Carl Heintze indicated in the second paragraph of his column ("Bottled water flooding the market by the gallon," May 11 ) that approximately 40 percent of bottled water is actually sold as distilled water. This could not be further from the facts.

In 1998 we sold our water store, which sold distilled water and filtered water. Distilling water is an extremely expensive procedure and unless a label indicates distilled, it is not. I do not know of any bottled water that indicates it has been distilled.

Gary and Jan Hendrickson

San Jose

Say no to sidewalk
liability ordinance

On June 15 the Saratoga City Council proposes to add ordinance 10-35 to the Municipal Code, making homeowners responsible for maintenance of the curbs and sidewalks adjacent to their homes. This ordinance will also make homeowners personally liable for injuries or property damage resulting from unsafe sidewalk conditions. Essentially, it's a new tax imposed under the threat of "slip and fall" lawsuits. It's wrong for several reasons:

1--The city is the most efficient provider of sidewalk and curb maintenance services. Residents cannot--and should not--be expected to shoulder these new burdens individually.

2--Saratoga residents already pay for these services through taxes.

3--The ordinance will invite sham lawsuits. A homeowner would face devastating defense costs.

4--Comparably sized cities (Los Gatos, Los Altos, Fremont, Gilroy) have no such ordinance. Why Saratoga?

For homeowners near parks and schools, this ordinance is especially odious. For example, Foothill Elementary School hosts softball leagues weekdays (5 p.m.-dark), all day Saturday and portions of Sunday. During league play, parked vehicles fill neighborhood streets and change frequently. The congested traffic and constant parking causes accelerated curb/sidewalk wear and tear, and results in disproportionate opportunities for accidents at the curb or sidewalk--the precise location at which this ordinance attaches liability. Homeowners near Kevin Moran Park will be similarly disadvantaged should soccer fields be constructed there. The city must ameliorate these traffic problems before imposing new liabilities on its residents.

Ordinance 10-35 is ill-conceived; Saratoga residents deserve far better treatment than a stealth tax and new, potentially devastating "slip and fall" liabilities. If this ordinance is about balancing the budget, the city council should honestly propose a tax increase or find a way to reduce expenses.

Mark Guidotti

Trinity Avenue

There is no budget
crisis in Saratoga

Sometimes things come across from your editorials that really make me shake my head. I actually agree with a lot of what you say in your piece dated June 8 ("Sale would provide money for general fund, seniors"), but one remark is just so breathtaking that I am quite (well, almost) speechless.

You say: "The city is faced with a budget crisis." This is put as though it is something that is generally accepted, but that is just not the case. Let me remind you, as I have your readers on a number of occasions:

1--The city's revenues from taxes are growing much faster than inflation, and there is every reason to expect they will continue to do so as the real estate market shows no signs of any serious slow-down.

2--The city has all sorts of money to spend on frivolities--like the subsidy for buses for people going to Villa Montalvo concerts, like the bonus for city employees, like a study of new revenue sources. Should I go on?

3) Letter writer Charles Shaw hits the nail on the head when he says that the council should listen to voter sentiment, as expressed by the pitiful failure of measures U and V.

From all these facts, I conclude that the city has no budget crisis at all. Such I would define as the inability to spend money on real essentials. It seems the mayor has in mind turning Saratoga into some sort of "Saratino" (a mix of Saratoga and Cupertino) in which the city gains huge revenues from high-traffic retail establishments, and then spends the extra tax dollars on ever more ridiculous special interests.

Altogether, I would hope that you would join the residents of this city and question: "Is that what we want?"

Peter Knight

Glasgow Drive

Cyclists, motorists
need to get along

Every once in a while it seems necessary to remind us all that "bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers. Bicyclists are part of the normal traffic flow and are entitled to share the road with other drivers." And in return for that right, we cyclists are obligated to obey the same laws as any other vehicle on the road. Now, I know we cyclists don't always live up to our side of the bargain, but check out this DMV website for some good information: www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm.

So why do I think that now is the time for this reminder? Well, as I was cycling to Saratoga on Highway 9, and approaching Quito Road, I noticed there was traffic coming from behind that would overtake me at about the time we would be in that intersection. To indicate my intention to continue straight toward Saratoga, rather than turn onto Quito, I stuck out my arm to indicate a desire to turn left (continue straight, but I wanted to be sure that the cars knew I would not be turning onto Quito).

One of the approaching cars slowed down for me, so I again signaled my intention and then crossed in front of the car, as it merged behind me to turn onto Quito. At that point the driver advised me, "Next time, don't do that."

Right up until that point, I thought we had both done everything exactly right. So I'll do it, not only next time, but every time that it is essential to communicate my intentions and remain safe as we share the road.

Dan Wolford

Los Gatos