Saratoga News

Letters & Opinions

Speak Out

Kevin Moran Park is a
place for inner-peace

Perhaps it is time for the citizens of Saratoga to reflect upon why Kevin Moran Park is named such. How many remember that sad day in April 1970? How Kevin was killed?

In these present times of opposing viewpoints, both political and moral, a place where citizens should take time for thought, inner-reflection and sanctuary from life stresses, no place could be any more appropriate than Kevin Moran Park. Why? Kevin was standing up to radicals without a true purpose aside from destruction.

Don't destroy a place where inner-peace can be achieved and also reflect upon why.

In fond memory of Kevin Moran,

Jeff Barlow

Highland Lakes, N.J.

Jeff Barlow is a graduate of Saratoga High School, class of 1966.

Saratoga should
get the easement

Crossing the railroad tracks between Lido and Fredericksburg, jogging with my dog on our way home from Blue Hills Elementary School--a frequent activity, this time to watch my fifth-grader launch the class rockets--I noticed, with some degree of shock I might add, the Union Pacific posted notice that the "crossing is subject to closure."

I hurried the rest of the way home, chanting in my head the phone number on the sign. Even though I didn't think I had any "legally entitled" recourse, I wanted to know more and to tell Union Pacific just what I thought of them for closing the crossing.

Well, to begin with, my call was answered right away, which caught me off guard. Then, Joel was unexpectedly friendly and informative, which dissipated my desire to ream someone at Union Pacific. He gave me quite an informative history of the situation. Here's a brief recap of what I learned:

* Without a responsible party (i.e., city of Saratoga) to ensure safety measures, the crossing is a liability nightmare, which right now falls onto Union Pacific

* It is not Union Pacific's responsibility to make the crossing safe

* For 27 years the crossing has been there illegally (i.e., the city of Saratoga has neither followed through on initial steps taken to obtain an easement allowing the crossing, nor taken any steps to make it safe)

* 27 years ago, the California Public Utilities Commission requested the city of Saratoga obtain an easement and take steps to make the crossing safe (this didn't happen)

* Five years ago, and again a couple years ago, the CPUC repeated this request (again, this didn't happen)

* The CPUC has now ordered Union Pacific to post the "subject to closure" notices

* The CPUC has ordered (not requested) the city of Saratoga to close the crossing

I found it interesting, in a very frustrating and annoying sort of way, how the responsibility for the railroad crossing's "subject to closure" status seems to belong to the city of Saratoga, not to Union Pacific as I had first thought. I am disappointed in our city representation for not looking out for the residents who use this crossing daily--going to school, going to the park, going to the store, going to a friend's house or just going for a walk. So, where can it go from here? I see a few of options:

* Option 1: The city again does not comply--CPUC closes the crossing

* Option 2: The city again does not comply--nothing happens, the crossing stays illegally open, but the liability for it has now been put on the city so if something unthinkable and tragic were to happen, the city could be sued and all of us would pay through taxes (not to mention feeling the tragedy)

* Option 3: The city decides maybe it's finally time to consider its residents and take ownership of this crossing, but unfortunately discovers it has been so difficult to work with for so long that it is too late to keep the crossing and the alternative is to build a bridge over the railroad tracks

Obviously, none of these options hold any degree of desirability for anyone. One last option, and it's only an option if Union Pacific agrees to give Saratoga one last chance, is that the city of Saratoga gets it together and takes care of the situation as it should have done years ago--get the easement, do what it takes to make the crossing safe and play nice with Union Pacific and CPUC. Saratoga, do it for your residents.

Joan Holland

Sheridan Circle

Is it education, or is
it indoctrination?

Any debate about whether life forms have diversified by evolution or intelligent design or some other means needs to be preceded by a discussion of how life was created in the first place. Evolution theory speculates that the first life form resulted from a freak accident involving a necessary combination of conditions and circumstances that not only allowed life to form but also to survive. (Some might refer to the "freak accident" as a "miracle," but that would have too much of a religious connotation for others.)

However, a theory requires proof before it deserves to become universally accepted as valid. Proof in the scientific sense conventionally involves experimental replication of the process upon which the theory is based. Many attempts have been made to replicate the "freak accident" but all have ended in abject failure. Although these failures do not prove that a "freak accident" could not have created life, they certainly do provide justification for skepticism.

When we move on to debate how our Earth has become blessed with, or in some cases plagued by, such a diversity of life forms, we might expect that evolutionists would encourage us to believe that there were many "freak accidents" which created various forms of life. However, instead they ask us to believe their theory that all of this diversity is the result of a succession of mutations originating from that original single specimen of life.

Although it is commonly accepted that evolution by mutation has been demonstrated by observation, how the mutation process could have been initiated by that single specimen has not. Here again we are faced with a theory that requires proof by replication. However, any attempts at experimental verification would have to presume specific knowledge about the original specimen. Having such knowledge would be questionable without first replicating the "freak accident" to create a sample of that specimen.

Doesn't an educational establishment that presents to its students an unproven theory about a given subject have a responsibility to tell them the theory has not been proven, and doesn't it have an obligation to also present other unproven theories about that same subject? And won't students become better educated if they are presented these multiple unproven theories in an unbiased manner and allowed to form their own conclusions? Doesn't presenting an unproven theory as fact or presenting only one of the available unproven theories constitute indoctrination rather than education?

Wesley I. Ferguson

Chateau Drive