prohibition? Have we learned nothing?

8 I have seen first-hand what meth can do to a family. I think that the Petaluma Police Department needs to crack down more on putting these sellers away.

9 The Petaluma Police Department should do more to fight the drug problem by increasing the number of officers specifically assigned to monitor and arrest the mid-level drug dealers in Petaluma. Citizens and parents should also report any suspicions of drug dealing and drug use. Teachers and school administrators should be thoroughly trained to recognize and report offenses.

10 Go after the suppliers! You know who they are!

11 Teens and young adults need an outlet. I hear complaints that there is nothing to do in Petaluma. The police constantly harass kids haning out at a shopping center parking lot. When I was a kid, the cops knew who we were, they developed relationships with the kids. Cruising the boulevard, making cat calls at the girls, fliritng, or just parking along the street and watching cars cruise by. No a days, kids get cited for cruising, and having fun. I say bring back summer time fun, let the kids have some fun. However, zero tolerance for drinking and driving, and racing. I think kids have to many restrictions, and are not allowed to be kids in publis any longer. Parents, remember cruising? Remember being with your friends, cruisng up and down the main street? Flirting with the girls/boys? It is too bad that kis cannot experience the innocent fun anylonger. When kids have to be locked up and cannot even hang out downtown, and be a kid is a problem. i am rambling, but the problem is adults being adults. Kids make mistakes, how do you think you learned? By making mistakes. The few merchants that complain, end up ruining it for everyone. Think about it, no more drive in movie theaters, no more parking in a shopping center at night showing off your sweet new paint job on your car. No more driving around with your hood off to show all the cool crome in your engine bay... Something's wrong here...

12 Petaluma also has a pot problem.

13 I liked the article, although a little too optimistic from the recovery standpoint. I have to agree with the officer's comments about the relapse rate. Some studies show relapse at almost 98 percent. I dated a girl who was "clean" for five years, good job, apartment, car, etc. She relapsed and lost everything in about a year and is currently living with another addict. Petaluma police seem ill-equipped to properly deal with the issue. My family and I were tormented by her for a year, the police response was not adequate. Only a couple dedicated officers who took the time to understand the issue; sadly, most are not eager to do much.

14 Resolving issues with (a) an detached Sonoma County government and (b) a city government that won't annex areas which clearly should be part of Petaluma out on the west side. Neither the city nor the county really take ownership of the west side of town, past the UGB. Along with other problems, the lack of governance on the west side creates more opportunity for those who want to cook meth and provide drugs to users in this part of Sonoma County.

15 Meth is eating away at the soul of our community, beginning with one life at a time. As a recovering meth addict, I support law enforcement in their fight to limit drug dealing. There is hope if we stick together.

16 My brother is addicted to this stuff. Had to boot him out of my house because of it. He is now living on the streets. He is 60 years old.

17 There needs to be more state assistance available for treatment in recovering. Not all addicts want to break the law or go to jail to get help. It's bulls---.

18 The truly tragic cost of methamphetamine use can be seen in the children's lives that are affected by their parents' drug abuse. Too many times I have watched an adult spiral down, taking their children with them.

19 Meth is a problem everywhere. Its low cost and ease of use make it a perfect choice for kids. It's debilitating affects are gradual and permanent. It's a really bad chemical.