The Sun
Sunnyvale's Newspaper

Letters

Somebody quiet those darn dogs

It is 4 a.m., and I have just been awakened by one of the neighborhood barking dogs, again. There are about six dogs within ear-shot that have been barking at all hours of the day and night ever since I moved to this address in Sunnyvale, five years ago. The dog owners I've talked to are not interested in doing anything about their barking dogs. Their reply is "dogs are supposed to bark" or "I have to leave my dog outside."

The fundamental problem is not the dogs. Untrained dogs typically bark a lot. The problem is also not the dog owners, though they could be more responsible.

The fundamental problem is that the city of Sunnyvale's barking-dog policy is cumbersome and ineffective. I have attempted to follow the policy, with calls to the police, midnight walks through the neighborhood to get the address of the barking dog(s) and keeping a log of occurrences. This is all time consuming, which would be worth it if there was some good that came of it, but there is not. The dogs still bark.

All the barking dog policy has accomplished is to irritate my neighbors. Closely coupled with the ineffectiveness of the barking dog policy is the attempt by the Sunnyvale Police to enforce it. The first required piece of information when filing a complaint is the address of the barking dog. The police report for one of my complaints reads "no dog at this address." However, there is in fact a dog that has been living (and barking) at that address for the entire five years that I've been their neighbor. This demonstrates that the Sunnyvale Police officers are not even able to locate the correct address.

The barking dog policy in unincorporated areas of San Mateo County (e.g., the City of Moss Beach) is that if two complaints are filed, the dog is removed. This may seem extreme, but it happened to a friend of mine. I suggest a simple and effective policy similar to that and enforcement to go with it. Otherwise, I will never get any peace and quiet during the day or sleep at night.

David B. Signor
Sunnyvale

City officials should listen to constituents

Much to the chagrin of many Sunnyvale residents, the bureaucrats' vision to "mini-Manhattanize" downtown Sunnyvale is alive and well. This is quite apparent from recent articles in The Sun and the city's presentation at what the City Manager called the Education (Brainwashing) Meeting, as well as the recent action of the City Council to create a development agreement.

Perhaps it is relevant at this point to review past City Council actions regarding downtown: In the '70s the City Council approved the destruction of downtown Sunnyvale, over the anguished cries of the citizens, to allow Hahn to create his White Elephant known to all as the Town Center. In the early '90s the City Council approved Concept C (now known as the Downtown Specific Plan), the current massive redevelopment plan for this section of our community, again to the great disappointment of the city's citizens. Concept C was a bad plan then and unlike fine red wine, it hasn't improved with age. If anything, it is easier to see today what a horrible solution it would be for this part of town.

It is important that staff and the council be reminded that the property they are considering developing does not belong to them. It belongs to the citizens of this city. It takes a prodigious amount of arrogance to "blow off" citizens' input, as is currently taking place. Instead of seeking input on the pros and cons of high density/high rise development for this part of downtown, the city has instead invited citizens to discuss landscaping and bench colors. Well, whoopee, though now I guess we can't claim we aren't being included.

At the brainwashing session we were asked what we thought would attract us and our neighbors to downtown. There were a variety of suggestions regarding low profile, low density uses that would draw one to downtown, quite the opposite of the half million square feet of high density/high rise office space being proposed. The citizens' message, in other words, was to emulate Los Altos rather than Manhattan--input the City Council members in attendance no doubt heard, but from their actions on June 23 seem to be ignoring, with the exception of Stan Kawczynski.

A recent Sun article stated "The concept for the new downtown is to incorporate a small town feel, which is the antithesis to the super mall of the '70s, when the Town Center was built."

Well, five and six-plus story buildings are certainly the antithesis of my definition of a small town feel for the late '90s.

Fred Fowler, stating the obvious, was quoted as saying, "This will set the destiny for many years to come," a comment that only reinforces the need to take a long hard look at the concept he and the majority of councilmembers are trying to rush into implementing against substantial opposition from the city's residents.

It is time to dump the Downtown Specific Plan and redefine the development guidelines for this part of our city--less dense, less intense, no five and six-plus story buildings, more retail, less office, maybe some residential--but this can only be accomplished by creating a true public forum for discussing what we want done with our property, or for years to come we will all have to put up with an even bigger version of Hahn's huge White Elephant, built with no more thought than to satisfy the ambitions of the City's bureaucrats and politicians and generate more revenue for them to spend. If you don't share their vision, it's time to write or call the councilmembers and express your beliefs. Nothing less will derail their high rise/high density dream.

Ray Johnson
Sunnyvale

[ Back to Contents Page | Sunnyvale Sun Home Page | Archives ]

The Sun Sunnyvale's Newspaper

Letters

The Sun
Sunnyvale's Newspaper