LETTERS LETTERS (November 17, 2004)

Menlo Park voters have spoken

Editor:

The election is over and Menlo Park voters have spoken out in support of open and participatory government.

Government that listens to diverse opinions and maintains a healthy set of checks and balances. The success of the Kelly Fergusson and Andy Cohen campaigns also makes it clear that voters want residents and not special interests to decide the future of Menlo Park.

The actions of the current City Council majority of Nicholas Jellins, Mickie Winkler and Lee Duboc have clearly disturbed Menlo Park voters. Actions such as the dramatic rewriting of home building rules, a proposal that would have allowed developers to cut down heritage trees without neighbor notification, and the replacement of planning commissioners that did not reflect the majority's views.

By electing Ms. Fergusson and Mr. Cohen, the residents of Menlo Park have made it known that they want to continue the long-standing traditions of public hearings and community review that the council majority has tried to eliminate.

Voters also recognized that the change will bring relevant experience and expertise to the City Council. Ms. Fergusson's civil engineering expertise will be invaluable in guiding the city through the many public works projects that will be coming up over the next couple of years. Mr. Cohen's experience as a judge will help bridge some of the divergent opinions that exist on issues such as traffic-calming and home-building.

Menlo Park voters sent a clear message this election -- we want to be included in the decisions that affect the character of our neighborhoods and the future of our city.

Jennifer Fisher Hermosa Way, Menlo Park

Measure A is a step in wrong direction

Editor:

The passage of Measure A signals an investment in the future of San Mateo County through which our transportation problems will become increasingly more intractable.

Fully 65 percent of the targeted projects are dependent on the internal combustion engine. This large percentage of future investments from Measure A in transportation infrastructure is the folly of "leadership" at its best.

A future is fast upon us in which petroleum resources will rapidly diminish due to: (1) decreasing worldwide production stream; (2) increased demand by other nations for the stream; (3) increased instability in the major petroleum-producing regions; (4) increasing demand due to growth of the human population in the United States and other nations; and, (5) increasingly severe impacts from global climate change. The sum is a future in which declining quantities of petroleum will be distributed in smaller amounts to larger populations in western and developing nations.

Wise, informed and intelligent leadership by those who promulgated Measure A -- primarily the board of directors of the San Mateo County Transit Authority -- would have focused a significant portion of Measure A funds on transportation planning and construction for a world in oil crises.

One doable example of appropriate planning and Measure A expenditure is an electrified light rail train corridor along the median portions of Highway 101 and El Camino Real. These alignments will provide a north-south route for serving the major transportation direction in San Mateo County.

The uninformed, confused and merely eloquent are invited to come up on the knowledge curve by reading any of the multitude of credible arguments concerning the coming oil crises including: "The Coming Oil Crises" by Colin Campbell; "Oil and Blood" by Michael Klare; and Web sites with abundant documentation including www.dieoff.org and www.hubbertpeak.com.

Robert Zatkin Springdale Way, Emerald Hills

Ruskin for business as usual

Editor:

Voters have said they're fed up with Sacramento's partisan politics, deficit spending and runaway bureaucracy; then they elect Ira Ruskin, a career politician, who will obey the party line, spend money that's not there and add to the yearly glut of 1,200 new laws.

Mr. Poizner should realize there are better ways to spend his life and his assets than trying to save people who would rather go down with the ship than rock the boat. Clay Thorne Peggy Lane, Menlo Park

Anna says thanks for the vote

Editor:

I am deeply grateful to the people of the 14th Congressional District for your overwhelming support on November 2.

It is an honor to represent you in Congress, and I will continue to do everything I can to provide you, my constituents, with the representation you deserve and can be proud of.

Anna G. Eshoo

Member of Congress

Testing older drivers is common sense

Editor:

An article in the November 5 New York Times regarding the trial of the 87-year-old man who ran over 10 people at the farmer's market in Santa Monica last year left me stunned. Ten people died and 63 were injured.

Thankfully, he must stand trial for manslaughter with a possible penalty of 18 years in prison. The following day, the Times reported that another elderly driver had crashed through the front door of a hair salon and claimed that she too had hit the accelerator instead of the brakes when she arrived for her appointment.

Last January an 82-year-old woman driving a sports car on Santa Cruz Avenue in Menlo Park plowed down my mother in a crosswalk. She did not stop after the first impact and ran over my mother again, dragging her under her vehicle for several yards before the screaming pedestrians stopped her.

She, however, was given a misdemeanor charge and we still await her sentencing scheduled for November 19. We know that no matter what her penalty, we must live with the image of our mother crushed under the weight of her tires for the rest of our lives.

As we approach the anniversary of her death, I am still fielding questions from her 3-year-old grandson about her whereabouts and how she died.

All these drivers were dazed and confused. All these drivers had valid drivers' licenses that would have been revoked long ago if they had had to take annual road tests.

Is it a secret that with age, people develop vision problems and slower reaction times? How many "human brakes" do we have to witness before the law is changed?

Age-based testing is not discriminatory, it is common sense. The AARP is more concerned about ego than lives.

Donia Bijan

Alameda de las Pulgas, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.