LETTERS LETTERS (June 22, 2005)

A response to Marine's view of news

Editor:

This is in reply to the letter written by Major John J. Flaherty, U.S. Marine Corps. (ret) in the June 8 issue of the Almanac.

His first premise is that "both print media and TV news are consistently losing readers and viewers "because they wonder if what they say or write is true.

President George W. Bush started a war with Iraq and told the American people emphatically that it had weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists. That news was not true as the world knows now.

He blames journalists for printing the charges made by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that there were human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He must also have blamed journalists for printing what the president said.

Major Flaherty continues to talk about the average American. There is no such thing. We're all different, including journalists and U. S. servicemen.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross have all said that there have been human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Photos showing suspected terrorists blindfolded, shackled and housed in tiny cages and photos of Iraqis naked, blindfolded and molested in Abu Ghraib seem to verify those claims. Those three organizations are known for making complete investigations before making charges.

"Average Americans" are going to continue to read and view the news whether it is factual or not. We just have to consider the source.

Lee Boucher Valencia Court, Portola Valley

Change in zoning law questioned

Editor:

When the used-car salesman begins to argue the consumer's cause, let the buyer beware.

Similarly, Menlo Park residents should be wary when the architects and real estate agents are arguing for the protection of homeowners' rights, just as local businesses should be skeptical when the "protectors of business" on the City Council ignore the recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce representative and pass a commercial zoning ordinance ostensibly designed to help them.

I attended the April 25 Planning Commission meeting and was one of seven speakers at the public hearing, all of whom opposed the automatic approval of large developments on small lots without public review. A majority of the commissioners were concerned, too, and approved recommendations for retaining the possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission.

However, those recommendations were rescinded at the May 23 meeting after commissioners received a letter from Mayor Mickie Winkler.

I was unaware of the May 23 reconsideration. There was no public hearing notice posted on the Planning Commission Website and the agenda item did not have a bright-blue link highlighting it or a staff report as there had been for the April 25 meeting. So, in the dark of day, the meeting took place with only one alert citizen attending.

The City Council does not need to listen to the independent opinions of its advisory body or the public. However, it is disrespectful to concerned residents to maintain the charade of public process when the majority is listening to nothing other than its own voice. Chuck Bernstein

Oak Court, Menlo Park

Thankful for notice of latest zoning plan

Editor:

For years now, Menlo Park residents have not been adequately informed of drastic changes being considered by the Planning Commission or the City Council on the topic of residential zoning.

Changes considered since 2003 have consistently favored those seeking larger homes with no restrictions and alienated those who support smart and considerate growth (the so-called "residentialists"). Changes have been presented, reviewed, voted on, and put in place without the public ever being notified of any modifications, even though those have usually carried substantial potential impact. For years, the city has only sought to meet the bare legal minimum.

This week, we received a notice about the June 28 meeting when the City Council will be considering a new set of changes to our home-building rules.

Whether one supports or opposes the changes, I am thrilled that the city is remembering at last its duty to inform the public diligently that changes are afoot. An informed community is best equipped to present its diverse views about the direction they wish the city to take with respect to home-building.

So, thank you for the notice, do keep up the noticing process, and let the debate begin.

Catherine McMillan

San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.