Publication Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Letters
Letters
(June 22, 2005)
Avoid park parking fees
Editor,
Please don't impose parking fees on our parks. Five dollars seems extraordinarily excessive. Even the "break" of getting a yearly pass of $50 is beyond some citizens' budgets.
A few years ago Santa Clara County decided to impose a 50-cent parking charge on San Antonio Preserve. After public outcry and further analysis of the charge, the supervisors decided it wasn't worth the enmity it would cause nor be cost effective. Shouldn't we look into this also?
San Francisco went through a similar proposal and then dumped the idea for most of its parks. Seattle's mayor was so offended that he campaigned against a parking charge. He said, "I don't think we should nickel and dime our citizens to death with endless fees."
Imposing a fee on our parks will keep hundreds of people out of our parks. If this is the real goal, then there are other ways to monitor access to parks. Parks belong to everybody, not to just those who can afford to pay.
I know people of all ages who hike these parks almost daily. Many do not have the resources to pay parking fees. Their one joy in life is hiking these parks. They will lose this. All of us have paid in the past and today continue to pay for our parks through all kinds of subtle taxes.
Parks are what make a city a great place to be. Parks are the single most accessible, easiest, cheapest and greatest way for people to experience relief from a smothering urban life. Use of our parks ought to be the one pleasure guaranteed in life to all citizens.
To suggest the loss of rangers and diminution of park maintenance if these fees aren't charged (remember Acterra does an incredible amount of maintenance) appears to be the easy way out and lack of imagination to solve a problem. Can't we explore how the county and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District manage?
Now that we see that funds can be found to pay extras for staff employees and payoff questionable corporations it may be time to use a small portion of our incredible reserve funds to protect public access, without parking fees, to our parks. Aren't reserve funds supposed to be used for the public during hard times?
Enid Pearson
Forest Court
Palo Alto
Support for Brett
Editor,
The Weekly's Friday story (June 17) regarding the current controversy over payment of artist Kang Hong Seok is accurate, as always.
However, I do want to add that Mr. Brett's vigorous championing of the arts in Palo Alto and his entrepreneurial zeal represent an extraordinary asset for the city as a whole.
We are well served as a community by citizens such as Mr. Brett who donate their time and passion to civic affairs.
Emily Harrison
Assistant City Manager, City of Palo Alto
Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto
Time for commendation
Editor,
The overwhelming majority of Palo Alto residents support their police department. They call upon it for a prompt, courteous response to their needs, which is their right, and they complain when they perceive they have been unjustly treated, which is also their right.
However, I am increasingly disturbed by the attention given by the media to the shrill voices of a few police-department critics. Furthermore, the constant repetition of the controversy surrounding the Albert Hopkins case deliberately creates the impression that the charges have increased in number.
To top it off, a recent June 8 editorial in another publication referred to "the next beating of any innocent resident. ..."
Such journalistic hyperbole is irresponsible. No thoughtful resident believes that beatings are a standard police procedure.
The Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report of January 2004 prepared by the city auditor reported that the police department responded to 57,292 calls for service in 2001-02 and 53,143 calls for service in 2002-03. Out of more than 110,000 calls there were only a handful of complaints alleging police misconduct.
Palo Alto officers are doing something right and should be commended, not vilified, for their efforts.
George Browning
Sutherland Drive
Palo Alto
City strikes out
Editor,
The two inexperienced police officers keep their jobs thanks to a deal in which they both plead guilty to a misdemeanor of '"unlawful fighting."
In a big-league city such a case might have raised little interest among a majority of residents. In Palo Alto we were supplied with daily trial reports and commentary. We knew the score.
And now the officers forfeit their innocence and keep their jobs? That's a great slide backwards for this town. They should be released.
Justice was taken out of the game too soon -- Palo Alto has just struck out.
Peter Whelan
Alma Street
Palo Alto
Tracking club concern
Editor,
Parking fees for the Palo Alto open spaces weren't the first moves made on this subject. Just ask the local canine tracking clubs. The Palo Alto city manager's office displayed a dismaying lack of open and above-board dealing when dealing with their club use of the Preserve.
The tracking clubs had a good relationship with Palo Alto Parks and Recreation, using Arastradero Preserve as a training and testing site. Without warning, all tracking clubs were told that tracking would no longer be permitted at Arastradero. The reasons given were of a nature that could easily be addressed with cooperation between the clubs and parks and recreation.
One club appealed the decision to the city manager, with a proposal to address the stated concerns. The city manager's office agreed, but with restrictions so stringent that it was extremely impractical. What is most alarming was the statement: "If the City of Palo Alto receives applications from other dog tracking clubs or organizations, this special use permit will be immediately terminated and the event will be canceled."
This and a number of other interactions suggested that the city manager's office was trying to keep them from making noise in public about it. Makes one wonder what is going on.
Susan Klein
East 3rd Avenue
San Mateo
Clever about retirement
Editor,
Thank you, Dan Bloomberg (ReaderWire, June 17), for your succinct and informative letter. While I would be delighted to see Mr. Benest retire early, I am unwilling to have my taxpayer dollars used to enable him to do so. ...
Kudos to Judy Kleinberg, Hilary Freeman and LaDoris Cordell for voting against it.
Sandra L. Guinn
Webster Street
Palo Alto
Property tax comments
Editor,
In commenting on who pays property taxes and how much (Weekly, June 15), Bern Beecham properly observes that owners of pre-Proposition 13 homes pay only a fraction of the property taxes paid by those who purchased their homes later.
Well, that's why Prop. 13 was passed in 1978 -- to limit government's insatiable demand for more revenue by limiting the amount by which taxes could be raised each year.
However, it must be recognized in the "reasoned discussion" Beecham welcomes that many owners of commercial properties pay proportionately less than residential-property owners. Unlike residential properties, commercial properties turn over more slowly.
Moreover, and unlike residential-property owners, owners of commercial properties may avoid property reassessments even if a property does change hands. Consequently, many valuable commercial properties continue to be taxed at pre-Prop. 13 levels even though they're ostensibly owned by another entity.
Beecham should not lay a guilt trip on seniors who acquired their homes before Prop. 13 was enacted when many commercial-property owners find ways to avoid the consequences of the law. If he wants a whipping boy, he should consider the state government that confiscates the lion's share of each property-tax dollar collected.
It is unjust that local jurisdictions like Palo Alto receive so little when property values upon which taxes are based depend largely on investments made and amenities provided at the local level.
Tom Wyman
Washington Avenue
Palo Alto
Iraq realities
Editor,
Any lingering doubt over the manipulation of intelligence by the Bush administration to justify the disastrous Iraq war should finally dispelled. The Sunday Times of London described a meeting between Tony Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs that confirmed U.S. intentions to ignore diplomatic efforts and plan for the invasion of Iraq as early as July 23, 2002.
According to the released (Downing Street) memo, a joint effort between Washington and London was made to cook intelligence to establish a political and legal basis for war.
The British cabinet-briefing paper stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation at the April summit in Texas. The official British policy decision was for "the U.K. to support military action to bring about regime change."
In a letter to Bush, 89 House Democrats expressed outrage over the documents. If the papers were authentic this would be proof that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking congressional approval. On June 16, Representative John Conyers presented the White House with petition singed by 500,000 citizens and 120 congressional democrats demanding a detailed response to the Downing Street memo.
"If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says. This surely constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. I implore readers not to remain silent but demand an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Failure to do so will result in more grieving U.S. and Iraqi families.
Jagjit Singh
Louisa Court
Palo Alto
Conservation prority
Editor,
I'm deeply concerned over the national energy legislation passed by the House of Representatives, which is a huge giveaway to oil and gas companies and not for the benefit of consumers. It would threaten public health by increasing air pollution and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to harmful oil drilling
Clean renewable energy sources would protect our environment, strengthen our economy and reduce our dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world. We need to make energy conservation a national priority.
In other words, we need our elected officials in Washington to support a common-sense energy strategy -- let's tell them so. Write our senators and representatives today.
Barbara Seaney
Sharon Oaks Drive
Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
