The Sunnyvale Sun

Letters & Opinions

Speak Out

Segway polo isn't
breaking any laws

For the past three years I have been commuting my six miles to work, gas-free and noise-free, on my Segway Personal Transporter. I've heard words like "retard" and "lazy" being yelled at me by passing drivers sitting in their SUVs as I ride on the empty sidewalks of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. But in last week's Speak Out column, I was called irresponsible and un-thoughtful for bringing my Segway into a Sunnyvale park, breaking city codes to play Segway polo. What the author did not know is that my friends and I met with the Sunnyvale Parks and Recreation Department over a year ago to make sure we were not breaking any rules. We respect the city and its parks.

When we began playing, we did not know about the code restricting "wheeled conveyances" on grass. However, as soon as the Parks Department notified us, we asked what the proper procedure would be to get approval to play. We met with parks management and their grounds supervisor to understand the laws and also to show that we do not damage the field when we play. They explained that nothing with wheels, "not even a baby stroller," is allowed on the grass without a "special permit" from the city. So we began reserving the field and, after demonstrating that we would cause no damage to the grass, obtained the special permit to allow our wheeled conveyances on the field.

Regarding use of the field, we use Ponderosa Park twice a month on Sunday mornings. We play there because one of the players lives around the corner and two others live down the street. The park is often completely empty, except for the occasional jogger or dog walker who uses the path surrounding the soccer field we play on. There are two more fields adjacent to where we play, and not once in the over two years that we have been playing there have we seen all of the fields being used. So we are not preventing anyone from using a field.

Regarding the appropriateness of playing Segway polo on a soccer field, I don't believe there have been any objections to the cricket players who use the baseball field next to the soccer field that we play on. It is just a different activity played on the same field. We are not costing the city anything extra in terms of maintenance of the park, and in fact bring more money to the city since we go out as a team for lunch to local restaurants. The local residents around the park don't seem to have any problems with us playing there since they often stop by to watch. If the parks aren't the appropriate place to play sports, then where is?

Alex Ko

Santa Clara

Council should give
and not take

I would like to clarify two points in the Sunnyvale Sun article of Jan. 17 about lifetime health benefits for some Sunnyvale City council members. First, council members are not full-time city employees and I strongly believe that they should not be included in discussions of health benefits for employees.

Second, as of now, only one current council member, John Howe, is eligible to receive these lifetime benefits. When the issue was raised during the height of the election campaign in 2005, Howe said that he would not accept such benefits if they were offered to him. I suggest that had he answered that question differently (and honestly) during the election, the issue would have escalated, and he might not have been elected. In fact, had the council acted to eliminate this very expensive perk as soon as the last election was over, as both the Sun and San Jose Mercury News recommended, this would be a dead issue, and not one more city council member would be eligible to receive lifetime health benefits at the expense of the taxpayers.

I served as John Howe's campaign manager during his first campaign for city council in 2001. A few weeks after he was first elected, I asked him what was the best part of being a council member. He said, "Lifetime medical benefits...that's huge, that's huge." Not only was I disappointed in Howe, but I was appalled at what he said. On many occasions after that, Howe repeated those comments again and again.

I submit that health benefits should not be a reason or motive to run for city council that result in huge costs to the taxpayers with premiums that will only continue to escalate rapidly over the coming years.

We need council members who genuinely want to make a difference in their community--not those who serve for the money, the perks, the medical insurance or to stroke their egos. We need council members who give back to their community without expecting anything in return, not council members who take all they can from the hardworking taxpayers in Sunnyvale.

Yolanda Risch

Sunnyvale

Council should
end benefit

One wonders how city council members would not be embarrassed to admit that they have lifetime benefits after only five years on the council!

Elsewhere in industry, benefits cease when you leave employment. The cost of this benefit will rise exponentially as the number of ex-council members age!

The city council does not need a "study issue" on this. They need to eliminate this perk and acknowledge the end of their benefits and living off the citizens of Sunnyvale!

M. Falk

Sunnyvale