County suicide prevention plan is an efficient begin
I used to be gratified to learn the front-page story, “Marin unveils suicide prevention plan” (Feb. 9). We misplaced our 17-year-old daughter and solely youngster, Casey, 12 years in the past to the Golden Gate Bridge; she was by no means discovered. Like so many households who misplaced family members to suicide, our lives went up in a fireball. However the aftermath made issues infinitely worse. Suicide is deeply shameful in lots of societies. The entire guardrails we thought would shield us in our second of disaster failed spectacularly — mates, household, neighbors, co-workers, church and therapists.
We joined the battle for a suicide barrier on the bridge with different households — a deeply unpopular endeavor — solely to find how little empathy there may be for the suicidal. A number of the politicians we lobbied have been downright bored. We led a teen group to speak about tough topics like melancholy and suicide locally, when that was one of many final issues college directors wished to deal with. I’m glad that the county has lastly adopted a complete suicide prevention plan. It’s about time. However we’ve an extended solution to go.
— John Brooks, Fairfax
Wants of group transcend pensions
Though I consider in wholesome retirement pensions, I ponder what the latest three.5% improve means to the budgets of our Marin communities and what number of extra cutbacks in native providers will likely be wanted to pay for these and future will increase.
One thing wants to vary earlier than our pension hikes ultimately destroy our high quality of life, in addition to the security techniques we’ve grown accustomed to at this time.
The Board of Supervisors ought to do not forget that the wants of our group (training, policing and security, to call just a few) nonetheless have the best precedence in all of their choices.
— Sandra Macleod White, San Rafael
Researching origins of San Geronimo plan
In his latest letter to the editor, Joe Walsh attacked me and my Marin Voice commentary asking for a no vote on Measure D (“Think about historical past of San Geronimo Valley, vote no on Measure D,” Jan. 21). Walsh started by invoking photographs of Gary Giacomini and Dietrich Stroeh “spinning of their graves” after studying my “fanciful” submission.
Right here’s the fiction and info:
Walsh wrote, “Shock. I used to be there as a member of the unique Valley Planning Group.” This isn’t true.
I checked my copy of the 1977 SGV group plan. Planner Steve Chaum and Senior Planner Mark Risenfeld offered help and steerage for our plan. It was supported by the Planning Fee and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. After thanking the group for its efforts in beginning the method, workers included a credit score web page with two sections. The primary part is a list of the 22 SGVPG members. Walsh is just not listed. The second part contains the 43 group members who labored on the Neighborhood Plan between 1972-1977. Walsh is just not listed.
It will get worse. After Walsh’s pretend declare of his planning-group membership and plan participation, he goes on and describes what he, as a member of the group did and didn’t do. It’s a complete fabrication and obfuscation.
And worse, Walsh confused the countywide plan with the group plan — twice. Giacomini and Stroeh are certainly “spinning of their graves.”
There’s rising help favoring preserving area for a brand new hearth station; making a joyful park for households, elders, hikers, bikers and canine walkers; new group makes use of and restoring habitat for endangered coho and wildlife. Golf requires unacceptable huge chemical therapies and is likely one of the high 10 county water customers. Vote no on Measure D.
— Jean Berensmeier, Lagunitas
No on Measure C, however sure on Measure D
Two objects on Marin’s March three poll that deserve shut scrutiny.
First, take into account the Measure C wildfire prevention tax. Why would we want one other money-consuming company? We’ve got an amazing county hearth division now. Placing concern within the individuals is a regular authorities ploy. Let’s work with what we have already got and forego this taxing bureaucratic cash pit. It’s pointless. Vote no on C.
Second is Measure D for the San Geronimo plan. The golf course is now gone. It may not come again, however the underhanded methodology the county supervisors used to carry us to this example needs to be investigated. The Belief for Public Land paid $eight.eight million for this going enterprise that was offering employment and tax income for the county. This was about $four million greater than it was value. Now it has change into an oasis for individuals to stroll their canine who deposit feces (which doesn’t get picked up by the walkers). Let’s let TPL preserve this mess it created. Why ought to we, the taxpayers, finally pay thrice or greater than the precise worth of this land? Vote sure on D.
— Walter Echo, Woodacre