|
Publication Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Readers' election endorsements
Readers' election endorsements
(October 13, 2004)
Distressed at development candidates
Editor:
As a 10-year business owner and 12-year resident of Menlo Park, I am once again distressed to see the developers attempting to buy their way into our city's affairs.
I refer to the two pro-development candidates, Lorie Sinnott and Michael Lambert, who are in favor of city ordinance 926, which allows ugly monster homes to be built without regard for the long-term interests of the neighborhood. This ordinance was rescinded by the City Council after more than 2,500 Menlo Park residents signed a referendum petition against the ordinance.
These two candidates, supported and employed by developers, feel that they know better than the citizens of Menlo Park, and are still pushing for monster home development, and in fact, running on that platform.
The last thing Menlo Park needs is developers deciding what our mature neighborhoods should look like. We have a successful history of homeowners, neighbors, and qualified city employees working together to plan housing, and thousands of Menlo Park citizens want to continue this method.
Candidates Kelly Fergusson and retired judge Andy Cohen are committed to a balance of interests, and support due process. I strongly urge Menlo Park voters to elect Kelly and Andy to our City Council on November 2.
Valerie Frederickson
Menlo Avenue, Menlo Park
Transportation plan is up for council vote
Editor:
My hat's off to anyone willing to run for City Council in Menlo Park.
I don't think we fully appreciate the sacrifice of time and energy required to serve on the council. Certainly, they deserve our praise and support instead of the frequent criticism that erupts whenever the council recommends any changes to improve our city.
A case in point is the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), which has finally emerged in response to a City Council directive approved last year. The latest draft, which will be discussed at the council's October 12 meeting, is the result of countless hours of work on the part of Kimley-Horn Associates Inc., a paid consultant; the city transportation staff, led by Jamal Rahimi; a citizens steering committee; and the Transportation Commission.
There were several public hearings on the matter, not only at commission meetings, but at public venues in Belle Haven and on Santa Cruz Avenue.
The goal of the plan is to provide a city-wide system to prioritize traffic-calming requests and to avoid divisive fiascos such as the Palo Alto North barricades; the Santa Cruz Avenue concrete obstacle course; and the Willows traffic barrier debacle of 1993 to 1995.
The latest NTMP requires that at least 60 percent of the homeowners within a study area have signed a petition requesting the changes. This is not an onerous requirement and makes sure that the neighbors are in agreement before concrete is poured. By comparison, Belmont and Redwood City also require 60 percent; Cupertino and Santa Cruz, 67 percent; Santa Clara, 70 percent; and San Jose, 50 percent plus 1.
I strongly support the plan as approved by the Transportation Commission 4 to 2, and hope that the council will institute the plan without delay.
Two current council candidates, Lorie Sinnott and Mike Lambert, also support it. Both favor the plan as written and Mr. Lambert wants better traffic enforcement by police.
Reginald W. Rice
Tioga Drive, Menlo Park
Candidates ignore vote against Ordinance 926
Editor:
After more than 2,500 Menlo Park residents signed a petition to put rule-based ordinance 926 on the ballot, spurring the City Council to rescind the law, two pro-development candidates, Lorie Sinnott and Michael Lambert, are still arguing for home-building laws that strictly rely on rules and numbers.
This "rule-based" idea has the seductive ring of fairness to it. But the dark truth about a rule-based plan is that it removes input from impacted neighbors and even from the Planning Commission.
Is this what home owners need?
Under a rule-based system, building projects get approved on paper. There is no analysis of the context in which those houses will exist; no site visit; no forum for impacted neighbors to express concerns, and no one to help them articulate what it is they are concerned about.
Ordinance 926, which Lorie Sinnott strongly supported, was a rule-based system that eliminated neighbors' input and arbitrarily determined that most designs create no impacts.
The people of Menlo Park rejected that assumption.
Likewise, they should reject any candidate who favors de facto approvals of home designs without any thoughtful consideration of the impacts they create.
Rule-based zoning laws ignore the notion of impacts. By the very fact that they evaluate projects out of context, they are powerless to detect concerns such as invasion of privacy, sunlight access, or other quality of life issues.
Those impact problems are typically addressed through the Planning Commission review. Whereas human assessment allows for an evaluation of the impacts of a given development, a rule-based system deliberately ignores the neighborhood context.
Candidates who aim to reduce residential development to numbers and rules without analyzing the context are shirking their responsibility.
Candidates Kelly Fergusson and retired judge Andy Cohen are committed to a balance of rules and human discretion: I urge Menlo Park voters to elect them to our City Council on November 2.
Adam Bernstein
Santa Monica Avenue, Menlo Park
League backs Atherton's Measure O
Editor:
Measure O, the measure to reauthorize the $750 parcel tax in Atherton, is supported by the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County.
The parcel tax helps pay for municipal services and capital improvements from 2005-2008. Since Atherton does not have any businesses within the town limits, it cannot raise money through sales tax as most other towns can do.
Funds raised by this parcel tax are designated for services such as police protection, road repair, drainage facility repair, and other maintenance required for public good, welfare and safety.
Geraldine I. Felix, president
League of Women Voters
of South San Mateo County
Collacchi supports Ruskin for Assembly
Editor:
I support Ira Ruskin for state Assembly.
For eight years I have served on the Menlo Park City Council advocating sustainable development and transportation policies. During that time, I have worked with Ira on many occasions.
Ira Ruskin is a friend of the environment. He is smart, experienced, respected, and skilled at navigating multi-agency processes to build a consensus and to achieve results.
Ira Ruskin is a proven master of the carrot and the stick. As a director of the San Mateo County Transit Authority, Ira knows that alternate transportation is critical to sustainable economic development and to the environment.
As an Assembly member he has vowed to support the full implementation of AB 1493, the landmark legislation that will drastically reduce harmful emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks beginning in January 2006.
And Ira has committed to help lead and broaden California's efforts to further reduce greenhouse emissions to counter Bush Administration policy by supporting ongoing efforts to reduce these gases from stationary sources.
When California speaks, the whole world listens. Because of his courage and independence, and because he is a proven friend of the environment, I want Ira Ruskin to speak for me.
Paul Collacchi
Donohoe Street, Menlo Park
A Democrat who supports Poizner
Editor:
I am a life-long Democrat who is strongly supporting Steve Poizner for the 21st Assembly District.
As a businessman, a father, and a member of several organizations that support public schools, my top priority is improving the funding for public education.
I believe Mr. Poizner has the capability to make a real difference for our public schools, and he has the track record to prove it.
Steve Poizner was heavily involved in the successful effort to pass Proposition 39, which made it easier for school districts to pass bond measures for school facilities. He was also a founding member of EdVoice, which advocates for public education in California. So it is no surprise our local Assemblyman Joe Simitian, a well-respected Democratic leader in education, chose Mr. Poizner as his partner to form, "Taxpayers for School Improvement," which is working to make it easier for local school districts to pass school parcel tax measures.
We need more proactive, independent voices like Mr. Poizner in Sacramento who will actually make things happen. He is a moderate Republican just like many others who have very effectively represented our area, such as former Congressman Tom Campbell, former Congressman Ed Zschau, and former state Senator Becky Morgan.
I hope other Democrats who want to improve public education will join me in voting for Steve Poizner.
Ted Schlein
Cotton Street, Menlo Park
What about candidate's own donations?
Editor:
Steve Poizner is appallingly disingenuous when he speaks about "special interest" donations to Ira Ruskin's campaign for the 21st Assembly District.
A quick look at the California Secretary of State's campaign finance Web site (cal-access.ss.ca.gov) shows that between February and June 2004 Mr. Poizner raised almost twice as much money as Mr. Ruskin. Many of Mr. Poizner's donations came from corporate CEOs, CFOs, and venture capitalists. Mr. Poizner might disagree, but I would certainly consider wealthy corporate executives to be a "special interest."
Ira Ruskin says he is proud of the people represented by unions (teachers, firefighters, and police) and others who have donated to his campaign. And he is proud of his record as a progressive Democrat.
On November 2, please give your vote to Ira Ruskin.
Kenneth R. Sharp
Meadowsweet Lane, San Carlos
E-mail a friend a link to this story. |
