Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor (September 10, 2004)

Struggle with lack of restrooms at depot

Editor:

Last week, I went to city hall with two questions. First, I wanted to know the history of the city council resolution that moved the public comment period from the beginning of council meetings to the end. Also, I wanted to learn why our $800,000 train station has no public rest rooms.

City employees would prefer that the public comment period remain at the end of the council meetings, as this results in fewer public comments from people who have pressing obligations. This policy, which I believe has been in effect since around 1997, discriminates in particular against families with children, as well as the public in general.

When I asked at the city manager's office about obtaining an appointment with him to discuss the public restrooms, I was threatened with arrest for "belligerence." This is not the first time. When I raised the same issue at a city council meeting when then-Mayor Mike Kasperzak was presiding, he also threatened to have the Sergeant-at-Arms arrest me.

When the train station first opened, and I sat in the front row so that I could ask questions, I was told that the unmarked seats were reserved and that I would have to sit far in the back. When I refused to move, I was arrested and taken away in a squad car, but not booked for a crime.

I think our city employees should be required to have training concerning Article I, Section 3 of the California State Constitution, or at least be required to study its annotations which are available in the reference section of the library.

Also, it would be very helpful if there were a way to search Mountain View Voice headlines (or better yet, full-text) from the pre-2000 era. Perhaps there is a local company specializing in information retrieval and with employees socially interested enough to volunteer some of their time for such a task. I hope so.

James Salsman
Mount Vernon Court

Demise of local farm could hurt entire city

Editor:

I have recently learned of the strong possibility that the farm on Grant Road in Mountain View may be closing for good.

This issue concerning the property's future deeply saddens me. As a community, we need the farm. So many great pieces of Americana are thrown away every year, whether it be bulldozing over a fruit orchard to make way for a shopping center, or replacing a historical building with a Wal-Mart full of cheap prices so the overly gullible public can put even more of small-town America out of business.

The farm represents so beautifully a deep and passionate love for America, not a cheap and disillusioned America, but a country-roads-take-me-home type of America. It is a place where time stands still for a moment, and wonderful aromas of fresh produce only enhance the feelings of tranquility brought on by a lone windmill, an empty road, and rows of fruits and vegetables.

The farm in Mountain View is so beautiful that losing it would be beyond disheartening. I know it's an expensive piece of land. But if the owners don't want it, then perhaps the city can recruit volunteers to keep the place running. It may be expensive in the short term, but for current and future generations, maintaining this farm will have plenty of long-term benefits.

There is a quote by Captain Janeway in an episode of "Star Trek: Voyager:" "If we ignore our principles, we forget who we are." The more we take away, the harder it will be to bring those ideals back, and the awesome lessons that we once learned will be long forgotten.

And despite how many CEOs coerce you into believing that everything will turn out just fine, once this is broken, no amount of money can fix it. I urge everybody to write letters of discontent to city hall over a possible closure. Call in. Make yourself heard. For this farm represents who we were, what once was and what can be again. It represents hope in a world where much of it has gone astray. It's a landmark, a historical treasure and taking it away would be like removing part of our souls.

Daniel Mart
Awalt Drive

Can city afford new contract for employees?

Editor:

In regard to the Aug. 20 article, "Workers win new city contract:" Especially in a time of decreased revenues, it is unreasonable for the city to pay workers more for doing the same job, to fully absorb the average cost of health insurance per worker when that cost is rising, to create three new paid holidays, and to add a signing bonus on top of all this and the binding arbitration provision.

In the end, Kathy Farrar, director of city services, agreed to present for the council's approval a generous deal that her fellow co-workers should be delighted with.

As Mayor Matt Pear observed in the article but apparently is not intending on acting to prevent, the provisions of the contract read like they will make it harder to afford maintaining the current level of service. Combine that with compensation and benefits per police officer and per firefighter that increase with every new contract -- irrespective of the rise or fall of city revenues -- that I've read about in the Voice in years past, and inevitably the current level of service will fall. Inevitable, that is, unless city revenues rise to cover all the rising costs associated with the various types of city workers.

Guiding principles and a list of priorities must be stated if there is ever going to be an improvement upon the current situation. If the city will provide only services that meet the standard of being both basic and very traditional, and if the city will hire workers only after a suitable publicity campaign and with compensation that is no higher than what is necessary to attract a few dozen serious, qualified applicants to fill a vacancy, then the city's funds will have been well spent.

City employees can be treated with respect, courtesy, and even kindness while being compensated according to the above standard. That is fair treatment, in keeping with hiring employees, not adopting them.

Fred Levins
Snow Street

Kerry will work to secure ports, air terminals

Editor:

Six thousand million people are alive in the world today; it only took 20 determined terrorists to bring down the World Trade Center. These numbers show that we can't stop all those who would indulge in terrorism; certainly not by arrogant bluster nor even by solely using our military might to trash foreign countries (we are rapidly running out of resources to even take down one more country, let alone the world).

We must instead focus on reality: "hardening" our infrastructure to be more survivable in the event of an attack; inspecting our ports and air cargo to minimize the chance of a "real" WMD being delivered into one of our major cities.

These ideas are expensive and not glamorous. They also have been ignored by the current administration to our great peril.

John Kerry will provide the support needed to insure our domestic security (he wrote legislation funding 100,000 new cops, since de-funded by President Bush). His focus will be on reality not image or ideology.

Ed Taub
Devoto Street

E-mail a friend a link to this story.