EDITOR: If you actually read the report about Sonoma’s hotel initiative (“Study: Hotel cap could hurt Sonoma,” Sunday), you would see the two conclusions are what Preserving Sonoma, the group that submitted the measure, has been saying all along:
It is difficult to achieve an annual 80 percent occupancy.
It is likely that new lodging development in Sonoma will continue to be comprised of independently operated small inns and hotels.
It is difficult to achieve an annual 80 percent occupancy, but the report cites only three cities, perpetuating the erroneous claim that only three cities have achieved such an occupancy rate. Many other cities have reached 80 percent annually: Pasadena, Yountville, Santa Monica, San Francisco, New York City, Waikiki Beach, Key West, Fla., Burlingame, Las Vegas, Atlantic City casino hotels, Santa Clarita and South San Francisco.
The consultant’s report also compared apples to oranges in its statistics on occupancy rates. Along with the small hotels, it included vacation rentals and bed-and-breakfasts, which may have an entirely different occupancy rate from hotels. So this skews the occupancy rate and transit-occupancy-tax revenue compared to the large hotels.
EDITOR: Didn’t someone get Thursday’s headline wrong (“Four-legged frauds)? Shouldn’t it have read “Two-legged frauds”?
EDITOR: Given your almost total lack of coverage of the prison hunger strikers, it was surprising to see the front-page headline in Thursday’s paper (“prison protest linked to gang”). For those who only get their news from you, it could be confusing since there was no context for why this needed protest was happening, and we were not informed that these issues have been raised for years. Also, if prisoners are organizing this protest, who do you expect to be helping? Ghandi, Mandela, Mumia, maybe?