Saratoga News

LETTERS

League position on G conformed to bylaws

In the debate over Measure G, Saratoga residents have been exposed to much campaigning by the proponents and opponents. Some of this debate has been contentious, which is unfortunate.

Our study of Measure G finds that the measure unambiguously preempts the city's elected representatives, the City Council, from exercising final jurisdiction on specific land use issues. As such, the measure is in direct conflict with the principle of representative and accountable government--a principle well known to our "stalwart supporters" and one which the League has proudly supported for many years.

Two individuals, both members of the League of Women Voters, have publicly criticized the LWV's position against Measure G. The criticism avoids dealing with the League's actual reasons for opposing the measure. Rather, the criticism is directed at the internal process by which our position was reached. Moreover, the critical style chosen implies special insider knowledge of "what really happened" as though something about the process was irregular and not in keeping with normal League tradition and practice. The criticism goes further to assert that the League signed false ballot arguments, and is actively misleading voters.

These are matters of integrity, and for that reason alone, the League chooses to respond, point by point, just in case some readers may have taken the above criticisms to be both factual and honest.

1. "An anomalous and partisan process." The process employed was in strict conformance with our bylaws and the same process employed countless times on as many issues during the history of the League. During the process, we never heard a word from either of our critical members.

2. "Our chapter undertook no special study. . . [etc.]." The League's special study took place from September '95 to January '96, at which time the vote was taken. A forum on the Saratoga Neighborhood Initiative was held in September at the Saratoga Library. It was sponsored by the Good Government Group; both sides were heard and it was well attended by the general public as well as the League. The League doesn't duplicate other groups' efforts if our objectives for a forum can otherwise be met. It is notable that the Board studied this issue for another three-plus months before we made our decision.

3. ". . . was not based on general membership discussion and vote. . . ." The League studies issues and, through study and discussion. arrives at positions on the issues. When a piece of legislation or a ballot measure is covered by an existing position, the board of directors votes to take a specific stand. Had we heard from many members that they were interested in this issue, we would, of course, have held a special meeting. We heard from just one, who asked to attend our January board meeting. All board meetings are open to members. Again, we never heard a word from either of our critical members. The actual vote was delivered by the board, which is our standard policy. The vote was unanimous.

4. ". . . signed a false ballot argument. . . ." Some and perhaps all of the published ballot arguments may be debatable, and some of these may never be resolved short of future judgments by the court system to the extend Measure G becomes law. However, there is a known factual error in the ballot arguments against Measure G. When Mayor Jacobs discovered the error and offered to have it corrected (in favor of the proponents) the proponents themselves refused, and the Registrar of Voters would not allow a unilateral change. In the opinion of the League, the error discovered is factually trivial, albeit unfortunately not corrected.

Readers may wonder how two longtime "stalwart supporters" could have been so unaware. The League offers no explanation for that. However, the League in good faith followed long standing, well known practices and policies in deciding to take any position and then develop such a position. Our decisions were simple and straightforward. And we never received any input until after the fact from our two published member critics.

As clarification for Jim Stuart and all Saratoga voters bewildered by the rhetoric, the League's mission statement is as follows: The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, and imbuing public policy through education and advocacy. The League neither supports or opposes political candidates and parties, but does take action on issues.

That's what we do! That's what we did with Measure G.

Candace Pratt
and Helga Ruby,
League of Women Voters

Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monte Sereno

Saratoga editor was our feature writer first

Okay, I'll start with the truth. I have a conflict of interest! I'm editor-in-chief of Bay Area Parent, Bay Area Baby and Valley Parent, the Education Guide and Enrichment Guide and The Preschool and Childcare Finder--all local regional parenting publications. You--that is the Saratoga News--stole Sue Fagalde Lick away from us. When she became your editor, she ceased to be a freelance feature writer for our publications.

Enter conflict of interest number two. I'm a Saratoga resident. Ever since Sue became your editor, I feel the quality of local news has improved. Stories are more timely. The flavor is more Saratoga--not just one of the "group-owned local rags."

Now, according to the March 13 "Seen and Heard" column, Sue is leaving you to pursue other "dreams." So, do I hunt through my ragged card file and find her number, celebrating that she may return to freelance feature writing, or do I lament my local newspaper's loss?

Sue was the first editor in a while who put the community--that's community with a big C--back into our local paper. Carolyn Leal, I look forward to seeing your new stamp upon the Saratoga News. Please, recognize the community that Sue Fagalde Lick put back into our local rag and build on this base. Good luck to you both!

Lynn Berardo

Farwell Avenue

Thanks to everyone for their contributions

The Nickel family would like to thank everyone who attended or contributed to the wonderful benefit held for Kathy last week at Saratoga High School. We are most appreciative of the well-wishes, prayers and concerns for Kathy's health and rehabilitation. Kathy is slowly improving, and we are very hopeful that over the long run she will regain much of her former capabilities.

There is no way that we can thank individually all those who attended the benefit, visited our home, prepared meals and assisted in numerous ways during the last year. By way of this letter, however, we hope to express our deep appreciation to all who have helped so much.

We feel very blessed for so many friends, who have given unselfishly for so long, particularly when there are many other deserving individuals in our area. When misfortune did strike Kathy and our family, it was comforting to know so many people, church groups, businesses and organizations in our community cared and were willing to share.

We will forever be grateful.

The Nickel Family
Jennifer, Kenneth,
Douglas, Kathy and Jeffrey

Via Ranchero Drive

Let Stop N Save Market fill the needs of shoppers

In response to Clarence Crom-well's article regarding the Stop N Save Market at Seagull Way and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, I as a Seagull Way resident and business owner in the adjacent Azule Crossing Center do not oppose their intention to sell hard liquor. In the past, the site has had a liquor store. A convenience store selling liquor is a common practice. Jack Kapoor has the legal and professional right to conduct his business in a successful manner. If his customers want to buy hard liquor, Mr. Kapoor should be allowed to serve his customers as the law allows.

I would rather see the Stop N Save Market be a successful, thriving business serving its community in a professional manner than be a struggling, dying business that cannot serve its community and is forced to conduct itself in an unprofessional and desperate manner.

The Gateway area needs successful businesses. We need a variety of businesses to meet our community needs. Stop N Save should have the right to sell hard liquor.

Personally, I rarely drink alcohol, and they should not count on my alcohol purchases for their success, but I do depend on Stop N Save as a convenience store, and I do want it to be successful. I do not want to see empty storefronts, going-out-of-business banners, for lease signs or "moving business to Cupertino" notices in the Gateway area or any shopping area of Saratoga.

If we support our Saratoga community businesses, we also support the Saratoga community as a whole. It is time for the local, vocal minority to stop dictating the future of so many Saratoga citizens.

I wish Mr. Kapoor and the rest of Saratoga's businesses a successful and prosperous 1996, and I thank them for their support of my community.

Kristin Davis

The Front Window, Azule Crossing
Zorka Avenue resident

Measure G brought out some good debate

I'm proud of Saratogans. Measure G brought out the type of debate that constitutes a healthy and involved community.

Pro or con, yes or no. . . . If this is what the democratic process is all about, I'm all for it.

Nick Binasik

Fourth Street

City Council showed some common sense

Wow! Government really can move fast when the right people know what their citizens want.

On March 12, I attended the City Council meeting to show my support for a traffic signal at Scotland and Saratoga. There were other supporters as well, some in person and some via their letters. But once this issue was actually brought before the City Council by the Public Safety Commission, the council quickly voted to take action. In light of the most recent injury accident on March 5, the council stated that "safety was their first concern" and that this signal would become a "priority."

I'd like to thank the City Council for their common sense, compassion and quick response to this issue. I hope that the light can be installed before anyone else gets hurt.

M. Ghavi

Via Grande Drive