Sep 4, 2008

Letters to the Editor

Daily News

'No on W' deals in fear

Dear Editor: The other day I met a young man distributing "No on W" fliers titled, "IMPORTANT NOTICE." This lie-filled flier stated that "whenever a homeowner covered by Measure W wants to improve their property, the city must sponsor an election and the homeowner must run a campaign to gain approval for their home improvement."

What preposterous, fear-mongering nonsense. Under Measure W, nobody will need an election to make a home improvement - even for Redwood Shores docks, which are covered by a separate pre-existing city policy.

Ironically, the very homeowners who the "No" campaign has filled with fear and doubt have the most to gain from W, as it will ensure that they cannot lose the parks, Bay and open spaces they live next to without a two-thirds vote.

When I told the young man distributing fliers door-to-door I was working for "Yes on W," he replied, "Oh, so you're from Oakland?" I replied "No, I'm from Redwood City!"

He said he was against W because it would affect homes of friends who live by Red Morton Park and others who live on the water in Redwood Shores. I asked him how he knew that. He said Citizens Against Costly Initiatives (a.k.a. DMB/Cargill) was saying that.

I both felt sorry for him and was frankly jealous of these opponents who have cynically snookered well-meaning folks like him into doing their bidding to make zillions by convincing only four out of seven council members to change the zoning on 1,433 acres of our precious bayfront to cover it with a huge development - all without a public vote.

The "No" campaign is focused solely on sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt and has tellingly not bothered to promote the council's competing measure. This suggests the "No" campaign fears the wide popularity of simply requiring a citizen vote to rezone and develop our precious bayfront, parks and open spaces. Measure W will put developers who wish to rezone open spaces on notice that they must also gain a unifying 66-percent consensus approval of the community.

I invite Measure W supporters to challenge opponents to cite precisely how even a single home improvement currently permitted would become subject to a vote.

Please join me, thousands of your neighbors, the Friends of Redwood City and environmental groups from around the Bay in supporting No on V, Yes on W!

Adrian Brandt,

Redwood City

Child center eats open space

Dear Editor: I wish your newspaper could give more balanced coverage to local issues. In point, the Aug. 30 article on Mountain View's new, subsidized child care center. Many people, especially seniors like me, have huge issues with this particular site and its service and process. Private industries such as Google and independent businesses are much better ways for child care to be provided.

Illegal aliens whose children are born in the United States loudly argue that their children are entitled to all the benefits of legal citizens - and they are. City employees and school teachers also feel entitled to subsidized or free child care, even if they earn living wages - that's nice, too.

Day workers, I'm sure, will find it extremely convenient if their center is approved two blocks away. These are not my issues.

I object to taking away even more open space in Rengstorff Community Park that all citizens can use. I object to causing huge parking problems for the other city and private buildings inside Rengstorff Park. I object to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation funding a project that takes away open space or a senior garden inside a community park.

I object to predictions by our economist mayor that the city will make $200,000-a-year profit by giving up to $3 million of public function parkland. I object to leaving the city open to a huge lump sum payoff on the loan if the child care center can't earn the promised returns.

Donald Letcher,

Mountain View

Media gives Obama a pass

Dear Editor: In her Aug. 27 letter, Mary Morphy uses the illogic of guilt by association to cast aspersion on my Aug. 24 letter. That she doesn't like some commentators who are published in World News Daily has no bearing on the truthfulness of the news article that I quoted. I don't like Ann Coulter either. But the news article: "Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs, Gazan brothers' illicit contributions listed in government campaign filings" by Aaron Klein (http://tinyurl.com/6puxmr) is, as the subhead states, based on government campaign filings.

Since the article was published on Aug. 4, there have been additional confirmatory investigations of Obama's filing and non-filing concerning these contributions. See: "Obama's foreign donors: The media averts its eyes" by Pamela Geller, Aug. 15 (http://tinyurl.com/6fwb3b).

The main point of my letter was that the media, and the New York Times in particular, are averting their eyes. They are no longer publishing news that does not fit their prejudices and partisanship.

Arthur Cohn.

Portola Valley

Setting the record straight

Dear Editor: Michael Svanevik and Shirley Burgett got just about everything wrong in their description of David Starr Jordan's resignation as Stanford's first president. It took place in 1913, not 1917; therefore any connection with the uproar over his opposition to World War I is impossible - the war didn't start until 1914.

The Stanford trustees did not fire Jordan; they simply granted his request to give up the presidency and become chancellor so that he could devote more time to trying to prevent the war from happening. His successor, John Casper Branner, served from 1913 to 1916, when he was succeeded by Ray Lyman Wilbur, who served from 1916 to 1943.

Richard W. Lyman,

Palo Alto

Conflicted over Palin

Dear Editor: As a parent, I respect Sarah Palin's statement that she and her husband are supportive of their daughter, and that they are "proud of her decision to have her baby, and even prouder to become grandparents."

But on another level, Gov. Palin's acceptance of John McCain's offer to become his running mate is especially troubling. For the mother, or father for that matter, of a pregnant 17-year-old, how ambitious do you have to be to accept a position that guarantees the poor girl will be thrown into the national spotlight?

Janice Hough,

Palo Alto