dioxide emissions

Editor,

While the Loma Prieta Chapter agrees with much of the recent article “Green Group Supports New Developments” (San Mateo Daily Journal, March 13), there are a couple of points we would like to clarify.

One of the most important environmental decisions a community makes is the density and placement of housing development. This decision impacts the amount of carbon dioxide and pollution generated as well as the amount of open space preserved. Choosing dense infill development also means fewer acres of ranchlands, farmlands, and open space will be lost to houses, stores and parking lots.

Forty percent of total carbon dioxide emissions come from vehicles. The location and density of housing directly impacts this number. We can reduce these emissions by either driving much less or driving a car that uses less gasoline. Ideally, we would do both. However, the amount of driving done affects emissions far more than the type of car driven.

For example, a person who lives and works in Palo Alto and drives an SUV uses less gas than a person who lives in Oakland and works in Palo Alto and drives a hybrid. More specifically, a person driving an SUV within Palo Alto (3 miles at 15 MPG), emits approximately 4 pounds of CO2 emissions. In contrast, a person driving a hybrid from Palo Alto to Oakland (35 miles at 40 MPG) emits approximately 19 pounds of CO2. You can see this for yourself by visiting our Cool it Web site at http://www.cool-it.us/, where it states that 1 gallon of gas burned generates 19.564 pounds of CO2.

In the last five years our commitment to good development in the right place has led the Loma Prieta Chapter to support development at Taylor Towers in San Jose, Rickey’s Hyatt in Palo Alto, Bay Meadows II in San Mateo, Calabazas Place in Cupertino and others. The chapter makes these endorsements to encourage the building of healthy communities and to create a forum to educate our members and public about the issues.

Karen Maki

Menlo Park

The letter writer is the chair of the Executive Committee of the Loma

Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club.

San Carlos PTA for the

good of the community

Editor,

Balancing the importance of letting people speak out with the need to fulfill their responsibilities to the schools they support is a challenge that many parent and teacher associations wrestle with. There are never easy answers, which is why I’d like to publicly thank the San Carlos PTA Coordinating Council for the way it addressed how to handle discussions on the various PTA-hosted e-mail discussion lists in our district.

It would be easy to do nothing and risk having an important tool be ignored due to the potential for rancorous or off-putting e-mails, or heavily regulate what can and can’t be said by parents and teachers with a (perhaps unpopular) point of view to share.

The Coordinating Council did neither. Instead, it opted for a measured approach that strongly encourages those with opinions they wish to share to hold the actual discussions elsewhere and simply let the general population know where they can go to learn more or join in. It also opted to continue to study the issues surrounding this delicate balancing act. Both are thoughtful actions and both demonstrate a lot of wisdom.

It always surprises me how often people put forward arguments for stifling community discussion. That pressure comes from many fronts, even some of our elected officials. By finding a common sense approach and being willing to further discuss or amend it, the San Carlos PTA acted in the best interests of all our community. My hat’s off to them.

Mark Olbert

San Carlos

The letter writer is a member

of the San Carlos Elementary

Board of Trustees.

Limit eminent domain

Editor,

I am writing in response to your article, “States debate when to use eminent domain.” Please be advised that much closer to home here in California, eminent domain, and the threat of future use of eminent domain, is affecting individual homeowners and neighborhoods. Almost five years ago here in San Jose, a third of the city’s residents were placed into a colossal redevelopment plan area. Allegedly, this was done to combat “blight.” The community I reside in, Naglee Park, is among the most desirable in all of San Jose. It is an elegant old neighborhood, of craftsman bungalows and glorious Victorians, with prices that range from $700,000 to up to $3 million. An example of the “blight” that was documented included wet leaves on the tennis court of a multi-million dollar home, and the beautiful ornamental ironwork on a Spanish-style home. In the last five years, we have seen homeowners choose not to make additional investments into their properties, and some neighbors move out of the area, seeking a property without the redevelopment cloud amended onto their title. In this time period we have also not received any redevelopment dollars. Of course not, since this community was not blighted to begin with. Those of us who are middle-aged and middle class, and had been looking forward to retirement, wonder if the neighborhood we love is a safe investment for the future. After all, once you are included in the redevelopment project area, it is the Redevelopment Agency that has the power, not we who pay our mortgages. There is a grassroots initiative, Limit Eminent Domain, that is non-partisan and supported entirely by grass-roots efforts. I urge anyone concerned about this issue to go to its Web site, http://www.limiteminentdomain.org/, and consider helping to protect all of our homes and futures.  

Beth Shafran-Mukai

San Jose