The Sunnyvale Sun

Letters & Opinions

Speak Out

Lifetime benefits
an expensive perk

During the last Sunnyvale City Council election, the issue of lifetime health benefits for city council members arose (those who served at least five years on the council and were 50 years old). According to Councilman Chris Moylan, himself a candidate in the last election, every one of the seven candidates promised to eliminate this expensive perk, no longer offered by any other city. When the issue hit the press, John Howe, in the midst of a heated campaign, was quoted in both the Sunnyvale Sun and San Jose Mercury News saying he would not accept lifetime health benefits. The only one who spoke in favor of these benefits was the city's communications director, who suggested that some council members put in a great deal of time serving on the council. Both newspapers suggested that the stipend might be raised for all council members rather than offering lifetime health benefits to some of them, although since Sunnyvale's council is probably the highest-paid part-time council already, I would be against raising this stipend. Taxpayers also currently pay for health-care benefits for council members, and their spouses and children are also covered.

Last spring, a member of the public brought the lifetime benefits issue to the attention of the city council. There was no response until the end of the meeting, when Councilman Moylan asked for suggestions as to how to respond. It was suggested that the issue might be considered as a study item for the following year. What further information is there to review? This is a matter of principle, not a complicated issue requiring the expense of staff time to generate reports and alternatives. Vice Mayor Tony Spitaleri said he would prefer to grandfather in "those who were promised the benefit if there's a change." I take exception to his suggestion. People don't or shouldn't run for city council just to get lifetime health benefits. John Howe was quoted in two newspapers saying he wouldn't take them, and now it appears that he broke his campaign promise. I urge the city council to eliminate this expensive perk now.

Yolanda Risch

Sunnyvale

It's just one tree
on private property

Regarding the letter from Chiu Chang and C.S. Pang in the Sunnyvale Sun Jan. 3, 2007:

I cannot believe that the city of Sunnyvale administration would be so policy-driven that it would ignore what appears to be a common sense decision regarding a single tree removal from private property. Preserving city beautification is one thing, but applying law without regard to circumstances is another.

If the account stated in the letter by the homeowner is factual, the city's response is an outrageous infringement of basic property owner rights. There should be no need for a process of appeal in this case. Regulatory decisions should be tempered with good judgment and a regard for sensible application. That seems to be missing here. Come on, All America City. Let the tree fall.

Von Armstrong

University Place, Washington