Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 07/06/1998 All articles from this issue

Letters to the Editor

printer friendly version

More enforcement creates a police state

There is more traffic in Los Altos, and there are more people using side streets as thoroughfares. But adding four more police officers who will give out 400 more tickets per month can't possibly be the answer. In the Town Crier story, "Plans to fight traffic," June 24, 1998, the author only points out one side of the story.

It is very hard to consistently drive at 25 mph on streets like Springer or Newcastle or Los Altos Avenue, which are really thoroughfares, and should be posted at 35 mph. What will happen with these new enforcement officers after they clean up the city of Los Altos?

Let's just say the program works, and in a few months Los Altos is like Seahaven Island in "The Truman Show." Then what will these enforcement officers do to meet a quota of tickets per month? In a few months the Los Altos Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Task Force and the city council will have created a nightmarish speed-trap, police-state mentality.

I think there is a better course of action that will entice the citizens to drive slower, be a reasonable cost to the city and will not cause a citizen backlash.

1. Lease more radar traffic trailers. They are visible and call attention to speed immediately.

2. It is also possible to get mobile radar cameras that take a picture of the speeder. The cameras work 24 hours per day. 3. Rather than hiring four additional traffic enforcement officers, try a special program first. Pay overtime and "borrow" police from neighboring cities for a short-term, well-publicized special enforcement period. This would be similar to what the CHP does at holiday periods.

4. If you have to write more tickets, give out more warnings. Don't get started with a Gestapo-like enforcement program. It is embarrassing and upsetting enough to just be stopped by the police, especially in a small town where people know you.

5. Go ahead and put more speed bumps around. Unlike a policeman with a radar gun, a speed bump is there 24 hours per day. It works all the time. It is cost effective.

I disagree with enforcement suggestions that will turn Los Altos into a police state.

John ToppelLos Altos

Don't take away our property rights

We are a young couple who has recently purchased a home in the county in the Los Altos area. We had believed that we would be able to expand our house as necessary as our family grows. We are distressed that a group claiming to represent local homeowners has persuaded the county to consider changes to prevent property owners from developing and/or improving their property.

Our understanding is that these persons would like to prevent owners of lots below a certain size from improving their property because they think that this will adversely affect this group's quality of life! In the past we are informed that this group used legal harassment and intimidation to force residents to not make improvements to their properties, but were generally rebuffed by the courts when reviewed, so they are in the process of persuading the county to carry out their desires.

We would like to make the following points: This group does not represent us, and we would respectfully request that the county officials not take away our property rights, which we have worked hard to achieve, without a vote of the people affected!

If these persons are so dedicated to stopping property improvements, may we suggest that they request the county to restrict development of their own property - please do not take away our rights!

Mark and Polly NeumannLos Altos

Don't change plan for gas station

I applaud the Los Altos City Council's vote to maintain the city's General Plan for zoning at the intersection of Grant and Fremont.

You point out that there has been contamination at the gas station site accumulating over three decades. Are you suggesting that the best way to deal with this is to let it continue? Those who caused the contamination should be required to clean it up.

Apparently about 400 residents of Los Altos signed a petition supporting the gas station (presumably during a visit to the gas station), while only 32 are on record as opposed. I, for one, believed it unnecessary to record a vote somewhere, because I expected the General Plan to be implemented. The petition does not necessarily reflect the wishes of the majority in the neighborhood or city.

I remember the debates in the late 1960s and early 1970s on the use of the property on the corner opposite the gas station, where there are now single family homes. The property owners at that time, claimed that commercial development or high-density apartments were the only possibilities for that site.

It does not stand to reason, as you claim, that this part of the General Plan was wrong in the first place. I do not think we should fear being sued by the owners. Your editorial is a proposal to change the General Plan, willy-nilly. The city council should not reconsider.

Peter O'Driscoll

Los Altos