Comment

Add comment (0)

Letters to the Editor - week of Oct. 31

Add comment (31)

Note: This online version includes additional letters that were not included in the print edition due to lack of space.

LA acting in ‘bad faith’ on ADU ordinances

I read with interest Jerry Clements’ “Other Voices” column in the Oct. 17 Town Crier (“The double-talk ordinances”). I am in support of his article and would like to share additional information on the subject.

I’ve been a resident of Los Altos for over 25 years. I am an engineer by training and read the new state law on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The state law does not impose on cities the requirement this city has claimed to justify the changes they passed regulating ADUs and accessory structures.

Varying views on Measure C: Initiative protects city's parks, public lands

Add comment (1)

Measure C is simple. Measure C lets residents decide whether to give up our land to developers and special interests or to keep it for our public use.

Measure C protects parks, land that many consider to be parks but legally aren’t (Hillview ball fields, Whistle Stop playground, apricot orchard), as well as the civic center and downtown parking lots.

Election 2018: Paid Political Endorsement Letters - Week of Oct. 31

Add comment (0)

Fligor: Extraordinary candidate for council

We are fortunate this election to have an extraordinary candidate for Los Altos City Council.

Neysa Fligor has life experiences that prepared her well for the council. She worked as a lawyer for Santa Clara County, learning local government functions; served on the El Camino Healthcare District Board of Directors, where she learned basics of governance; and was chair of the Los Altos Parks and Recreation Commission, giving her the perspective of a council advisory body. The Recreation Commission oversees senior and teen programs, giving her an appreciation for these demographics.

Varying views on Measure C: Beware of misleading measure, proponents

Add comment (2)

Measure C’s campaign seems based on misleading people.

Many people felt misled when they signed the petition to qualify Measure C for the ballot believing it would simply protect our parks. More than 30 of them asked the city to withdraw their signatures. One petition signer wrote, “(Measure C has) implications far beyond what I was told.”