The California State League of Women Voters has sent an advisory to all members to vote no on both propositions on the Oct. 7 ballot (or whenever they appear on the ballot).

The state board never takes a position on a proposition until they have made an exhaustive study of who the backers are and what the state financial analyst says the financial impact will be and have canvassed a number of constitutional experts as to what the legal impacts may be. Having done so, the state league advises no in this case, and after reading their explanations, I am happy to comply. But, that is not enough!

I believe that your readers need to know the reasons for these recommendations.

Proposition 53 is entitled, "Funds dedicated for state and local Infrastructure." It is asking you to OK a pay-as-you-go program for projects that are normally on the ballot as bond issues. This program will earmark a percentage of the state budget to stockpile funds for needed improvements, such as bridges, hospitals, water-delivery systems, and other large-ticket improvements. It would seem to be a good idea to have funds on hand ready for these, rather than floating another bond issue, doesn't it? But when programs are "earmarked" or mandate dedicated payouts from one year to the next, it takes money away from other programs—essential programs, such as health care, education, or public safety. The problem is that there is less than 30 percent of the state budget that is not mandated for one program or another. So, in hard times, compromises and deep cuts must be made.

Transfers from the General Fund reduce the state's flexibility in setting priorities. "Earmarking" is a bad decision.

Proposition 54 is entitled, "Classification by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin." This is another example of an action that seems good.

Trying to break down barriers between groups of citizens and creating a healthy diversity is a step in the right direction. But, like Prop 53, this initiative will not play out well. Why? Data about race, etc., will still be collected for federal mandates, as always. However, this proposition will prohibit the information gathered from being shared with local agencies, such as public health, education reform efforts, crime prevention, and civil rights enforcement, who need this input to create new and better programs for all our citizens. The California Medical Association and more than 40 other health organizations agree that Prop. 54 is bad medicine for all Californians.

Be sure to look for these two propositions. They do not appear until after the names of many, many candidates on the ballot. And, be sure to vote!

—Patricia M. Weber, President, Southwest Santa Clara Valley League of Women Voters


Photo, article were offensive, immoral

I am writing about the article under dining written by Suzanne Cristallo in the Sept. 17 Saratoga News. The article and pictures are offensive and definitely not in the moral code for a small community family newspaper. The picture is pornographic—a lady dressed in only underpants and an apron and a man in the background dressed in only an apron, socks, and shoes! Not to mention the content of the written article itself.

This is the second time I have had to write regarding this subject. The first time involved a classified ad. This issue of the newspaper is immediately going to the trash can. I will not recycle it as I will not risk having someone else exposed to this pornographic material. I have young children at home and I don't want them to see this any more than myself.

I grew up in this community and I enjoy the Saratoga News; however, I will not continue to allow this type of material into my home and family. We have already cancelled our subscription to the local daily paper due to the same issues.

—Nancy Flowers, Saratoga


Twinkle lights fine, but not green neon

I was delighted to see that the city council has approved additional twinkle lights for the village. Although I'm not certain that the lights will transform the downtown area into a highly popular nighttime venue, it will enhance the beauty of the village and make it much more appealing to those of us living in Saratoga and visitors.

On the other hand, the nighttime green neon lights glaring out of the two large windows in the new nail parlor make Saratoga look like a cheap, low-rent area. I looked to see if perhaps a brothel was opening next door as well. These lights are obnoxious and disrupt the tranquility of the village. Considering all the rules and regulations governing business in Saratoga, I find it hard to believe that these lights are allowed. They look terrible. Please turn them off.

—Kenneth Luskey, M.D., Toll Gate Road,


Tree ordinance leaves residents out on limb

While everyone's attention is focused on Iraq and the California gubernatorial recall, the Saratoga City Council is moving forward with a tree-protection ordinance that is at best costly to enforce, and at worst a punitive measure that could leave Saratogans vulnerable to harassment by an overzealous city government.

Along with many Saratoga residents, I have supported strong tree-preservation measures and successfully persuaded my colleagues on the previous city council to keep the mature oaks in the Heritage Orchard that were slated to be removed as part of the city's Heritage Orchard Master Plan. However, as a council member committed to responsible government, I cannot support this ordinance as proposed.

I'm referring specifically to the portion of the ordinance which says that if a resident cuts more than 20 percent of the canopy of a protected tree (defined as a tree with a diameter greater than 10 inches/6 inches for oaks measured 4 feet above ground level), he/she will be subject to fines and replacement costs, and could even end up with a court record (Saratoga city attorney,
Sept. 19).

Some serious questions arise here: Who determines when 20 percent has been exceeded? Will pruning in excess of 20 percent actually kill a tree? What would prevent one neighbor from pursuing a personal vendetta against another neighbor when that neighbor goes out on a Saturday afternoon and trims his tree?

I really hope we are not promulgating this law as a reaction to a high-profile enforcement situation in the village where oak trees were allegedly pruned by a homeowner to the extent that their health may have been impacted. I have asked for (and have yet to receive) evidence that excessive pruning of trees is a widespread problem in Saratoga that would justify this provision of the ordinance. History has shown that laws enacted in the heat of passion as a reaction to a specific situation prove costly to a democratic society in the long run.

On Oct. 15 the council will be holding a public hearing on the final adoption of this ordinance. Let's make sure we have an ordinance that is fair and enforceable.

—Stan Bogosian, Councilman, City of Saratoga, Lomita Avenue