On Nov. 2 the voters told us that: (1) they like the present team on city council; (2) they want us to do at least some of the tasks listed in the Measure H advisory; and (3) they want someone else to pay for it.
I am sure the council will do its best to find someone else to pay for at least some of the top- priority tasks listed in Measure H. Hotel taxes are the most promising future source.
The Committee for Yes on I put on a good campaign, but obviously not good enough. As the campaign chairman, I take responsibility for any shortfall in the scope of the campaign. I want to thank our hard-working campaigners who covered the town door-to-door, thank our donors, and thank the 3,200 voters who understood the issue and were willing to invest more to improve their community.
In retrospect, I think we had difficulty explaining the need for sustained revenue while all around the city we were repaving streets, dedicating new parks and fields, adding a third traffic officer, breaking ground for the Education Center at History House, looking for a new pool site, etc.
The voters had difficulty differentiating between the ongoing use of grants, gifts, and one-time surpluses vs. the need for sustained revenue.
King LearLos Altos
Voters understood issue and voted no
My recent city council campaign sent 6,000 Los Altos homes a thoughtful, detailed analysis showing a proposed 79 percent increase in our utility users tax is unwise. Voters rejected the tax hike. Many increase proponents credit the outcome to my campaign, even though I wasn't elected.
The political in-crowd used the tricks that political pros said they should, but they underestimated the voters.
Los Altans generously fund public services, but this was one tax-and-spend measure too many. The council has raised spending faster than revenues and set this year's budget 17 percent above last year's spending. Even at the local level, we noted, government is already too big relative to our economy and that imbalance diminishes economic growth and human well-being.
In a sneaky gambit, the in-crowd first crafted the increase as two measures, H and I, to avoid Prop. 13 requirements placed on tax hikes. They did not even consider basic data as I did.
The city distributed a flier supporting the increase but I showed it was erroneous and very misleading. The low point was three fliers, two that claimed "all serious reviewers of city finances support Measure I." It suggests anyone opposed to Measure I - 51.4 percent of the voters - was not "serious."
The third flier said I was running against all taxes and that my 17 percent figure was wrong. When closely read, the text actually said not that the 17 percent increase I showed for overall spending was wrong, but that voters should focus on some other undocumented figure on some subset of spending that does not even appear in the budget. The voters brushed aside this chicanery, understood the facts and voted no.
Let's now go forward with a vigorous public discussion of priorities by looking at possible cuts as well as increases. Let's give Los Altans the good government they deserve, not another tax measure at the next election.
Ron KnechtLos Altos
Message: Services, yes but don't pay for them
All three people elected to the City Council endorsed Measure I. Losing candidates ran negative Measure I campaigns without offering achievable, realistic alternatives; provided questionable "facts"; and advocated only "vote no." The negative campaigns did not get these candidates elected but did sway enough voters to defeat Measure I. Measure H passed, sending the message of a real need for community services as long as there is no cost. It's called a "free lunch."
The city council is in an unfortunate position of having demands for services with no long-term funding mechanisms. In lieu of eliminating existing services or acquiring new funding, street and sewer maintenance will continue to be deferred using patchwork solutions. The Traffic Management Plan is now moot, as traffic enforcement will be eliminated and traffic engineering will be minimized. Los Altos will again be the only city in Santa Clara County without traffic enforcement, while maintaining the lowest salaries in the county for the remaining police officers. Solutions to 911 emergency services will not be funded long term. Facility and park maintenance will be minimized, as well as after-school programs for kids.
We still have a large number of parents very concerned about their children getting safely to and from school, as evidenced by the LASD redistricting meetings. We still have senior citizens concerned about emergency services, parks and facilities. Many people still have grave issues with traffic, including pedestrian, bicycle, neighborhood and child safety. It is unfortunate that so many of these same people bought into the "free lunch" concept.
Sour grapes? Perhaps. But decisions will come home to roost. The question now is how we constructively support the city council when they must make very difficult decisions in the near term future. Because there is no "free lunch."
Kurt AyersLos Altos
City protects us from color-tread tires
I was happy to see that our city council is looking out for our interests in banning the sale and use of color-tread tires in Los Altos. Next up, I hope, are votes on bans of other dangerous colorful items such as red cars, lemons, blue hats, and yellow traffic lines - one never knows when a gang member might take affront at such blatantly disrespectful displays of its colors, leading to a life-threatening melee in our streets. Hey, and what about all those flags I see around town? All that red and blue (and a little white, but who counts that as a color, anyway?) - jeez, what kind of gang culture are we fostering here, anyway?
As road safety is also of such paramount concern, I would hope that council will seriously consider expanding the ban to all tires except those that are incapable of leaving any marks whatsoever on a street. Wait - that's clearly impossible. Council should ban cars altogether. Use Hovercraft.
Actually, I think a better idea would be bans on anything capable of adding color to any public surface. Access to colored chalk and crayons leads to toddlers walking carelessly down our streets and sidewalks, intent only on having fun, applying gang colors to any convenient surface, and even squashing innocent bugs. Wait - I have an even better idea. When you get down to it, colors are just a needless distraction; they're clearly more trouble than they're worth.
Gangs, danger - who needs it? Let's just paint the town gray.
John R. SchiffhauerLos Altos
Councilman should know better
I am very disappointed that the Los Altos Hills Town Council backed down once again. If this was a decision fairly reached, I could accept it in peace.
However, I am distressed by the following:
Bill Siegel, a councilmember of longstanding whom I respect without reservation, previously stated that if he had known of the Wong violations, he would not have approved his appointment. Well, since he now knows, that innocent ignorance is simply correctable by removing him, and by inviting him to re-apply after he reaches acceptable compliance with town laws.
Secondly, this shows that Mr. Wong intentionally suppressed and misstated these facts during his application-review process, indicating an intention to deceive both the council, and, by representation, all of the town's residents. This should be seen as more serious.
Finally, Bill said that Millie Gallo's posting of a sign (supporting, incidentally, the noble virtue of honesty) displeased him and prevented him from voting against Mr. Wong.
I find this to be the weakest argument. Millie's personal attempt - having become a persecuted senior citizen living by herself - to activate her own First Amendment rights to express herself, and to defend the utterly false and contrived accusation of being a "racist," is understandable, and is not relevant to Mr. Wong's improprieties, inclusive of his dilatory performance as a commissioner to date. To draw on this as a pertinent argument is transparent false cause, and has the appearance of a feeble effort to distract from the real issue. He now makes the brave whistle-blower into the scapegoat. There are federal laws to protect people against such retaliations.
Bill Siegel knows much better, and frankly, usually acts on a higher plane.
Roger W. BurnellLos Altos Hills
About that 'old guard'
In response to Vilma Sinclair's letter in "Other Voices" (Oct. 6 Town Crier):
So, OK, we are guilty of being of the "old guard" who have lived in Los Altos for 38 years. We do resent the building of large monstrosities on lots designated for small houses. The so-called old guard of Los Altos provided the atmosphere you obviously like or you wouldn't have moved here. These same old guard are the volunteers at City Hall, at the Los Altos Library, at El Camino, Stanford, and veterans hospitals. They were the ones who served on the various Los Altos boards giving generously of their time, initiated the Pet Parade, the Pancake Breakfasts, the Festival of Lights Parade, creating the parks, the erection of the World War II memorial in Shoup Park, etc., that children of all ages enjoy. Their contributions are too many to enumerate here.
These old guards served in wars to preserve the liberty you now enjoy. And these same old guards are today's senior citizens. Mrs. Sinclair's letter is an effrontery to seniors who cannot move due to personal reasons or choose to remain in the city of Los Altos they created. Mrs. Sinclair owes much to these people, and foremost, she owes an apology to them.
Her comments show a great lack of sensitivity and a large supply of arrogance to suggest if you don't like the noise to move out. Perhaps she should move to an undeveloped area where she can build a huge house on a huge lot and then serve on the various boards to create her version of Los Altos. Or, perhaps, like Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin, she would prefer to have gulags erected for the seniors and house them there so others of her ilk can build the unwanted huge houses they desire without any conflicting opinions.
Colonel and Mrs. Harry HalberstadtLos Altos
Mural more appropriate for school site
I am writing in support of Marie Young and her criticism of the new downtown mural. I, too, dislike the mural. It's always been a pleasure to return to our little village after excursions away from home. It's great to enjoy the antique Spangler Clock and bronze bust of our beloved Walter. The town "square" (more like a triangle, I think) is a charming welcome to our community. When I first saw the cartoon mural, I was amazed. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate at a school site. I don't understand why our City Fathers would spend time or money on this project (even though I know the project was a fund-raiser). We have many lovely street murals around town which are attractive and whimsical. Why not put one on this spot as well? In addition, I would very much like to see the vacant space filled in with grass and flowers - maybe a donated bench or two -something that would represent welcome in a more concrete way.
I also have a problem with the vacant, fenced-in lot next to (but not owned by) Akane on Third Street. What's the deal? Parking is at such a premium downtown and yet, here sits a fenced-in vacant lot, filled with weeds and debris. Any comments from other citizens?
My final comment, though, is a broader one. Remember folks, free speech goes both ways. We are entitled to voice our opinions; that's what makes this country great. Let's not attack each other personally.
Chris Barry
Los Altos