LETTERS LETTERS (March 17, 2004)

Correction: Dropped word in last week's editorial

An editing error substantially changed the meaning of the final paragraph in last week's editorial about the successful referendum on Menlo Park's proposed zoning ordinance. The penultimate sentence should have read: A new plan should not be slanted toward any interest group, other than Menlo Park homeowners. The word not was left out of last week's version. The Almanac regrets the error.

Tom Gibboney

Shocked at indifference of City Council members

Editor:

I attended the March 2 Menlo Park City Council meeting and was shocked at the level of indifference exhibited by the majority of the council members.

The council was supposed to discuss and determine what to do regarding the recent referendum (regarding the residential zoning ordinance). First, it was amazing to me that Mayor Lee Duboc acted as if she were shocked that those opposing the new ordinance had gathered more than the required number of signatures. This was true even though two weeks prior, the mayor had decided that there was a significant level of discontent with the new ordinance and decided to hold a press conference to attempt to mute the opposition.

During a significant amount of public comment, it became obvious to me that the recently passed ordinance was not well understood. The city and the council have failed in their duty to properly inform the residents. I was outraged to learn that the city's Website did not reflect true and accurate information regarding the ordinance. The city's staff has failed in its duty. After a very limited discussion, Council member Mickie Winkler made a motion to simply table the issue until June. This "lack of action" was passed by the council and taken despite the level of importance surrounding the issue.

It is not at all clear why the council will not listen to the objections to the recently repealed ordinance and make compromises. It appears that the council's "lack of action" is probably motivated by a desire to put this issue in front of the voters during the general election in November.

If this is the case, why would they not simply state this? It is surprising to me that they wouldn't want to create more unity in the community by modifying the existing ordinance rather than pitting neighbor against neighbor in our city.

Why must our City Council act like a bunch of children on most issues? Why should they take personally the fact that the referendum received such widespread support? Why can't they now hear what is being said and do something?

I hope that all residents will write to their City Council members and urge them to take action. This issue is too important to simply ignore.

Matthew Ackerman
Olive Street, Menlo Park

Check the box on your taxes for Presidential Election Fund

Editor:

Millions of taxpayers skip over the first question on their tax forms, the one that asks whether you want to check the box to designate $3 to the Presidential Election Fund.

This election year, the League of Women Voters is asking you to take that question seriously. Checking that box does not cost you any more tax dollars. It simply takes $3 of your tax money and puts it toward public funding of the presidential election.

Started in l976 as a response to the special interest funding that brought us Watergate, the fund seeks to create a political system that is open and responsive to the citizens. Candidates receive money to help cover their campaign costs and voters are assured that fundraising rules and spending limits are followed.

Our political system belongs in the hands of its rightful owners -- the American voters. Please do your part, check the box to protect democracy.

Gerry Felix, President
League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County

A note of thanks from Vito

Editor:

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all my customers at the Woodside Post Office for your friendship and thoughtfulness over the years.

It has meant a lot to me and my family. As of March 8, I will be starting my new endeavor at Wells Fargo Bank in the Town of Woodside. My new title will be personal banker.

I look forward to providing this community a continuous commitment of service and friendship for many years to come. I would like to take this opportunity to give special thanks to Donna and Chuck Huggins for their generous time and effort in organizing a special and memorable evening for me.

May I also extend my heartfelt thanks to Congresswomen Anna Eshoo, Mayor Paul Goeld, the Town Council of Woodside and it's staff, Jamis MacNiven of Buck's restaurant, George Roberts of Roberts Market, John Bentley of John Bentley's Restaurant, Michael Mosher of Wells Fargo Bank and it's staff, Tom Constantino, Karen Fay Rankin, See's Candies, Postmaster John Silberberg of Redwood City and it's staff, Cynthia Jamplis, Amalia Popell, Bruce Williamson, the Village Pub and also the many others that I could not name here.

Vito Dellegracie
San Bruno

Vote no to extend BART in San Mateo County

Editor:

The San Mateo County Transit Authority has recently held open houses to present their draft plan for "re-authorization" of Measure A, the county's sales tax for transportation projects which expires in 2008.

"Re-authorization" implies that the projects covered by the current Measure A will remain the same, but there are a number of new projects in the plan. "Re-authorization" may lull voters into thinking this measure is more of the same and that the authority is hoping voters will say "yes" without carefully reading the measure.

One new item on the measure is the BART feasibility study. I would say $24 million is a lot to spend to find out if BART should be extended down the Peninsula. Any leftover monies will be spent at the discretion of SamTrans, which means this money could be spent to cover the annual deficit that BART to San Francisco Airport generates.

San Mateo County never was nor is it now a member of the BART board. County residents never had a voice in the decision to build BART to the airport. Yet, under the new Measure A, our tax dollars will bail out the BART extension. Why should county voters be expected to pay for someone else's mistake?

I think it would be wise for the San Mateo County Transit Authority to take a realistic look at the wish list they've created for the "new" Measure A. County voters are neither dumb nor blind and will prove it this November by voting a resounding "no" to Measure A.

Bruce Balshone
Citizens for Better Transit
Burlingame

City Council members are behaving like real politicians

Editor:

I read in your March 10 issue about how the majority of the Menlo Park City Council has handled the citizen's petition to reexamine the ordinance about new home-building rules.

I see that the City Council members, with the exception of Paul Collacchi apparently, have successfully made the transition from small-town office holders to full-fledged politicians, as they have mastered the principle "If you're defeated, stall."

They are to be congratulated for that and for also having become skilled in the politician's basic tools of scare tactics and innuendo. They are trying to scare us by quoting the cost of elections and they slyly imply that those of us who have signed the petition are but dummies who don't "know the facts."

Of course, the simple and cheap solution of rescinding the ordnance and getting back to the drawing board is taboo, because that would require them to listen to voices they don't want to hear.

Alexander Kugushev
San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.