Mesure S accepted by voters last Tuesday

Both sides agree money was the key for Sunnyvale voters

By Daniel Hindin

Sunnyvale residents voted to approve Measure S, the fluoridation measure, by nearly a 2 to 1 margin on Nov. 7.

Supporters on both sides adamantly voiced their opinions in the months before the election. Intensity ran high at each of the two debates held on the issue, and anti-fluoridation advocates made many accusations about the city handled the preelection proceedings. As a result of some accusations, City Attorney Valerie Armento found herself in court at the last moment fighting to include the measure on the official ballot, and succeeding.

At the debates, the majority of the crowd clearly fell on the anti-fluoridation side. They focused on the potential negative health effects of fluoride, such as the higher possibility of osteoporosis, cancer and fluorosis.

Measure S advocates refuted these health claims and concentrated more on financial issues. Although the actual numbers were disputed, they maintained votes against the measure could cost Sunnyvale and its residents a significant amount of money.

"We see the results as a vote on the possibility of people's water bills increasing by five times," said anti-fluoride debate panelist David Lamar. "Sunnyvale voters didn't vote on fluoridation, they voted on their water bills."

"The results confirm my faith in [Sunnyvale] voters," said Sunnyvale Vice Mayor Jack Walker. "They recognized the whole situation."

Walker added the results make the city's job easier, alluding to the difficulty Sunnyvale would have encountered trying to find affordable alternatives to one of their major current water sources if Measure S hadn't passed.

While it's agreed that money ended up emerging as the crucial factor, no one knows yet whether, in the long run, the vote will really signify anything. In the end, the fate of Sunnyvale water lies in the hands of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The SFPUC plans to update their facilities in the coming years, and whether or not Sunnyvale receives fluoridated water depends on how and where the SFPUC decides to rebuild. The SFPUC wants to learn how the 20 or so cities on the peninsula and in South Bay areas that now have water contracts with them decide on the fluoridation issue.

"Nothing really changes," Walker said. "This just provides us with a response to the SFPUC. Will they move [their facility]? I don't know, but this keeps our options open. Fluoride wasn't even on our radar screen until recently when the SFPUC asked us about it. It's definitely not something we're actively pursuing."

Walker admits, "I was nervous. Those few hundred people who kept showing up [at debates and city council meetings] are just fringe people who say, 'oh, you're killing our children.' As a politician, you wonder if that's really how everyone feels. I'm just relieved it's over."

But the battle continues for the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and other anti-fluoridation activists. "There are about 20 other cities that have to weigh in before the SFPUC takes action," Lamar says. "We don't want people to get the impression that this is over by any means."

Public Safety

Mark W. Mayfield: Time for a Thanksgiving lesson

Obituary: Dolores Beading Rainer

Sports Briefs

High school sports