Letters Letters (February 27, 2004)

Get state out of debt

Editor,

Everyone agrees that credit, used responsibly, is a good thing - it allows consumers to buy necessary and needed products. Given what has happened in the recent past with some of California's financial and budget decisions, this is a point worth repeating - responsible use of credit is a good thing. Unfortunately, our state hasn't used credit very responsibly in the past. Nor have we made reasonably responsible money management decisions.

In fact, in looking closely at the "state of the State of California," it might remind some of the "over-extended" consumers that proliferate in financial advice columns and on talk shows. The average over-extended consumers spend more than they make, use credit irresponsibly, don't save enough for "a rainy day," pay too much for goods and services or pay for services they don't really need, and don't have a budget that allows them to get out of debt. How is this different from the State of California?

In the recent past, our government has over-spent the state into a financial crisis. Year after year, our elected officials talk about amassing various forms of credit to bridge the financial gaps and make no plans for unforeseen circumstances. We have agencies and departments of government that are duplicative in purpose and practice, and our legislators consistently propose budgets which keep us in a deficit, with no realistic plans for increasing revenue or decreasing spending.

I suggest we give the same advice to our state that we give to those over-extended consumers: Get out of debt as quickly as possible, limit spending, cut goods and services you either don't need or are redundant, have a plan for that "rainy day" and adhere rigorously to a budget that is balanced and allows for some savings, some prosperity.

All of these things would be accomplished through the passage of propositions 57 and 58 - the Economic Recovery Bond initiative and the Balanced Budget initiative - both on the March 2 ballot. It's time to get California out of its budget crisis. Tom MantorPresident, Chief Operating Officer, Bank of Walnut Creek Vote Yes on Measure B

Editor,

On March 2, voters in the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that will allow Las Positas College to fully build out the campus in Livermore, adding dozens of classrooms, science and technology centers and facilities needed for job and career training.

Pressure from increasing population has necessitated this measure, and the college district is acting properly and responsibly by requesting the proposed campus expansion. Because the state's other higher education systems are becoming so expensive, more and more residents are relying on community colleges as an affordable alternative.

Las Positas College's basic, no-frills request is reasonable and straightforward, allowing for annual audits with citizen oversight. Funds will remain local and cannot be used for salaries.

Given our current economic climate, it would be desirable to postpone these new expenditures for a year or two. However, inflexibilities in the funding process precludes this without causing the district to essentially start the process all over with additional expenses and higher capital costs when building eventually occurs.

The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce believes that strong schools are essential to a vibrant community, a dynamic business environment and a high quality of life for all. Las Positas College is your college - your property. Protect your investment and join me in voting Yes on Measure B. David BouchardPresident, CEO, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Yes on Measure 2

Editor,

I urge every voter to support Regional Measure 2, which will generate nearly $4 billion for Bay Area transportation projects by raising bridge tolls $1 (with the exception of the Golden Gate Bridge).

Here's why: By 2025, the Bay Area will be home to 1.5 million new residents. This increase in population will also increase traffic congestion by 250 percent. The projects this money will address include funding for BART extensions and seismic improvements, more ferries on the Bay, a fourth bore for the Caldecott Tunnel and a new Transbay Terminal linking multiple transit services. Closer to us, $65 million of this money will make possible improvements to the I-580 corridor, which not surprisingly represents #3 and #4 of the top 10 congested roadways in the Bay Area.

In an effort to balance the State budget, the Governor proposes to sweep all Public Transportation Account "spillover" funds back into the general fund, which loss will result in eliminating $15 million that would have been available for the State Transit Assistance program, the only source for local transit operating funds. The Governor proposes to suspend Proposition 42 monies - resulting in $1.1 billion remaining in the General Fund rather than the Public Transportation Account. The Governor proposes to repeal the Traffic Congestion Relief Program project list, as well as repeal the High Speed Rail bond, which we voters approved in 2002.

The Governor, by statute, can't touch Measure 2 money. This is the best avenue we have to secure transportation funding in the Bay Area. Vote Yes on Regional Measure 2. Jennifer HostermanChardonnay Drive Keep shops, services at Vintage Hills

Editor,

In the quest for a spot for affordable housing, we fear that the Planning Commission continues to eye the Vintage Hills Shopping Center. The commission has a responsibility to stay true to the General Plan, which provides services such as shopping centers, dry cleaners, eateries, hair salons and community gathering spots to each neighborhood. The owner has convinced some on the Planning Commission that the property isn't a viable spot for a shopping center. That is difficult for us to believe since the neighborhoods of Vintage Hills, Ruby Hill, Vineyard Avenue, California Glen and Kottinger Ranch must drive across town or into Livermore to shop.

Vintage Hills is one of the few communities in town that doesn't have a gathering spot. We would much rather walk or take a short drive to buy a coffee, drop off dry cleaning, rent a video, buy an ice cream, and pick up some groceries than add to the city's "traffic problems" by driving across town.

Of course the owner will make substantially more money if residential development is allowed on this corner. We ask the Planning Commissioners to remember they work for the residents who were promised services on that corner. The owner should not be allowed to let the property decay and wait for the city to change its mind. If the city closes the door on the possibility of changing the commercial zoning, we are sure the owner will find a buyer or once again lease these desirable spaces.

We encourage the surrounding residents to attend the city planning meetings to express your desire to keep the Vintage Hills Shopping Center commercially zoned rather than adding 188 residential units. In closing, where would the children of a new Vintage Hills residential development go to school much less enjoy an ice cream? Colin and Candace CeaseBlanc Court Don't expand waterslides

Editor,

This letter is in response to the Weekly's editorial opinion Feb. 6 supporting the expansion of the existing Shadowcliff water park. The editorial states that this expansion is needed for the youth of the city and also it is a "cost-free opportunity" for the city of Pleasanton. The following is a rebuttal to this view: 1. Editorial states: "It will provide greater recreational activities for Pleasanton Families." Rebuttal: The city's youth have over 38 parks, including 11 soccer fields, 14 baseball fields, two basketball courts, four pools, tennis courts, bike paths and a new sports park that will be opening in May of this year. It is difficult to understand why we would need this hideous park when Pleasanton offers so much more to its youth than most cities. This is one of the reasons why most families chose to live here. If families wanted to live in communities that have amusement/water parks, they would have chosen to live there. This city has attracted families to live here by its beautiful, serene, park-like settings, not because of a monstrous water park. 2. Editorial states: "It will provide $40,000 in sales tax revenue to Pleasanton." Rebuttal: As numerous opposition letters have stated, this water park will be a burden to the citizens of Pleasanton. The said "benefits" of this water park will be negated by a major increase in traffic, crime, pollution and noise. Not only will we see our beautiful city deteriorate because of this water park, we will also have to face an increase in our taxes to pay for the burden that this water park will ultimately bring to our city. Does this water park really justify a mere $40,000 a year to Pleasanton?

We urge the City Council members to vote against the expansion of this ill-placed water park! Keep Pleasanton beautiful! Briana SchererPleasanton It this 'planned progress'?

Editor,

When our family moved to Pleasanton 24 years ago, I thought our city's slogan "City of Planned Progress" was amusing! If the City Council approves the proposed water park, the Council will be making our slogan a joke. Putting a full-scale water park in the heart of Pleasanton makes a mockery of our city's slogan and, to our family, changes the hometown feel of our city forever!

Over the past three years, our family has paid two visits to the Concord water park. We will not be returning. It is a congested, disgustingly dirty eyesore. Is that an example of what our city wants and needs? I don't think so. We already have a water park at Shadowcliff with lots of recreational space that our family uses to hike, bike, walk our dog and enjoy birdwatching. It is safe and private - a little piece of open space in our already congested lives.

A massive commercial water park is not appropriate for our "City of Planned Progress." It's not a joke, it's a fact. Sharon CorsiePleasanton

E-mail a friend a link to this story.