The Sun
Sunnyvale's Newspaper

Letters

Measures L and K raise rates, not taxes

A lot has been written by the city of Sunnyvale and The Sun about measures K and L, which will be on the November ballot. These measures ask the public to approve an increase in the utility users' tax rate on electricity usage. Most of what has been written is not very clear or precise, and sometimes even confusing. The increase in the tax rate is needed to compensate for the reductions in the price of electricity directed by the state of California's Public Utilities Commission. The actual dollar values of the taxes to be paid by the consumers will remain the same.

For example, if an individual has a monthly electric bill of $50, they pay a 2 percent Sunnyvale utility tax and PG&E pays a 1 percent franchise tax, for a total of 3 percent, or $1.50. PG&E passes the cost of the franchise tax on to the consumer, but this is not made visible to the consumer. In 1998, the "charge" for the same amount of electricity used drops to $45. The Sunnyvale tax rate increases to 2.33 percent (plus the 1 percent franchise tax) and the total tax paid stays at $1.50. In 2002, the charge for the same amount of electricity used drops to $40.50. The Sunnyvale tax rate increases to 2.66 percent (plus the 1 percent franchise tax) and the total tax paid will be $1.46.

In summary, measures K and L are revenue neutral for the consumer and the city. They increase the tax rate but not the amount of taxes to be paid.

It is important to note that if Measures K and L are not passed by the residents, the city's flow of revenue will decrease, resulting in lower funding levels for vital city services. That is certainly something I do not want to see happen.

Werner Gans
Sunnyvale

Another 2 cents on the building frenzy

I am in total agreement with Creighton Bricker's opinion article on "Adding two cents' worth on Sunnyvale's building frenzy" in the Sept. 10 issue of The Sun.

I personally have not yet spoken to anyone who thinks that these high-density apartment projects are "beautiful." Everyone I have spoken with thinks that these projects are horrible--to look at, as well as for the community in the long term.

I think that it is important for the city to try to allow for much-needed new housing in the community.

However, I don't see why this cannot be done in a way that makes Sunnyvale a stronger and more attractive community. Less dense, owner-occupied single-family housing is without a doubt a preferable alternative to the high-density apartment projects.

I am really not very happy at all with the city's decisions to allow these types of high-density developments that focus on a residential rental population (in a city that apparently already has more than half its residents in rentals).

I think that this trend will be very detrimental for the community in the long run.

Sonja Blank
Sunnyvale

Neighbors learned by organizing on hotel

In your recent article entitled "Hotel project riles nearby residents," we were disappointed that the reporter did not contact a neighborhood representative for comment. The decision to fight this project was a very difficult one. The Selvis, co-developers on the project, are long-time residents and respected members of our community. However, the only way the citizens could influence the project was to organize themselves against it.

From the very beginning, the community understood that an upscale hotel could be beneficial to Sunnyvale. But the location was all wrong. Mr. Vidovich likened the hotel to the Fairmont in San Jose. The Fairmont is the center of a large commercial center in downtown San Jose. It is surrounded by other tall structures. It is near the conventions and corporate businesses which it services. In the case of the proposed hotel, over one-third is surrounded by single-family houses. At four stories and 54 feet high, it towers over the one-story structures which surround it, and is nearly 20 feet higher than the highest roof peak of the Value Inn across the street. It is not near Sunnyvale industrial or major freeway corridors, making it more of a preference for Mountain View clientele than for Sunnyvale's.

We appealed to Mr. Vidovich to build his hotel along these corridors or in the Town & Country center in Sunnyvale. There it can be instrumental in our continued revitalization of our downtown area and a benefit to all of Sunnyvale. It would be within walking distance of shopping, theaters, dining and nightlife. Visitors could jump on the train to San Francisco and major convention centers. To our disappointment, the developer was unrelenting, and the building and site alternatives offered by the community were not considered.

The developer, the city and the residents are victims of poor zoning. Nowhere else in Sunnyvale is there a site so invasive to the surrounding single-family housing. If a hotel would have to be built at this site, the neighborhood, reluctantly but with the spirit of compromise, proposed downsizing the overall mass of the hotel structures--reducing the hotel to three stories and taking the extended-stay units down from over 5,000 square feet to something more amenable to the community. Despite the city planning staff's recommendation to downsize the Olive side in square footage, Mr. Vidovich remained firm. The Sun mentioned that it riled nearby residents; however, considerable support came from outside the neighborhood, where people were offended by the thought of immense four-story structures being built along El Camino or any of our commercial avenues so close to residential. If people wanted the Fairmont, they would be living in big-city San Jose and not Sunnyvale, with its careful blend of suburban residential, high tech industrial and commercial interests.

In addition, regarding Mr. Vossbrink's statement on the transient occupancy tax, another commercial use of this property would also contribute to Sunnyvale's coffers, and denial of this hotel does not translate into loss of key revenues to the city.

Regardless, the City Council voted against the hotel primarily because of its height and mass. Despite a perceived "win" by the community, we're faced with what could still be developed. From the outset, the community wanted to see the property developed and would welcome the opportunity to work with Mr. Vidovich and the Selvis on a structure which would be more amenable to both the nearby and overall Sunnyvale community. Sunnyvale has had several successes when the community and the developer got together early in the game. We hope that we can be one of those.

Despite all the hardships endured by those mounting this effort against the hotel, our community has benefited. We've met with our City Council and Planning Commission members and now appreciate the difficult job they face. We are better informed regarding key issues within our local government and better established to influence decision-makers on our behalf. Like other Sunnyvale neighborhoods, we're getting organized, and all of Sunnyvale will benefit from informed and active communities. As Mr. Bricker pointed out (Opinion, Sept. 17), it's regrettable that it took something in our back yard to motivate us, but we're looking forward now. We're determined to make an impact and preserve the best in Sunnyvale.

Jean McLaughlin
Washington Park Neighborhood Association

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

The Sun Sunnyvale's Newspaper

Letters

The Sun
Sunnyvale's Newspaper