LETTERS LETTERS (August 04, 2004)

Town Center buildings were quake-proof

Editor:

Regarding the demolition of the Portola Valley Town Center buildings, I have the following questions:

1. Why has the earthquake-resistant construction of the current buildings never been acknowledged? When I worked on that campus in the 1960s, I saw drawings that showed steel reinforcement making the buildings very sturdy. Fifty years of history has proved the value of this construction.

2. Why have the safety studies never been looked at? Between 1971 and 1976, four scientific studies indicated that the buildings were safe for human occupancy or storage or both. No scientific studies have been done since to contradict these earlier studies.

3. "All fault lines are unique, and most of what occurs along them, up to 60 miles below the surface, is invisible to geologists," according to "The Week," Feb. 20, 2004. Compared to professional quake studies, the scratching of the earth by Portola Valley has a predictive value of zero.

4. Who would ever guess that an 11-acre site is safer in one spot than in another? The Loma Prieta quake had an epicenter near Santa Cruz, and caused damage as far as San Francisco.

In view of these facts, I don't know the reason for the demolition of the Town Center buildings. But I know one thing: it has not been contemplated for the greatest good of the greatest number of Portola Valley citizens.

Ken Abraham
Alpine Road, Portola Valley

Who benefits if historic home saved?

Editor:

It seems to me I've heard that song before -- in reference to private property rights, length of ownership (24 years) and all referring to the 1926 summer home of Daniel C. Jackling.

It seems presumptuous to assume that when the old house is torn down, that the present owner will build a junky architectural monster home.

The essential questions remain unanswered and unsolved. If Steve Jobs is "required" to rebuild the 17,000-square foot house at the end of a dead-end small road, who benefits? How does the public gain access? Who pays for the vandalism that will, of course, occur, once the old house becomes a historical monument (to bygone wealth)?

By the time this is all settled, and the house has fallen down because no one is willing to fund its refurbishing or decide who will get to tramp through it, we may all wonder what will become of the monster homes now lining Mountain Home Road.

One thing will become truer and truer -- who will want to sit on the Planning Commission or run for the Woodside Town Council once private property rights have been taken over by disgruntled residents with axes to grind?

Trish Hooper
Portola Road, Portola Valley

Thanks for recognition of candidates' motives

Editor:

Thank you for your truly refreshing July 21 editorial paying homage to those of us setting out on the local campaign trail. You summed up beautifully both the trials and the motivations of those who serve the city, both elected and appointed. It is true that optimism, energy, and dedication are ideally the driving forces behind each candidacy -- all forces that should be recognized and nurtured. I thank you for doing so.

Lorie Sinnott
Rose Avenue, Menlo Park

PV Town Center should be left alone

Editor

I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to Robert V. Brown for his courageous effort to keep Portola Valley's Town Center intact.

All the people I was able to contact in this neighborhood, except one, signed a petition to keep the center mainly as it is. The feeling seemed to be: Leave the center alone. The gentleman who refused to sign felt we should let our elected representatives make the decision. But are they blessed with common sense?

Nova Crisp
Fawn Lane, Portola Valley

Judge and a lawsuit block coastal decision

Editor:

Thank you for your thorough coverage of the ongoing effort to protect our coastal open space with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's (MROSD) expansion to the San Mateo County coastal area.

It all began with the coastal area voters approving Measure F in 1998.

I have volunteered with this effort before, during and after that election. In Marion Softky's excellent July 21 article, "Judge blocks open space annexation; hearing set," Judge Forcum states, "the right to vote is the most cherished right we have." I strongly agree and wonder if my vote in 1998 means anything at this point. It seems that 5,300 votes have been forgotten.

Coastal voters supported open space protection and passed Measure F with 54 percent, even though its opponents outspent supporters 3 to 1. Since 1998, MROSD has addressed and responded to community concerns with more than 40 workshops and meetings. The opponents' biggest issue of "eminent domain" was eliminated by the MROSD board of directors and state legislation.

The LAFCO public hearings were extended to accommodate participation. Now, six years of this "democratic process" is at a standstill due to one man and his lawsuit against this process. It is disturbing that a judge who claims "this should be about including voters, not excluding them" may ignore the votes of 5,300 people with his decision on this crucial matter.

Patty Mayall
La Honda

Motorist irked by Valparaiso barrier

Editor:

Can anybody tell me what the purpose is of those idiotic yellow concrete blocks on Valparaiso Avenue in Menlo Park, just before you enter El Camino Real?

It's annoying for people wanting to make a left onto El Camino, and during rush hour, it's nearly impossible to make a right from Hoover onto Valparaiso.

Wouldn't it help everybody if we get rid of useless traffic-barriers?

Dieter Hurni
Redwood City

Wage hike will help poor families

Editor:

We need to increase the minimum wage in California and the nation.

Assembly member Sally Lieber, D.-Mountain View, has introduced legislation that would increase it to $7.75 by 2006. That's still not a living wage, but it's a start.

At present a parent working for minimum wage earns only 34 percent of the basic costs of living for a family of three. Even if you double that, it's still not enough for necessities. Walmart workers, for example, often qualify for public assistance, so that taxpayers end up subsidizing Walmart profits.

Some opponents will actually claim that an increase would hurt poor families. (So am I doing a poor person a favor if I pay low wages?) Others claim an increase would hurt small businesses. However, the Wall Street Journal reports that states with higher minimum wage show no loss of employment growth and in fact showed a greater increase in the number of small businesses.

Some claim that globalization requires low wages to keep jobs at home. It seems they intend American workers to compete with child laborers in sweat shops, who are themselves pitted against workers in still poorer countries. In many such places, attempts by workers to organize are met with dismissal and even death. Since 1986, nearly 4,000 trade unionists have been murdered in Columbia alone. And the standard of living for Mexican workers continues to drop.

Globalization, like the industrial revolution, is here to stay, but unless we curb its excesses, it will destroy American families while also hurting workers in foreign lands.

Gail Sredanovic
Ashton Avenue, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.