|
Publication Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2004
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(March 24, 2004)
Property rights vs. historic preservation
Editor:
Historic preservation is a thorny issue. It is interesting and complex, especially for someone who has bought land on which an old house sits -- the Jackling house in question at the moment. The new property owner may wish to demolish the old house in order to build a home in keeping with his own lifestyle, his family, and the possibilities offered by the site.
As we try to peek through the new fences and locked gates of the once open community that was Woodside, it seems as if every old house of significance has been razed in order to make way for newer, larger structures. Each one of the old houses had some historic value in its own way in previous years. This may make the old Jackling house stand out in its aging Spanish style, which was considered in its day to be lavish and quite ostentatious.
What makes it historic today? What advantage does this historic designation provide the new property owner? What viable benefits are there for the new owner who hopes to replace the old home with one of his choosing? Where do private property rights end and problematic historic designations begin?
Trish Hooper
Portola Road, Portola Valley
Let Jobs develop Jackling property within code
Editor:
I disagree with the editorial suggestion regarding demolishing the Jackling house. Rather, I draw the conclusion that the town of Woodside should back away from the position that the "home might be a historically significant house." Your statements in the editorial did not support your conclusion. Here is my commentary to your statements:
** Who slept there is not significant.
** The site has little relevance to the Ellison site except they are on the same road.
** The town of Woodside is noted for not being pushed around and in addition, is noted for being difficult.
** A dozen people agreeing that the home should be left is not a good argument. Most people would say that as long as it is not their money or property.
My own observations are, the Jackling house cannot be seen from Mountain Home Road. How can a building be historically significant when the public cannot see it? The town has a set of codes. It is Mr. Jobs' property; he should be able to develop it within code.
Jerry Secrest
Willowbrook Drive
Portola Valley
Inaction on zoning rules shows disregard for public
Editor:
I appreciate your call-to-action by the Menlo Park City Council. They have received a valid referendum petition, signed by 2,300 certified voters, that legally mandates the City Council to either rescind zoning ordinance 926 or submit it to a vote in November. Instead, the council postponed a decision and hasnžt provided the public with a reason. There should be PUBLIC discussion and a decision NOW on these clear-cut options!
This lack of meaningful action by the council shows a blatant disregard for valid public opinion. I circulated one of the referendum petition books. Ignorance that anything was changing in the zoning laws and a suspicion that the City Council had acted without adequate public oversight were the two most commonly expressed views of those who signed. Before passage of ordinance 926, the Planning Commission made numerous comments and suggestions, yet the City Council ignored them.
At this point the reconsideration of ordinance 926 as a change to our city zoning law is being handled "behind closed doors" by the council majority of Winkler, Duboc and Jellins - just as was the passage of ordinance 926.
All voters deserve that, 1) consideration of changes to the existing zoning ordinance, which is a goal of all participants, be made in a PUBLIC forum; 2) implications of the proposed changes be assessed by design and architecture professionals BEFORE enactment; and 3) voters have CLEAR explanations, including drawings, of changes in the new vs. the existing ordinance. This would be government of Menlo Park upon which we could all agree.
Earl Shelton
Lemon Street, Menlo Park
Council seeking to change heritage tree ordinance
Editor:
The City Council majority is seeking to make a significant change in Menlo Park's current heritage tree ordinance. The public hearing for this proposed amendment is scheduled for the council meeting on March 30.
The proposed change is that any heritage tree that is within the buildable area of a residential lot can be removed without a permit. This means that there would be no public process to address staff or neighbors' concerns about removal.
Menlo Park's current application process for heritage trees does not mean that a heritage tree cannot be removed. A provision in the current ordinance allows for removal of heritage trees for construction purposes. Though it does not guarantee that removal will be allowed, city staff reports that no one has been denied a permit for the removal of a heritage tree within the buildable area when no other reasonable alternative existed.
I believe that the preservation of heritage trees continues to be an important priority in Menlo Park. Few would disagree that their location both on public and private property provides significant public benefit. The current ordinance allows for reasonable consideration when the two are in conflict. The proposed change would not.
As a member and chair of the Environmental Quality Commission, I am interested in the community's feedback regarding this proposed change. Please contact me at Mary@NoRoomAtTheInn.org. Please send the City Council your comments as well - City.Council@MenloPark.org.
Mary Kenney
Morey Drive
Meatless diet could help stem obesity epidemic
Editor:
Last week, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Julie L. Gerberding warned America that obesity is catching up to tobacco as the leading cause of (preventable) death in America. Obesity is a precursor to diabetes and heart disease. At the current rate, the obesity death toll is expected to surpass 500,000 deaths annually, rivaling cancer deaths.
Thus, it seems only fitting that the Great American Meatout observance should surpass the Great American Smokeout in the number of local events and media coverage. Indeed, the current Meatout Web site (meatout.org) lists nearly a thousand educational events in 50 states and 20 other countries.
At each event, volunteers are asking their neighbors to kick the meat habit on March 20 (first day of spring) and explore a plant-based diet. Ten cities are hosting hundreds of billboards and bus cards carrying the Meatout message. Thirty governors and mayors are issuing special proclamations encouraging their citizens to explore a wholesome diet of whole grains, vegetables, and fresh fruits.
The times they're a'changing. Are state lawsuits to recover Medicaid costs from meat companies next?
Mike Aster
Marmona Drive, Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. |
