Letters to the Editor

Warning: suburban sprawl may be hazardous to your health. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research group, released a report this week stating that people who live in areas with a high degree of sprawl are more likely to report chronic health problems such as high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches and breathing difficulties compared to residents in less sprawled-out areas.

As Redwood City residents, we are fortunate to have a choice - more urban sprawl or higher density housing. On Nov. 2, we can support Measure Q and prevent urban sprawl not only to protect our health, but to preserve the environment. Passage of Measure Q will redevelop an existing industrial and commercial area at Peninsula Marina into a vibrant waterfront neighborhood.

According to the Rand Corporation report, a sprawling area is defined as a place that has streets not well connected, lower population density and areas that are far away from each other, such as shopping malls and schools.

Measure Q will help all of us prevent urban sprawl and preserve our city's character while providing 1,930 new homes in a well-planned community. This is exactly why I am supporting Measure Q. It will give us the best of both worlds - a new waterfront community without the urban sprawl and a healthier place to live.

"People who live in more sprawling areas are more likely to have chronic health problems over time," said Roland Sturm, co-author of the report. "People drive more in these areas, they walk less."

Marina Shores Village gives us 6.8 acres of public parks and waterfront walkways, several miles of new pedestrian and bicycle trails, including a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing to downtown Redwood City. These walkways and trails will be available for all of us to enjoy, not just the residents of Marina Shores Village.

Marina Shores Village is the right development for our community. Join me in voting "yes" on Measure Q.

Tina Davis

Redwood City

False statements

for gay marriage

Editor,

The vice-presidential debate Oct. 6 brings out the fact that gay marriage is now a nationwide political question.

Personally, I am for equality of right and opportunity and have written and marched for this in former years. But this applies solely to individuals, whether straight or gay (or black or white), and not to couples, straight or gay. It does not apply to groupings of individuals, and I challenge anyone to show otherwise.

Gay rhetoric includes these falsities:

"A marriage license cannot be denied to an individual who wishes to marry someone of the same sex." It takes two individuals to apply for such license, right? How can anyone, straight or gay, have a "right" to do what it takes two persons to do?

"Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right ... to marry the person of their choice." The chosen person has no rights at all?

It is also being assumed that government is somehow empowered to grant or retract human rights. Wrong.

The equal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is "unalienable," and the sole purpose of government is to "secure" such individual right. Read the Declaration of Independence.

"Discrimination" is a big word among gay marriage proponents. Being discriminative, however, is not the same as being discriminatory. Distinguishing men from women is being merely discriminative.

Man-woman marriage is not a matter of human rights. It is a matter of custom and culture, like language and dictionaries. It preceded both religion and government. It conforms to biology.

Let's get our facts straight, and our debating process equalized.

Louis Worth Jones

San Mateo

When does it stop?

Editor,

Indian gambling? Help! They still don't get it. How about the other races making up America and their helpless situations? Many poor, down-and-out folks here spend their limited welfare gambling or that of their impoverished gangs or families. Broke, no money for food, and guess what? Then a deadly situation, robbery, or murder for dollars to survive. They still don't get it and the rich racetrack lottos don't give a damn. When does it stop? Help.

Charles DeSoto

Belmont

Unbalanced report

Editor,

I quickly read through the article "Why Brocchini is blowing the case" in the Oct. 2 edition of the Daily Journal. It was no doubt published to benefit the Peterson defense. Spin stories have been swirling as the defense prepares to present its case. I don't have time to respond to each item now. I have read the actual court transcript of Det. Al Brocchini's testimony. I would suggest the writer do the same. Smearing worked in the O.J. SIMPSON case and Mark Geragos tried to do the same here. He made mountains out of molehills to try to make the Modesto Police Department look either inept or even corrupt. The media jumped up and down at Geragos' prompting without doing their due diligence. Well, the jury heard Brocchini's testimony, so that's what's important. I'll go item by item later but either the writer does not know all the facts or she is an instrument of Mark Geragos.

Deborah Healy

New York City

Who is anti-choice?

Editor,

Republican Assembly candidate Steve Poizner claims in recent literature that Democrat Ira Ruskin "is misleading voters" about Poizner's abortion stance. But the facts are clear. Public records, available online at www.opensecrets.org, show that Poizner contributed $2,000 (the maximum amount allowed) to George W. Bush's re-election campaign last year. Bush is well-known as an opponent of a woman's right to choose and, if he wins another term, may be able to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn the "Roe vs. Wade" decision. If Poizner is truly as pro-choice as he claims, why is he willing to return an anti-choice, anti-woman president to office?

David O'Brien

Redwood City