The Cupertino Courier

Letters & Opinions

Speak Out

DeCinzo supporter calls
him clever, creative

A couple of readers wrote in to complain about DeCinzo's cartoons (Cupertino Courier 4/5/06). I have to say that I totally disagree with them. DeCinzo is the first thing that I look for in the paper every Wednesday. His funny and creative depiction of events always provides an insightful perspective, even if I don't agree with it.

Perhaps we all ought to look for that well-hidden sense of humor and learn to laugh at ourselves a little better.

Armineh Noravian

Cupertino

$500 fee for disagreeing
with council is a bad idea

I find it quite disturbing that the mayor and city council members of Cupertino are so sore about their decision to not listen to the people during public hearings they now want to impose a $500 fee for someone to challenge their decisions. The people voiced their opposition to the two condo developments when they were brought up for public input at the planning commission and the city council meetings. However, our elected officials paid only scant attention to the opposition while they ate up the sales pitch of Toll Brothers.

Our elected officials chose to take some of the most valuable industrial and retail property in our city and rezone it for residential usage. This effort will not do anything to bring affordable housing to Cupertino, nor will it do anything to bring more jobs into Cupertino.

Now they are stuck in a corner. They will not admit they were wrong, so they fight back by playing dictator and imposing penalties on anyone who disagrees with them.

Citizens of Cupertino, we did the right thing by opposing this crazy decision of these elected officials. We have put a stop to the construction until November 2007. When that date comes around we should also VTBO (Vote the Bums Out). It is time to get people on the city council who will listen to the people, not the developers.

Al De Ridder

Cupertino

City-imposed parking fee
called annoying 'ransom'

The recent decision (May 2, 2006) of the city council to continue to require the payment of a fee for residential parking permits for an additional 18 months is an enigma to the over 200 affected families who have refused to pay the fee. Despite the fact that each of the council members expressed the opinion that the unpopular fee is poor policy, they then uniformly voted to prolong it.

Although this inconsistent dichotomy of inaction was apparently based on the desire to appease the emotions of the slightly more than half of the affected residents who had already paid for the stickers, perpetuating the problem by doing nothing reflects a complete lack of creative leadership. Continuing to demand that over 500 Cupertino residents pay a ransom in order to park on public streets, in front of their own homes, is an inequitable and regrettable city policy. Foregoing the perfect opportunity to remedy this absurd requirement is inexcusable.

Bill Kuncz

Phar Lap Drive

Position on parking fees
clarified by resident

I am sorry I did not make my position regarding parking fees more clear. I am against the parking fees. I spoke twice at each of two monthly city council meetings against permit parking fees. I helped collect signatures and submitted petitions from 37 neighbors against parking fees, asking that the current fees be rescinded and refunded. When I was speaking at city council on May 2, it is hard for me to believe that the simple hypothetical I suggested in which folks would have to pay for parking permits that they might not need or use just to get ordinary city services like street-sweeping--for which others do not pay--was somehow misconstrued into me actually wanting to pay for parking in front of my own house. Please. If you want to pay to park in front of your own home, more power to you. But please do not misconstrue a single hypothetical verbal construction as support for fees for permit parking because I have been, am, and will continue to be against permit parking fees. I do believe we need permit parking in some areas, but I do not believe residents should be required to pay for the permits. Thank you for printing this explanation and correction. And thanks for getting the spelling of my name correct!

Michael Jordan

Cupertino

DeCinzo target thinks
some should lighten up

I am bemused by today's letter by my longtime friend, Jim Walker, and the earlier expression from Hung Wei, with regard to the despicable morals and character of DeCinzo as displayed by his frequent political cartoons in The Courier. I was the subject of a DeCinzo cartoon about 10 years ago. While many of my friends thought it was highly offensive, I think it was the most amusing cartoon he ever published. Mr. Walker appears to be the sworn enemy of sweet reason when he claims DeCinzo's cartoons drive hoards of valuable volunteers away from public service. But, if true, the city should require all volunteers to remove all chips from their shoulders before being accepted for volunteer work that may subject them to DeCinzo's alleged bile.

Rather than sob to the world for the injustices heaped by DeCinzo on masses of unsuspecting and undeserving victims, the grief of Messrs. Walker and Wei would be much better resolved by a very simple and more effective solution. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, pilgrim; if there ain't no beauty there for you, don't behold it. Meanwhile, the rest of your readership will continue to enjoy our lives (and DeCinzo's art).

Gordon Frolich

Belknap Court