LETTERS LETTERS (March 31, 2004)

Is it time to revisit Proposition 13?

Editor:

Almost every day there is an article in the papers about the difficult financial situation that exists in practically every school district in the state. Perhaps it is time that Proposition 13 is revisited.

Yes, there are some people who might be affected badly. On the other hand I would guess the vast majority of people who are getting the tax benefits of Prop. 13 have had their incomes increase considerably over the past 25 years. They could afford, easily, to pay a tax that reflects the value of their property. Perhaps the reason we see several high priced cars in their driveways is related to the low taxes they pay.

In 1959 we built a home in Los Altos Hills. The taxes were under $500 a year. The people who now own the home have a tax, in essence, based on that value. The tax has increased over the years. But today the house would have a selling price two to three times that of my present home (bought in 1986). My guess is I pay three to four times the taxes they pay. This is crazy.

Frankly I resent paying my taxes plus part of theirs. Two things need to be done. One is to control the taxing ability of government commensurate with a fiscally responsible system. The other is to have all property owners (residential and commercial) pay a tax based on the real value of the property. Put fairness back in the system. And at the same time help relieve the pressure on our schools.

Daniel H. Goodman
Trinity Drive, Menlo Park

Trust is not enough when it comes to zoning ordinance

Editor:

The question I most hear from residents about the Menlo Park ordinance-making process is "could the big house at (insert address) be built under the ordinance proposed by the City Council majority?"

That is the ultimate litmus test. And our City Council owes residents a straight answer to this question. If the majority truly cares about limiting massive houses - as they have so often asserted, they should make it easy for us to understand what could be built under any proposed ordinance through clear illustrations and real-world examples. Then residents could draw their own conclusions as to what they view is desirable.

Truth be told, I am not optimistic about either the process ahead or its outcome. Instead of proactively educating our community relative to the "facts," the majority has conducted a sustained campaign to obscure the facts, stifle council discussion, discredit all opposition and paint a too rosy picture of what will likely happen if their ordinance were accepted.

Why should we trust them when they have kept residents in the dark for so long? Perhaps the goal of their multi-tiered, rules-based ordinance is really about streamlining the approval process for big homes.

I would like the City Council to prove me wrong and I recommend a simple objective test that should benefit everyone. Take a large sample of the house plans approved during the past 12 months where the lots are zoned R-1-S Single Family Suburban Residential District and the actual floor space is within 5 to 10 per cent of the floor area limit spelled out by our existing ordinance.

Then show us which of these houses could not be built under their proposed ordinance and why. Next, create an information center at city hall where residents can view these examples and obtain reliable answers to their questions. Finally, discuss these findings openly in our council meetings.

Dana Hendrickson
Ambar Way, Menlo Park

Council majority elected to make changes

Editor:

It is interesting to see how a vocal minority can express their feelings by whining over something they can't have. The issue of having another election to rescind Menlo Park's residential zoning ordinance is like insisting Arnold rescind some of the changes he made after being elected Governor of California.

He was elected because he promised to make those changes. The majority of the present City Council was elected in part because of promises they made to people to change the existing restrictive zoning laws in place at the time.

When they took office the majority council members responded by supporting a revised zoning ordinance that reflected what their electorate wanted. Some of the people supporting the recall of the ordinance are the same people who sat in planning commission meetings and ignored recommendations from a committee appointed to study the ordinances.

The people who did not ignore what they heard from the community got elected. I think it's time to accept the fact that the new ordinance is in place and should be given time to prove itself and move on.

Tom Wong
Hedge Road, Menlo Park

No need to change heritage tree ordinance

Editor:

Please do not change the heritage tree ordinance. One reason that many of us enjoy living in Menlo Park is the canopy created by the beautiful trees.

The proposed relaxing of the ordinance only makes it easier to remove heritage trees and having more of these beautiful trees removed will make the City of Menlo Park a less desirable place to live.

I attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago where Council member Mickie Winkler expressed the desire to "make it easier to do business with the city" and this was the reason for proposing changes to the heritage tree ordinance. Please think about the greater good of the community when considering this change.

It would be a real shame to eliminate the notification process required in the current ordinance as this process allows citizens (and neighbors on surrounding properties) to provide much-needed input. Without these comments, some developers/landowners would simply remove the mature trees that we all currently appreciate.

This was the case a couple of years ago at Hermosa and Middle when a developer bought one house and subsequently developed the property into two home sites. The developer requested permission to remove all of the mature trees on the property and it would have been granted unconditionally had it not been for the public input process. The result was that a number of the existing mature trees were transplanted and the landscaping plan was upgraded to include much larger replacement trees.

There is simply no need to relax any part of the current heritage tree ordinance. As the Environmental Quality Commission recommended at its meeting of June 10, 2003:

"Commissioners expressed the concern that more and more trees are becoming hazardous due to old age and disease. Over the past six years nearly 600 trees of a 24-inch diameter or greater have been removed with permits. Commissioners expressed the need to protect trees of a smaller size so that they will grow to become large, grand heritage trees in the future."

Six hundred large trees have been removed in six years. At this rate we could easily look like Sunnyvale (nearly tree-less) in another six years.

Matt Ackerman
Olive Street, Menlo Park

Trees add quality that sets Menlo Park apart

Editor:

The heritage tree ordinance, as it is now written, protects the community and the unique qualities that make Menlo Park so desirable.

In it's current form, the ordinance is ensuring the replacement of a heritage Italian Stone Pine that sadly had to be removed due to alleged safety issues. And even with the current ordinance, which requires 30-day replacement of the previous tree, we're still negotiating with the neighbors four months after the fact to get these trees replaced.

The city should be looking at stronger accountability on tree removal and replacement.

Wendy Carmody
Cathy Place, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.