Letters to the Editor: January 2, 2008

Miles,
Asking a rhetorical question - which type of organization would be more civic minded, provide nationwide name recognition and be a better for the city's finances, an amusement park or a NFL team. To get the remaining money required, sell the Great America park land, say to the NFL.

Jim Curylo
Santa Clara

RE: “State Favors Development Plan for BAREC”

If the State of California expects the voter to approve Measures A & B, then it must also accept the fact that the voter will apply due diligence in deciding whether or not the current plan for the BAREC property is good enough for the people of Santa Clara.

To date, the City has presented one and only one plan. This plan is unimaginative, uncreative and generally insensitive, towards this historic property.

The City has promised to build only 165 units of Senior Housing on a small portion of the total land and front the property on busy Winchester Boulevard. How is it that our Senior Citizens will have to face this busy street when there are a total of 17 acres? And who will decide what is affordable for them?

It is not enough to just build some small units where they will live just to satisfy the City’s quota of senior housing units. This property is located in a prime commercial area. Do we really need more housing units there?

With the current plan, not one dime of sales tax revenue will ever be applied to the paltry $70,000 in property tax revenue to be received from the 110 single-family homes that are to be built on the BAREC property. This property tax revenue would not even pay for one single public safety fire or police officer on a yearly basis.

The current proposal would also wipe out the historic buildings on the site, which could be restored as a Community Center for the Senior Citizens and a museum for the history of the land.

Last July, over 5,000 Santa Clara residents signed a referendum rejecting the City’s plan for this property. The City Council could have accepted this ‘Political Mandate’ and rescinded this plan but chose not to do so. Not all of these residents are wrong. It is okay to vote ‘NO’ on Measures A & B if the voter feels the current plan does not benefit the average citizen or the city of Santa Clara.

Brian P. Lowery

Santa Clara

I purchased a portable GPS for my wife two years ago and while I admit it has misguided us a few times it has been a real asset.

Although retired, she does several audits throughout the year, sometimes the location is in the less desirable areas of the peninsula and East Bay, thus I prefer, as a woman alone, she not have to stop and consult a map. In addition if she needs to find a place with a restroom or to grab a quick snack, it's at her fingertips.

We also use it in our motor home and tow vehicle. When you're in Barstow it's hard to find the closest ATM, restaurant (American, Asian, Barbeque, Italian, Mexican) or post office on your map, if you happen to have a map of every town you're going to be passing through. Imagine what those would cost.

GPS also gives vehicle speed and "estimated time of arrival," which can be a real convenience.

The GPS is a bargain for its safety factor alone. But, that's just my opinion.

John Azevedo
Santa Clara

[ back ]