May 27, 2008

Letters

Protect school property

Dear Editor: From researching the Palo Alto Unified School District facilities to oppose the Measure A property bond, I have determined that there are about $3 billion in land, buildings and improvements on the various sites owned by the school district. The lands and buildings have been funded by gifts, eminent domain seizures, bond revenue and ordinary revenue over the last century.

The PAUSD administration has shown itself to be a very poor manager of these facilities. What is missing is an "owner" - someone tasked with being the facilities manager who is charged with fighting for the grounds and buildings as if he/she actually "owned" them. This person would report directly to the school board. He/she would need to have an MS/ME or MS/CE, have at least 10 years of experience, and at least one experience as a project manager running a $50 million project. This job would be on a five-year contract to reduce the likelihood of local "entanglements."

Educators do not have the appropriate real-world backgrounds to take on the wild and woolly world of construction, architecture, contract management and a host of other skills necessary to insure that projects are completed on time and within budget.

Given the poor history of construction project management at PAUSD, having a construction-industry professional in charge of the buildings and future construction/refurbishment is the only way that the taxpayers "investments" will not be wasted by school district personnel who are not up to the job of managing this multibillion dollar public asset.

Wayne Martin,

Palo Alto







Clinton, Obama

Dear Editor: After the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, there has been tremendous pressure from politicians, the media (particularly MSNBC and NBC) and Sen. Barack Obama's supporters for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race, reasoning that she can't overtake Obama's lead. According to the rules, Obama has to win 2,025 delegates to be nominated. Obama has not yet reached that required number. And we do not know whether he will garner the required number in the remaining primaries. So, why should Sen. Clinton quit? Let's wait and actually see if anyone can win the 2,025 delegates.

Amante Manzano,

Daly City



Enough with taxes

Dear Editor: Well, here it is, election time. What is the big problem that our elected officials have with balancing the budget? Taxes, taxes and more taxes. The time has come for all citizens to take a stand. No more taxes. We elect politicians to office to operate our government as efficiently as possible. We the people have no place to go for more money. The politicians in office say, go to the citizens - raise taxes.

I urge all citizens to vote "no" on all propositions to raise taxes. Enough already. Parcel tax - Measure P. Sales tax - Measure O. No matter what they call it, it is a tax. They'll try anything to get around Proposition 13. Let the politicians give up some perks.

Bill Leary,

Millbrae



Open-space initiative

Dear Editor: I have been a resident of Redwood City for 26 years. I am a small-town country girl at heart so living in the city has been an adjustment. I love open spaces and believe in the need to take care of our natural surroundings. It is because of this that I got interested in what was happening to the Cargill property.

I am concerned about the open space initiative that will most likely be on the ballot in November. I have many questions like who was going to pay for what supporters want done. The answer was, for the open space in question, American taxpayers, and for the special elections that will have to take place, Redwood City taxpayers. The cost to us will be too much. Other important things around this city will be neglected because of the lack of funds. As far as leaving the cost of purchasing and restoring to the federal government, U.S. tax dollars are being spread too thin. It's going to take too long to do it this way.

Cargill has done more for the ecology of the San Francisco Bay than many well-meaning nonprofit groups. The 50-50 plan from DMB has been well thought out and their handling of this very important piece of property, and it's future, is commendable.

Do your homework before voting on this initiative. The only people who will truly benefit from it will be the attorneys arguing disputes arising from the wording of this initiative. Let these people who are not from this city know you don't appreciate them messing with our city government.

Lynda Covey,

Redwood City



qqq



Dear Editor: The proposed open space initiative being circulated in Redwood City is a step in the wrong direction.

First, we elect the city council to make decisions about how our city is run and how our growth is managed. If we are not going to let them make decisions, then why do we elect them? David Lewis with Save the Bay must think citizens in Redwood City are a bunch idiots who are not intelligent enough to elect good people.

Second, who is Lewis to redefine open space? What they're trying to do is take existing land use designations - areas that already have development on them - and reclassify them as open space? This is yet another example of an outside political group pushing its extremist agenda on a city they have no business being in. Lewis has no stake in the partial development of the Cargill property. What he should be doing is offering solutions and so far, I've heard none. You can bet your last dollar that we will be taxed significantly and paying on it for many, many years to come for the purchase and restoration of that site and we will have virtually no use of that land.

Where's Lewis' interest in the future of Redwood City? Does he have any idea how much we need housing? How about public parks? Or schools?

We have the ability create something special, something that would be wonderful for both our families and future generations right alongside a magnificent and revitalized open space park.

I have put down roots here and have faith in the people of this city. So butt out, David Lewis.

John Nelson,

Redwood City



President Bush

Dear Editor: Is President George W. Bush completely crazy? Doesn't anyone remember that Bush and his crew of sycophants lied to us before the start of the war in Iraq about the presence of weapons of mass destruction? And isn't it possible he is lying to us again about Iran. Even if they are working on nuclear weapons, according to the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, they "would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame." This report also concluded "that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapon program." (www.dnl.gov/press_ releases/20071203_release.pdf)

On his recent trip to the Middle East, Bush consulted with Israel's Ehud Olmert and they agreed there was a need to "take tangible action to prevent Iran from moving forward on a nuclear weapons program."

On the same trip, George stopped by to see our friends in Saudi Arabia to see if they might be able to help out a little with gas prices.

They said they couldn't. Demand just wasn't high enough yet. But we did offer to "help the kingdom develop peaceful nuclear energy" just the same. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/ 051508A.shtml)

Remember that 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and they sponsor madras all throughout the Middle East that teach their students to hate the "Great Satan."

Welcome aboard the wonderful, wacky world of George W. Bush.

Don Havis,

San Mateo