Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Letters

Editor,

Measure D will make much-needed repairs and improvements to our Children's Library and Mitchell Park Library/Community Center. Upgrades are long overdue. Measure D represents a wonderful opportunity, a unique opportunity to provide badly needed programs and services for children, seniors and families all across our community.

Children's Library suffers from lack of space for books and children. Seismic upgrades are sorely needed to meet current codes. Antiquated lighting, wiring and plumbing should be upgraded so Children's Library can serve our children today.

Mitchell Park Library and Community Center fall far short of meeting community demand. Children and seniors compete for library and recreation space in crowded buildings that were first built as small branches to serve a population that has grown by 50 percent since the 1950s. South Palo Altans -- indeed, neighborhoods across Palo Alto -- deserve adequate library and community center buildings.

Please join me in voting YES on Measure D. Gary Fazzino Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto
LWV for Measure D

Editor,

The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) endorses Measure D. This action is based on our longstanding positions on city finance and a statewide League affirmation that up-to-date libraries are essential to healthy communities.

LWVPA has concluded that the scaled-down plans for repairs and upgrades for the aging Children's Library and replacement of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center are essential to provide the services needed to accommodate the dramatic growth in Palo Alto's population since these facilities were built nearly 50 years ago.

In a sophisticated city such as Palo Alto, we believe that our residents need and want the safety, elbow room for people, book collections, technology resources and group usage that modern libraries and community centers can offer. We must continue to enrich the lives of our toddlers, school children, teenagers and adults of all ages.

The League believes that bonds are a common and appropriate method for financing capital costs of construction and facility upgrades.

We urge Palo Altans to vote "YES" on Measure D on Nov. 5. Diana Steeples, Vice-President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto Ramona Street Palo Alto
Support Measure D

Editor,

Measure D is a scaled-back solution that will repair and update Children's Library and Mitchell Park Library/Community Center for Palo Altans today.

Our Children's Library needs seismic upgrades to meet current codes. Wiring, plumbing and lighting systems need upgrading; severe overcrowding means that space is needed to serve our children well.

Children's Library will be repaired and renovated according to the Secretary of the Interior standards. The one-story structure will be upgraded, with additions that respect the building's historic character.

Mitchell Park Library and Community Center will be rebuilt to meet identified program needs. Mitchell Park Library, first built as a small branch, now is the most heavily used. Population growth means that 54 percent of all Palo Altans now live in South Palo Alto and the Mitchell Park neighborhood. Adequate library and community center buildings are needed, and Measure D will provide them.

Measure D has been endorsed by a remarkable list of respected organizations, including the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, Chamber of Commerce of Palo Alto, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, Acterra, Stanford University, the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education and Council of PTAs, Palo Alto Foundation for Education.

Never before has such a broad array of community organizations, elected officials and individual Palo Altans come together to recognize the critical need to provide community services to our children, families and seniors.

Please join us in voting YES on Measure D. Bern Beecham Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto
Good time for bond

Editor,

There will never be a better moment in the next few years to pass a bond issue or make needed repairs and upgrades. And consider that the longer we wait, the older the facilities get and the larger our population that has to depend on them.

Unless the president decides not to go to war in Iraq and generally reshape the Middle East to his liking, war will bring: Higher deficits and bonded endebtedness (bonds pay for deficit spending), higher interest rates (to sell those bonds), higher balance of payments deficit (many factories for war materiel are offshore, plus there are transport costs and bases in other countries), which weakens the dollar. A flight from the dollar to the Euro is possible.

Whether Bush issues bonds, prints money or raises taxes to pay for the foreign adventures, inflation looms.

This may not happen immediately but will be devastating for seniors and the baby boomers. Both have already lost much retirement savings in the stock market. Devastating, as well, to businesses small and large, which need cheap loans for capital. They need to invest in their enterprises to get out of recession. And what about people who already can't make ends meet?

Remember "stagflation" after the Vietnam War?

However, it has its bright side: Bonds passed now would be paid back in cheaper and cheaper dollars. Gertrude Reagan Moreno Avenue Palo Alto
Behind door number three

Editor,

I just read that 60 percent of California voters do not like Davis or Simon, and for very good reasons. Well guess what? If 60 percent of those unhappy with Davis or Simon were to vote for Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate, Camejo would have 36 percent of the vote -- more than enough to win in a three-way race.

Now is the time for us Californians to say no more business as usual, no more influence peddling, no more selling political favors. Peter Camejo is an honest man, a good man. That's more than you can say for either Davis or Simon.

People ultimately end up with the government that they deserve. Fellow Californians, please don't try to tell me we deserve the likes of Davis or Simon. We deserve more. We deserve a governor who is going to act in the best interest of all Californians.

We do not deserve to have our public policy for sale to the highest bidder. Help break the insane strangle hold that special-interest money has on our political system. Show the Democrats and the GOP that we're fed up with this nonsense.

Vote for Peter Camejo. If we vote for him, he will win. It's just that simple. Dennis Mitrzyk Maclane Street Palo Alto
Hyatt's 'golden goose'?

Editor,

Hyatt's expensive centerfold advertisement in the Oct. 16 Weekly is another example of Hyatt's golden goose laying more lead eggs. We fear this is just the opening salvo in an unrelenting PR campaign.

Mr. Solit and Hyatt act astonished that five years have passed and their proposal has not been approved. This is disingenuous because they have been aware of all the objections throughout this entire time. The Planning Department, City Council members and community residents have repeatedly told them their project was too dense and needed to be scaled back so it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and does not create significant traffic and safety hazards.

Hyatt hasn't accommodated these concerns and has only its own insolence and intransigence to blame for the lack of approval.

Hyatt has been unable to sway city decision makers, and instead of meaningful dialogue with those most affected by their project, they chose to use their unlimited financial resources to lobby business groups and others who have regional agendas and are not directly impacted by their massive development.

Big businesses take their profits for the short term while leaving the community to deal with the aftermath for years to come. How much is enough?

The Pritzkers own over 200 worldwide Hyatt hotels and resorts are worth enough billions to make Jay Pritzker the 20th wealthiest American when he died in 1999.

What can they buy with an additional 302 units of housing in Palo Alto that they could not buy before? The goose smells of arrogant greed. Deborah and Werner Ju Whitclem Drive Palo Alto
Guest Opinion cynicism

Editor,

I have to react with some cynicism to the Guest Opinion by Supervisor Kniss and letter to the editor by K.K. Panahi of Palo Alto, both in the Oct. 23 issue of Palo Alto Weekly.

While faintly praising Stanford University as a "world-class university" and "fine institution," both take Stanford to task for not agreeing with their personal views as to what Stanford "promised" insofar as more trails and their location on Stanford lands.

As a county supervisor, why is Supervisor Kniss not pursuing the City of Palo Alto in respect of opening its Foothills Park and trails to all citizens of Santa Clara County? Judging from cars on Stanford Avenue, it is quite likely there are more Palo Alto and other Stanford neighbors making use of already open Stanford trails than of Palo Alto's exclusive trails, not open to other citizens of Santa Clara County.

One can observe it certainly is easier, and much more productive from a political standpoint, to accuse Stanford of not being a good neighbor. Niels Reimers Tolman Drive Stanford
A benevolent employer

Editor,

At least three times in the Oct. 23 issue, the Weekly referred to the 3,000 faculty and student housing units to be built on the Stanford campus as "development" "allowed" under the GUP. The inference drawn by two of your columnists is that this evil "development" requires compensation to the citizens of the surrounding communities.

Instead, we in the cities of Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Los Altos and Portola Valley should be compensating the university for providing housing for several thousand people who otherwise must be accommodated in our built-out neighborhoods. No other employer here (conspicuously including our local governments) has built housing for its employees.

No other employer is required to provide parks and hiking trails for the general public. Supervisor Kniss looks to me like the governmental equivalent of ambulance-chasing lawyers: Attack the deep pockets in hopes they will pay you off to avoid protracted lawsuits.

The GUP negotiations never entertained the notion of permanent, dedicated hiking trails across the Dish reserve, the designated faculty housing area or the golf course. Ms Kniss' pretense that the Green Foothills proposals that do so are equivalent to peripheral trails and not "deeply interior" to Stanford lands is arrant nonsense.

I expect better of elected officials -- and the Weekly. Kathleen Much Hillside Avenue Menlo Park
Reject the 'rubber stamp'

Editor,

We have three eminently qualified, neighborhood, county and business-supported candidates running for Menlo Park City Council, and we need to elect them.

David Speer is a professional real estate project manager/MBA. Toni Stein is a Ph.D. Environmental Engineer serving on county and city commissions. Bill Halleck is a Landscape Architect with the City of San Jose and a Menlo Park commissioner.

Running against them is a "rubber-stamp" group consisting of a commercial attorney, a former marketing manager and a volunteer/housewife. This slate's platform not surprisingly calls for minimal review of developers' expansion plans, eventually reducing reviews to a mere formality.

This could ruin Menlo Park, but make out-of-town developers a lot of money.

If a new "rubber-stamp" council majority is elected, how will they weigh the good of our community against maximizing their developer friends' profits? Greater infrastructure costs would result, which a pro-developer council is unlikely to pass on to large-project proponents to help pay, as the current council properly has.

We need more housing and parks, not more ugly (and empty) office buildings, especially ones subsidized by our own taxes. The development and real estate communities fear we will once again elect candidates serving both our community and responsible development, and reject their purchased slate of Winkler, Duboc and Jellins.

I hope you will ultimately choose Stein, Speer and Halleck. They're the most qualified for this important job and they'll continue to put in long hours to protect Menlo Park's diverse needs and interests. Adam Bernstein Coleman Avenue Menlo Park
Responsive leaders needed

Editor,

Having watched the activities of the Menlo Park City Council closely over the last several months, I think that I have finally figured out the connection between the petty and confrontational behavior of Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Collachi and Ms. Borak, and the high-profile debacles that have beset our city in recent years.

Both are symptoms of an arrogant disregard for the opinions of those who disagree with their narrow-minded, no-growth agenda.

The last several council meetings have become as predictable as tag-team wrestling, with the tag team consisting of Mayor Schmidt and Councilmembers Collachi and Borak, all ganging up on Councilmember Jellins. The fact that their attacks have increased in intensity in the last several weeks suggests an election year motivation as well.

Mr. Jellins' restrained responses to this type of provocation are a credit to his strength and maturity as a leader.

The disrespectful behavior of this council majority has also been extended to the Menlo Park citizenry when they ignored the community's desires regarding Sand Hill Road and prompt removal of the Santa Cruz obstacles. Their multimillion-dollar bike tunnel was only tabled after loud public outcry, and two controversial zoning changes are marching ahead in spite of significant opposition from residents throughout the city.

It's time for us to have leaders that are responsive to all of Menlo Park's constituencies, not just those who agree with councilmembers' preconceived notions of what is good for the city. Fortunately, there are better alternatives than the candidates being endorsed by the current council majority.

Voters should elect Nicholas Jellins, Lee Duboc and Mickie Winkler, all of whom have long records of public and private service to the community. Frank Tucker Politzer Drive Menlo Park