Electorally disenfranchised
What person, or body of authority, oversees the groups of vengeful bullies that censure elected colleagues over differing ideologies and personality conflicts?
Prior to casting my vote for candidates, I spend great amounts of time in due diligence research.
I was satisfied with my vote for Rebecca Eisenberg. I continued to be 100% contented with her representation, as she fulfilled her term in service on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board.
I understood and appreciated that Eisenberg’s intent was to bring forward transparency and accountability, for the benefit of her constituents.
Colleagues having censured and removed her from full board authority amounts to election interference. As a result, I have been electorally disenfranchised.
Who is in authority, to ensure my candidate will not be hog-tied and forced out of action, by super-sensitive officials that overstepped their bounds, and that ultimately, negated my vote?
Ronna Devincenzi
Palo Alto
Thwart the check thieves
Regarding the April 3 letter about check washing (“Beware of First Street mailboxes”): The suggestion to mail every letter that has a check inside it directly at the post office is a good suggestion, but what keeps it from being stolen from the mailbox at the receiving end? I’ve always been told to use indelible ink when writing checks. I believe it is much harder to wash if not impossible. I keep my Sharpie beside my checkbook.
Diane Brauch
Los Altos Hills
Parking plaza priorities
At a Los Altos Community Coalition meeting a few weeks ago, city staff shared their very preliminary plans for lots one and two: a park with underground parking. When asked why developing lots one and two has priority over lots seven and eight, my takeaway was “it’s easier and faster; planning affordable housing is much more complex.”
At the city council study session on April 9, when staff were asked about lots seven and eight, they replied that both are in the budget. One councilperson asked that lots seven, eight and nine be considered. A super-majority approved that staff proceed with lots one and two.
But which offers the bigger payoff? Lots one and two or lots seven, eight and nine?
Which addresses the state demands for more housing? (Housing for those who work in Los Altos).
Which would draw more foot traffic to downtown businesses?
And which would be a logical place for a park?
Planning for lots one and two diverts precious resources from the much bigger payoffs – planning lots seven, eight and nine.
Affordable housing on lots seven, eight and nine. The sooner the better!
Lou Cartalano
Los Altos
