Mountain View's temporary city attorney has already made her mark (intentions) by putting forth two exceptionally abusive code ordinances, which the current City Council approved.
First, Jannie Quinn proposed (and got) the Code Compliance Permit Ordinance that requires permit fees and a very expensive city process paid for by building owners (including single-family homes) for any upgrade, improvement, or repair since the building was built (no grandfathering).
Then Quinn came up with the new tenant relocation rules that require the landlords to pay relocation costs plus $2,000 for people with disabilities, over 62 years old, or with dependent children in addition to an $8,100 mandatory hearing fee (minimum) for every eligible legal tenant forced out.
The City Council should immediately begin a recruiting process for a far more qualified city attorney so that the council will have several more qualified applicants when they pick our new permanent city attorney in June 2010. Hopefully the new permanent city attorney will be more respectful of property rights and tenant rights in the future.
Cut statue, not cops
How is it that the City Council wants to cut funding to police, fire, library, schools, etc. and yet fund $55,000 for an "artist" to make a bronze statue of geese over Shoreline Park's new Fire Station 5? All the geese do is poop on the greens.
Are we really prioritizing spending? I don't think so.
Are you saying that we have to cut firefighters and cops, but spend over $50K on a statue? Of a goose? I'm having trouble with this.
Bill Crawford, MVPD (ret.)
Better path to clean energy
In a recent (online) article about Energy Secretary Steven Chu's appearance at Stanford, Christina Kenrick wrote, "The most important policy needed to stimulate innovation and investment in clean tech is a 'long-term signal in the form of a price on carbon that will slowly ratchet up, and a cap on carbon,' he said."
I agree that the best way to create new jobs for Americans is by making clean energy less expensive than fossil fuels. Rather than "cap and trade," I support a gradually increasing fee on carbon fuels, plus a policy to return the fee to our citizens.
If we take the revenue from the carbon fee and distribute it equally to all Americans as a dividend, most families would receive more in dividends than they would pay in increased energy costs.
The best benefit of transitioning to clean energy, of course, is that it will lower the level of carbon dioxide that threatens climate stability.
I think the time is right to pass a carbon fee and dividend bill. It will create new jobs, stimulate our economy, give us energy independence and head off climate change.
This story contains 493 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.