Please pass on a big "thanks" to those there that facilitated another great Moonlight Run.
Thank you also to all the great sponsors who made it a festive and enjoyable evening — they will certainly get my business.
Dana De Nault
Regarding your editorial of Sept. 10, my thoughts were, frankly, wow, you got snowed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
Before accepting VTA's claims as gospel, you would have done well to investigate those claims. I'm terribly disappointed that you didn't.
On Aug. 7, BayRail Alliance submitted an analysis to the VTA that shows that the 1/8-percent sales tax would not provide sufficient funds for VTA to operate the BART extension. We produced this analysis in response to VTA's consultant's report, which they apparently showed to you, which claims the tax would cover those costs.
In our analysis, we used the same numbers that VTA did, except that we didn't misrepresent what the contract between VTA and BART actually states.
VTA's analysis erroneously states that one component of their required contribution is the maximum amount, when in fact the contract that they signed says it is the minimum amount. We've computed that under the terms of the agreement, the 1/8 cent sales tax would cover less than 81 percent of VTA's mandatory annual payment to BART.
Our analysis used VTA's optimistic numbers for how much the tax would raise and how many people would ride this train to Fremont. But any reduction in tax or fare revenue, or increases in costs would further increase VTA's deficit. I find it highly interesting that VTA showed you their analysis when they've never presented it at any of their public meetings. It's only been made public insofar as their internal correspondence to their board has been made public if you happen to know the right place on their website to look to get their correspondence packet. It's never been distributed to the public at VTA's meetings.
As with Measures C and D, VTA is misleading and hiding information from the public. This will become blindingly transparent to you when you read the ballot arguments.
Voters need to send a strong message to VTA for reform by voting no on Measure B, C and D.
Almost a year ago I wrote about the complete silence concerning plans for renovating the Edgewood Plaza.
This silence has been broken and now we have attractive possibilities for a renovated, vibrant plaza. Townhouses and a new supermarket would be great. However a few people do not accept what is proposed. I fervently hope that the 0ctober meeting will bring together all those concerned about the fate of Edgewood.
It would be very sad if the new developer's plans are rejected.
We badly need a market in this part of town. Let's make it happen.
Comment on "Lawsuit looms over Edgewood Plaza," Sept. 17: Are we
witnessing the beginning of another Alma Plaza fiasco? Will it be a
10-year process to correct the blight that the Edgewood Plaza has become?
What needs to happen for a good outcome for the city and the nearby
community is that the 86 CC&R holders need to get together with the owners, Sand Hill Properties, and talk about their mutual interests.
Clearly, those 86 households should be heard.
At present we have three people in touch with Sand Hill Properties, threatening a lawsuit. Those three people, as I understand it, do not necessarily represent the CC&R holders and they may have their own narrow interests in mind, not the