Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor (January 28, 2005)

Odd reasoning in parcel tax lawsuit

Editor:

Aaron Katz's idea of only letting owners vote has troubling implications. Do owners vote by parcel? What would prevent an owner from subdividing a property to get more votes? Can a person buy more property to get more votes? Or is it one owner, one vote? And if so, how do the owners of corporate or partnership land vote?

Will owners of corporate stock have to vote on every municipal tax measure in every California town the corporation owns property in? Will foreign owners of property get to vote on U.S. tax law because they own property in the U.S.? How do owners of mutual funds vote, or do the fund managers get to wield huge voting blocks by proxy?

It seemed like a huge miscarriage of justice that the case wasn't thrown out. U.S. democracy is based on citizenship, not ownership. It seems so fundamental, yet some people seem to forget that you can't buy your way into citizenship and the franchise. More importantly, how many Mountain View citizens would be disenfranchised if only land owners voted on taxes?

Hopefully, somebody with deeper pockets than the struggling school district will stand up for the principle of "one man, one vote" against Katz's vision of government for the owners. Rich Sachen Jr. Petaluma

Some reasons to redraw school boundaries

Editor:

As the Mountain View-Whisman School District faces closure of one of its schools, I question why elementary students living in the area bordered by El Camino Real, Central Expressway, Rengstorff Avenue and Del Medio Avenue (all within the Mountain View city limits) are part of the Los Altos School District.

Why are the Old Mill, Ryan Townhouses and similar complexes not part of the Mountain View district? Could the boundary lines be redrawn? Students in those complexes wouldn't necessarily have to attend Castro School since the district has an open enrollment policy. What would be the impact on Los Altos? Nadine O'Leary Thompson Square

In support of Mayfield development

Editor:

I'm writing in response to your article on Mayfield in the Jan. 21 edition, and issues of housing in our area generally.

I work in Mountain View. I would like to live there, but I can't afford to, or really anywhere in the area.

Kudos to those who spoke in favor of the Mayfield development and to the rare developers who have embraced responsible growth.

While opponents of density usually cite concerns like traffic to explain their position, the message it projects, intentionally or unintentionally, is that if you can't afford to rent or buy a detached suburban house and a yard, you're not welcome in the community. Doesn't a person have a right to take up less space if it fits his budget or lifestyle?

The world is crowded, over 5 billion of us last time I checked, and some of us want to live in your neighborhood. Deal with it. Nicholas Kibre Redwood City

E-mail a friend a link to this story.