In the Letters to the Editor in your Dec. 25 issue, Ronnie Falcao questioned whether a deal was cut between the 2009 Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association steering committee and the MiRNA (Minton's Redevelopment Neighborhood Alliance) group on which candidates would be listed on the ballot.
As coordinator of the MiRNA group's activities, I can state unequivocally that there was no deal.
Our motivation for endorsing specific candidates was stated publicly in the campaign flier we distributed supporting the three write-in candidates: "We are a group of concerned residents who feel that the current slate of candidates does not share a vision for preserving the character of Old Mountain View."
Our motivation was also discussed at length on the OMVNA online mailing list prior to the election. This mailing list is also accessible to the public, and anyone interested can read what we had to say on the subject.
We trust that these public statements are a transparent description of why we chose to endorse the candidates we endorsed.
MiRNA coordinator and
Beware traffic from Minton's project
The proposed density of the rental project on the Minton's property will not only cause more parking problems, but also more traffic congestion at the corner of Castro and Villa streets.
People who choose to own a car will drive it, and they will not board the train if they don't want to, even if the train stops right under their nose.
It's not fair for people living outside the area to support overbuilding around the "Hub" in the name of promoting mass transit. They are not the ones who will have to deal with the traffic and parking consequences when things don't work out.
Study needed to assess project
I oppose the high-density development on the Minton's property for two very practical reasons.
First, 61 units per acre is not "environmentally responsible" but rather environmentally irresponsible. It will result in further overcrowding of downtown Mountain View and the Evelyn Avenue corridor, and will further degrade the quality of life for downtown residents.
Second, I oppose relaxing the parking requirement from 2.3 spaces per unit to 1.5 per unit unless Mountain View can provide convincing evidence that it will not affect surface parking in surrounding neighborhoods.
Specifically, this would be a detailed and impartial study which shows that, all other factors being equal, residents of high-density housing near a transportation nexus own 0.8 fewer vehicles per unit than those in units not near the nexus. If Mountain View cannot provide such proof, then parking should stay at 2.3 spaces per unit.
William R. Hitchens
Surprise tickets are bad PR
The five-hour parking signs were erected on my street sometime before mid-1983 and rarely were enforced until last month, when parking tickets were issued to folks like me, residents living in homes behind the cited cars.
One would think that in the name of harmonious community relations the Police Department would have had the courtesy to alert residents about their abrupt change of ignoring these signs. But no, just send the "meter man/woman" out without a prior notice, issue tickets, and irritate folks who weren't having a problem in the first place.
Caltrain gives notice, CalTrans gives notice, and VTA gives notice when policies or services are to be changed. But somehow this courtesy or forethought is missing with the Police Department.
This story contains 611 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.