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

Published on 03/22/1999 All articles from this issue

Letters to the Editor

printer friendly version

Jay Street 'mansion' goes against desires

The Town Crier announces, "Council OKs Jay St. 2-Story" (March 3). Once again, the Los Altos City Council has voted against the neighborhood's wishes and has endorsed ostentatious development. Why am I always surprised?

In my personal experience, residents of Coronado Avenue, Sunkist Lane, and Camellia Way have organized, petitioned, and gone to city council opposed to massive development - and been voted down by the council. Add Jay Street to the list.

Who are these people the council ignores? Those who throughout their 15- or 30- or 50-year residencies, have trimmed lawns, painted exteriors, made repairs, and done other tasks every homeowner knows. Through their toil, the neighborhoods grow lovely.

Consider what happens when residents don't maintain property. Take a field trip to San Francisco to visit the old Victorians, then go to Oakland and regard the same vintage houses, but with no upkeep. There's no "neighborhood," no personality or style that has appeal, no "property value" to be had.

In Los Altos, where residents have created an environment more palpable and vital than any one house, what does the council do? It violates the essence of the very environment the people have created.

Why? Developers buy the land and build the largest monstrosity to make the most money. Construction brings money into city offices: permits, inspections, and plans making the city so much larger - more money, employees, business. In short, power.

The Council consistently rejects the expressed desires of the citizens and favors excessive development. The age-old story.

Patricia J. GibbonsLos Altos

Incorrect accounting by former candidate

On March 10 the Town Crier published a letter from Jim Steiner titled, "How can the rest of us compete?" that misrepresented our campaign expenditures in the last election.

Since Steiner misrepresented figures that the Town Crier presented on Feb. 10, we believe the Town Crier was negligent by printing such an inaccurate portrayal of our campaign expenditures.

In essence, Steiner doubled the amount of expenditures by not understanding basic accounting and the rules of reporting by the Fair Political Practice Commission on contributions in kind. One would think that the chairman of the town's finance committee would not make such elementary accounting errors and that as a candidate in the last election, he would have read and understood the reporting requirements.

Steve Finn and Toni Casey spent a combined $22,296.39 (approximately $11,148.20 each, not $28,850 each as reported by Steiner) in the campaign, of which $8,500 was Steve's own money; $13,796.30 was contributed to the campaigns by more than 100 residents. Toni and Steve announced they wanted all donations to be for $100 instead of the regularly preferred $99 which can be an anonymous contribution. We wanted to assure that the identity of all contributors was known so that no false allegations could be made as to the source of funds. In addition, 12 letters were sent out and paid for independently by residents. We allotted a fair market value of $900 for each of these letters and reported them as in-kind contributions as required by the FPPC.

For Steiner to refer to us as backed by deep-pocket developers is an insult to every resident in Los Altos Hills and a continuation of his negative campaign which was cited by the League of Women Voters as such. His comments are far worse than just being a "sore loser." He has intentionally tried to taint the campaign election results.

In future elections Mr. Steiner, you will not be able to compete, nor will any other candidate, unless they have a message and platform which address the concerning of the majority of residents. It's democracy, pure and simple.

Toni Casey and Steve FinnLos Altos Hills

Article ignored legitimate complaints

It is hard to believe that your reporter attended the same meeting of the Los Altos Hills City Council that I attended on March 4. She aptly covered the minority opinion of attendees, but ignored altogether the legitimate complaints of the majority.

Regarding the Srivivasan house plans, tapes of a prior planning commission meeting disclosed that all parties concerned with the dispute had resolved their differences and had left that meeting satisfied. Suddenly, the issue was back on the agenda for the March 4 council meeting.

In another case, the future residents had been told by the planning commission more than a year ago that the size of their house left almost no extra space for outdoor living (pool, patio, etc.) if the house was to comply with present codes.The owners proceeded with their plans anyway and were back requesting more than 2,000 square feet of additional space. Further, no plans were submitted as to how the space would be used.

Clearly this is a contentious issue and one that goes to the heart of the divisions now developing within the community.

Your reporter attributes the most benign of quotes to Councilwoman Casey when, in fact, Casey had to be admonished twice for her confrontational behavior to other citizen speakers. Casey apologized, and rightly so.

The spirit within the council has become acrimonious since the last election and, unfortunately, is beginning to spill over into our neighborhoods. Perfect harmony is not the goal, but we do expect cooperation and respect for divergent opinions.

The next time you send a reporter to a council meeting, please instruct that person to "tell it like it is."

Joan M. Schlenz

Los Altos Hills