|
|
|
Publication Date: Friday, March 15, 2002 CHAC thanks the community
We want to express our gratitude to the hundreds of community members who supported Community Health Awareness Council (CHAC) during our recent fundraising campaign. From $20 to $25,000, donations were received from people who value the gift of helping others. We are pleased to announce that more than $200,000 has been raised to help create healthy lives for the children and families of our local community. By providing alternatives to self-destructive behavior, CHAC counselors and interns enable and motivate young people to live productive and healthy lives. CHAC's Executive Director Monique Kane has seen that the need for CHAC's services increases as life gets more difficult, complex, and even sometimes, for some, incomprehensible. This year, CHAC has met the challenges of changing times and has been there to counsel children and their families under stress. Forty volunteers served as team captains or team members during the campaign, enabling us to far surpass our goals. We would also like to thank Alza Corporation for their sponsorship of the campaign, caterers Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme for their delicious donations for our volunteers, and Development Director Paul Schutz and the rest of the remarkable CHAC staff who supported this effort in amazing ways. Again, thank you all for your support. CHAC is proud to be a part of this compassionate and giving community.
Your editorial entitled "A Tough Case at Jackson Park" in the March 8 edition illustrates the absurdity of ultra tolerance and political correctness. Instead of criticizing the bums who hang out in the park all day drinking, urinating and intimidating passersby with shouted obscenities, the editor gets on his high horse and preaches to us about how we must maintain the rights of everyone who spends time in the park. The last paragraph states, "it behooves the entire Mountain View community to prevent illegal behavior while maintaining the rights of everyone, even if they swear in public, to spend time there." Now, these people are not whispering obscenities to each other, they are shouting at and accosting other park users as indicated in the accompanying news article. What about parents with children? Should they be subjected to such behavior? Do the rights of free speech extend to one group intimidating another? It seems to me that the presence and actions of these bums are preventing others from being able to enjoy the park and therefore they should not be tolerated. Mr. Editor, please tell us why the rights of these animals who urinate in our parks should prevail over other park users?
The March 2000 election is now over. Results are coming in. Regardless of the official results, one loser is my recycle bin. It is half filled with mailers urging a vote for Sally Lieber. A copy of each was sent to each of the three registered voters in my household. For all I voted for her, I find this waste of resources appalling. In this she was only rivaled by the Yes-on-N group who not only filled the other half of my recycle bin in the same fashion, but also sent a stack of video cassettes that will probably fill our landfill, mostly unopened. The one bright light in this election trash dump, is the No-on-N group. I don't know if they won yet, but by 7a.m. this morning, they had trucks going around collecting up their signs. Three cheers for that kind of citizenship. May all the other campaigns, winners and losers, follow their example.
Oh dear! Does Sally Lieber's victory in the Democratic primary for Assembly mean that we are ALL going to be inundated by twelve MORE campaign pieces from her in the mail? I'm not sure I'm up to it. Maybe her environmentalist supporters will persuade her that environmentally responsible candidates don't waste trees and energy on overkill. C'mon, Sally! Strive for quality and not quantity. Voters will appreciate it - - and MIGHT even vote for you!
Mountain View, by a 2 to 1 margin, voted down the proposed Home Depot on Measure N. Despite Home Depot spending approximately $146 per vote with advertising and last minute-innuendo to No on N's $24 per vote, residents sent Home Depot their message loud and clear. For those of us that worked hard to make citizens aware of some very important issues the results were satisfying, and not unlike many other cities around the country that have caught on to Home Depot's misrepresentations. In all the ads for Yes on N, not once was the supposed $500,000 tax revenue explained against how much Home Depot would cost the city. The $1.2 million for traffic improvements was not only uncommitted and unenforceable, but again, never explained. Likewise, jobs and pay were only seen as additional benefits to the city, without ever netting out lost jobs, and a much lower pay scale at Home Depot versus Mountain View's when local business declines or shuts down altogether. As someone who has worked against "big box" development many times throughout the country, I can assure you that this is standard operating procedure. It is also one of the main reasons many sites are not only being challenged, but also being defeated. Informed citizens know when something is not truthful, either implicitly or by omission. The No on N campaign capitalized on this and brought forth pertinent issues that Home Depot never wants to bring up. Short and long term, Mountain View will benefit by not having a Home Depot. The next challenge is evident: determining the best use for the site, in terms of benefit to the community and adding to Mountain View's tax base. Two very important tools the city and developers can use are Major Development Review (MDR), and an Independent Economic Impact Analysis. Together, they can operate as any business pro forma would. Different models, (i.e. mixed use, retail, medical/hotel, and yes, even big box) can be compared on a cost/benefit spreadsheet. This data proves invaluable when comparing many inputs and outputs in revenues and expenditures. It's a big decision, using this valuable piece of real estate, and one that warrants the best and most informed data. Mountain View deserves nothing less.
Measure N's solid rejection by Mountain View voters on March 5 should leave us both proud and relieved. Proud, to whatever extent we have regained a measure of confidence in our ability to work together as a community to solve common problems. Let us go forward from here. Relieved, after Home Depot's outrageous, transparently desperate smear campaign during the last week made it clear to everyone just how big and nasty a bullet we were dodging. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, so this is also a heads-up.
Congratulations Mountain View! On March 5 we got a gorilla off our
backs.
Home Depot was defeated soundly by a 2 to 1 margin. The magnitude of the defeat shows just how arrogant and out of touch Home Depot is with the community. It is an enormous financial and PR defeat for them. So it's over, right? Don't count on it. I expect our good friends at Home Depot to continue to pursue their agenda with vigor. They have three options left: Give up the site (not likely). Work cooperatively with the city on a mutually acceptable use for that site. Sue the city claiming unfair treatment and try to prevail in court. I expect that Home Depot ultimately will pursue the legal option because I doubt that it and the city can come to a mutually acceptable compromise. In any case, I expect things to continue to be quite interesting on the Home Depot front.
This is an Election Day experience that may arouse your interest: I am a resident of my home in Mountain View for 22 years and have voted in every election in my local precinct polling station, within walking distance of my home. Today, I went to the polls at Monta Loma School, where I, to my surprise, found myself not on the voter rolls. The poll worker took my name, and I proceeded to vote. When I got home I took a closer look at the back of my sample ballot and found my polling place to be indicated as "Mountain View Fire Station #1 at Dana St., 215 N. Shoreline Blvd." (A check of a map shows that the address must be S Shoreline Blvd. if it wants to be close to W Dana St.) I contacted the Registrar of Voters office in San Jose by phone, and all they would say is: "that's what it is". "It can not be changed" My curiosity made me drive to the fire station on S Shoreline, where I found myself registered and ready to vote (again). Question: Why would the registrar of voters change my polling station to one 2.3 miles away, without given any prominent notice and possibly an explanation? I checked with my neighbor (on an adjacent street), and she was also changed. She had not realized this and vowed not to vote. Is this a new way of voter discouragement?
Citizens voting No on Proposition N on the March 5th ballot won a major victory for the future of our fine city. It was a synergistic effort on the part of many people. We owe thanks to the Avery family; Lawrence Vallandigham, committee chair of No on N; Kay Mascoli, campaign liaison; Greg Perry, volunteer coordinator, and the many hardworking, dedicated volunteers. Last but not least, we owe kudos to the voters of Mountain View who made it happen.
Open statement to Mr. Faravelli: As a volunteer who worked with the Citizens Voting No on N, I am aware that not a single call or complaint concerning matters of "fear and intimidation" was ever received by our office during the entire campaign.
| ||
 Copyright © 2002 Embarcadero Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or online links to anything other than the home page without permission is strictly prohibited. |
||