LETTERS LETTERS (June 08, 2005)

Planning Commission was right the 1st time

Editor:

I am disappointed that the Menlo Park Planning Commission reversed its recommendation of April 25 that would allow contiguous neighbors on substandard lots the opportunity to trigger a Planning Commission hearing to resolve adverse impacts caused by single story redevelopment.

The current City Council majority wants to completely eliminate the existing mandatory Planning Commission hearings in these instances.

The commission's recommendation was a compromise that was tolerable to both sides of the issue. Mayor Winkler's letter of May 18 to the Planning Commission was pivotal in destroying this compromise and sending the zoning ordinance debate back to the usual counter-productive, polarized politics of the last six years.

The role of the Planning Commission, to redress the rights of neighbors who are adversely affected by residential redevelopment (even single-story), and the time and cost impact of the first two items on the applicant for the use permit, are the pivotal issues in the ongoing zoning ordinance debate in Menlo Park. The compromise reached by the Planning Commission was one of the first substantive ones I have seen while closely following the redevelopment issue and was a short-lived ray of hope in resolving this controversy in Menlo Park.

Russell Dember

Berkeley Avenue, Menlo Park

Change of heart on planning a radical action

Editor:

At its May 23 meeting, the Menlo Park Planning Commission voted to eliminate the use permit requirements for single-story, single-family residential dwellings. This is a radical change in the city's zoning laws and a reversal of a decision made only one month earlier.

Reconsideration of the issue was orchestrated by Mayor Mickie Winkler and her political supporters. Just prior to the May 23 meeting, the planning commissioners received a letter from Mayor Winkler outlining her reasons for eliminating the use permit. This letter was a reminder to the commissioners that they were appointed to do her bidding, and that they would be asked to revisit issues that they didn't decide "correctly" the first time.

The mayor's letter and conduct constitute an undue interference in the independence of the Planning Commission and once again demonstrate her condescending, "I know best" attitude toward city government.

In her letter, Mayor Winkler portrays the changes to the process as minor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Eliminating the primary avenue for the public to challenge development projects makes our neighborhoods vulnerable to speculative developers and a host of potential negative impacts. It also leaves the courts as the only venue for resolving disputes between neighbors over planned development.

In the past 2.5 years, Menlo Park residents, through the repeal of ordinance 926 to the election of council members Kelly Fergusson and Andy Cohen, have spoken clearly and forcefully about their desire to maintain public oversight of residential development.

Unfortunately, the current council majority continues to turn a deaf ear to the public's wishes and has made no effort to find middle ground with supporters of attractive and safe neighborhoods. The voters of Menlo Park will remember this treatment when we next go to the polls.

Heyward Robinson

Menlo Park

City should shun speculative developers

Editor:

I'm disappointed that Menlo Park City Council members are being solicited by speculative real estate developers.

These developers have a tremendous profit incentive to target a few key people in the city so that they can have parcels re-zoned. The residents of Menlo Park are at a severe disadvantage.

For example, when a few residents complain about what the developers are doing, we are dismissed as people who can be (should be) ignored. The injury that the community suffers as a result of this development is spread out over time and subject to interpretation, whereas the developer's profit is quick, certain and large. Because the few residents who are inclined to complain are dismissed, we have had to go out into the community and educate many residents in order to get the council's attention.

I ask you to consider these points when you give your attention to real estate developers. Carefully consider their motives and the long-term best interest of the city. Particularly pay attention to those who would have you dismiss the concerns of long-term residents of this area, fellow members of your community who voted for you and who have no profit motive in these development projects.

Vincent Bressler

East Creek Drive, Menlo Park

The press at war with President Bush

Editor:

Do you want to know why both print media and TV news are consistently losing readers and viewers?

It is because average Americans read or hear a news report and say to themselves, "This is interesting. I wonder if it's true?" If they have to judge the veracity of every news report, why bother paying for the news service in the first place. The constant drumbeat of reports such as Newsweek's Guantanamo toilet fiasco and derogatory comments by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about our treatment of prisoners of war fail to take into account that average Americans, though not as "enlightened" as journalists, are not stupid. They apply a bit of common sense to these allegations.

When an enemy prisoner of war, who is against America, hence President Bush, makes a claim of abuse at Abu Ghraib of Guantanamo, the journalist reports the claim as factual, with very little investigation, because he wants the claim to be true and because it fits his conviction that the war is wrong and the reporting of the claim will hurt Bush, hence America.

When average Americans hear the claim they say, "How can this be?" These two prisons, by now, must be the most supervised and transparent institutions in the world today. Average Americans also are quick to give the benefit of the doubt to the soldiers, many of whom grew up in their neighborhoods, went to the same schools, and may be relatives, acquaintances, or friends of friends.

This is unlike journalists, who have a general disdain for the military and never knew anyone who ever served in the military other than, perhaps, an elderly, fuddy-duddy grandfather who was either drafted into World War II or duped into enlisting.

If this trend in lost news customers continues there eventually will be only two journalists left in the United States, both on welfare and emailing each other with their frustrations.

Major John J. Flaherty,

U.S. Marine Corps (Ret) Ridgeview Drive, Atherton

E-mail a friend a link to this story.