Pt. Reyes commentary about ranching fell short

It was disturbing to read Ann Thomas’ Marin Voice commentary (“Point Reyes ranching decision doesn’t end elk discussion,” May 24) as I feel she fails to paint the whole picture in regard to the recent settlement for ranches leaving Point Reyes National Seashore.

There were years of public comment about ranching in the national park that I firmly believe was taken into consideration by the parties involved in the recent secret settlement between 12 ranches, the National Park Service and the Nature Conservancy. With the state’s new methane rules for dairies, it is said some will be unable to continue. The ranchers were offered very generous settlements — it was a godsend for some.

Thomas makes a point of calling the elk problematic, again not painting the whole picture. The fence that ranchers said they needed to keep elk away from cows had to come down. I think that fence led to the death of nearly 250 elk due to thirst and starvation during the recent drought. It limited their access to water or food. More would have died if activists hadn’t taken them water. It took way too long for park employees to help.

It’s true, the elk may “browse” when they graze, but they do not decimate the landscape like the cattle have done. And it’s the cattle, not the elk, that led to the E. coli bacteria found in Abbots Lagoon.

There is much concern in the community for the farmworkers who may have lived in the park, some for all their lives. Aid has been established. It includes financial assistance and transitional support services. People in the community want the workers to be able to continue to live here after the 15-month transitional period ends.

— Spirit L. Wiseman, Fairfax

Time to rethink how we structure Marin schools

Marin’s public schools are facing a financial crisis. Enrollment has declined nearly 10% over the past four years. Districts’ general fund expenses have risen by more than 6% per year. My calculations show the resulting cost per enrolled student has risen by an unsustainably high 9.5% per year.

Many of Marin’s 16 school districts serve fewer than 1,000 students, yet each maintains its own administrative structure and separately negotiates contracts. These inefficiencies come at a growing cost. Compounding the problem is a pattern of overly optimistic financial forecasting. Most districts have significantly overestimated their future budget surpluses and are relying on transfers from other funds to stabilize their general-fund balances — a strategy that may not be financially sustainable.

It’s time to consider consolidating Marin’s school districts into a single one. A single Marin school district would not be too large. At under 30,000 students, it would rank 27th among California school districts. A unified district could generate meaningful savings through economies of scale and unlock greater state funding through the local control funding formula instead of having to rely on parcel taxes. The latter have become increasingly challenging to pass.

We should also revisit public spending priorities. The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, supported by a 0.25% sales tax, consumes roughly $50 million annually — about the same amount our districts are projected to lose in this current school year. Given its limited benefit, voters might reasonably question whether those funds could be better allocated. Similarly, plans to expand the Larkspur Ferry parking lot deserve reevaluation in light of more pressing community needs.

If we don’t act, some districts’ general fund balances may soon fall below the thresholds that could trigger state takeovers.

— Gaetan Lion, Mill Valley

Commentary on running for office hit the mark

As the former mayor of Larkspur, I thought the recently published Marin Voice commentary (“Get involved, make a difference and run for office,” May 22) by Dottie Lemieux was excellent.

Especially now, at a time when many are dismayed (to say the least) about national and international events, being involved at the local level is a valuable way to serve and heal our communities. As she mentioned, this could be a local committee, commission, the PTA or by volunteering at one of our fine nonprofit organizations.

These activities can bring young people into public office. I support this strongly.

— Joan Lubamersky, Larkspur

Fairfax recall effort needs to come to an end

I consider the current attempt to recall two women on the Fairfax Town Council to be an act of revenge and an effort draped in falsehoods to gain power over the wishes of the electorate that placed them in office.

It isn’t a coincidence that both targets of the effort — Mayor Lisel Blash and Vice Mayor Stephanie Hellman — supported the recent rent-control effort. In the case of falsehoods, I saw one example in the Marin Voice commentary by Sean Fitzgerald (“Recall Blash, Hellman because Fairfax deserves better,” April 21). He argued that the recall needed to happen because of the poor condition of our streets, improperly blaming the council members.

When I was on the Fairfax Town Council, we passed Measure K. It provided for the resurfacing of a number of streets and some repairs to the drainage. It was well understood by the council at that time that this was a half measure. The streets were in terrible condition, having been neglected by previous councils for a number of reasons. We realized that more work would have to be done once the Measure K work was completed.

After their work in 2002, there was no follow up (and I had decided not to run for reelection). Many proponents of the current recall opposed a measure on the November ballot that would have gone far to catch up on work. I think that group’s opposition was critical in the measure’s defeat.

Fitzgerald implies that the neglect of roads in Fairfax dates only from the past decade. But the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, over the past several decades, has consistently graded Fairfax’s roads as some of the worst in the Bay Area.

— Niccolo Caldararo, Fairfax

Marin should revisit plan for town at Silveira Ranch

Marin’s priced-out workforce brought traffic. Nature responded with climate change. Architects (like me) questioned: Can’t we live in concert with nature?

In 1993, one team tried to “dovetail” humanity with nature by designing a new live-work town for the St. Vincent campus (aka Silveira Ranch) along Miller Creek to the bay. This town would have grown as it learned to an eventual maturity of 5,000 residents.

With a community land trust, all homes would have been affordable by not requiring residents to buy land. It was planned as a sustainable community — not only with workplaces to produce goods and services, but it also would have included leisure facilities and community common areas. Building home and garden modules would have been an obvious industry. The plan would have converted the dairy ranch into intensive farmland with greenhouses and irrigation from purified sewage ponds.

Compactly built for walkability, this 1,200 acre site remains primarily open space. Working where you live means not adding to commute traffic, there is no need to own a car, if a “car share” program was included.

Learning to live more ecologically in this beautiful valley promised to be a joy to be shared. The historic train stop would have become a wetlands learning center, and it would have been a short hike to the planned bayside amphitheater.

Having preserved their land from single purpose sprawl for so many decades, the two landowners should be valued, their land designated for the “highest and best use.” I think the proposal of a new sustainable town would give them their deserved income stream to carry on their work.

I call the community Dovetail. It’s time for Marin to reconsider this laboratory of discovery. Sustainable communities could bring back blue skies, meaningful work and good living.

— Dart Cherk, Mill Valley