Letters Letters (January 14, 2005)

Late night drunks are a concern

Editor,

Regarding your article concerning the Oddfellows British Pub (Dec. 24), I want to clarify what was actually said and done at the Planning Commission meeting, which voted 3-1, not 4-0, for the restaurant. As a resident of downtown Pleasanton, I made an appeal to keep our neighborhood quiet and safe. It saddens me that my position was misrepresented in your article and the main points were missed altogether, which were:

First, we love living in downtown Pleasanton. We feel safe here and find that most people have no hesitations being in our downtown after dark. I observe firsthand that people do not frequent downtown restaurants late at night during the week. Although most of them have permission to be open and serve alcohol until 1 a.m., they are closed by 10 p.m. This tells me that the people of Pleasanton are family oriented. They are at home asleep during weeknights. I think this says wonderful things about the quality of life we have in our town!

Secondly, the Pub will provide 72 parking spaces for 188 customers plus 15 employees on Friday and Saturday nights until 1 a.m., with live music and dancing. Who would want this four doors from their home? This will impact our family. Our two young children sleep in the front bedroom and have been awakened by drunken laughter and car doors slamming. From First Wednesday Street Parties a car was hit in front of our home by an intoxicated woman, and we have had litter and defecation on our driveway.

Are we concerned? Yes! Brenda SauterSt. Mary Street Don't change name of Cal State Hayward

Editor,

As a Cal State Hayward alum and a former resident of Hayward, I do not support the name change. The city of Hayward is home to Cal State Hayward. It is hogwash to imply that "the Hayward campus is merely the largest campus of a more widely recognized and growing regional university." Additionally, the name change will NOT be "a genuine credit" to the Hayward community. Peter BauerSan Rafael Recall would address airport problems

Editor,

As a member of the committee looking at the Livermore Airport expansion (and going to www.lacg.org), it was clear the committee was run with lack of integrity from the city staff and that the chairperson was manipulating the agenda. The committee was extremely pro-aviation biased, and suggestions made by committee members were not allowed to be discussed and added as recommendations for the City Council. Major sections of the Master Plan were not allowed to be discussed.

We are dealing with a Livermore mayor, City Council and city staff who are intent on making Livermore Airport focused on business/charter service, away from recreational use, and damn the lives of the 180,000 people in the Tri-Valley. For 15 years we have averaged 200,000 flights per year, yet magically this increases to 370,000 (and a jet every 30 minutes) with the new plan; the Livermore Airport Master Plan indicates that attracting business/charter jet service is a critical part of it.

The runways do not need to be extended - the consultant indicated that there is no safety reason for this. There is no reason to build an aviation business park - it is negligible tax revenue and encourages businesses that will be dependent on increasing flights. Our quality of life and our property values will decrease and, once passed, we are stuck with it forever. There is a current noise problem that was not allowed to be discussed. The City Council should be promoting no growth for airport traffic, instead of finding ways to increase it.

What's it going to take to get this stopped? A recall initiative? Trust me, this will be very easy to finance and put in place. We need airport No Growth and to lower the current noise. Purnam ShethLivermore

E-mail a friend a link to this story.