Los Altos Hills Open Space
	"Value Beyond Price..."
	Dedicated to protecting our open space assets for the future

E-Mail Bulletin #11 - 14 October 2002

• Summary of the Two Initiatives
• Why Would Town Council Want to do That?
• We Would Prefer a Single Initiative Go To the Voters
• On the Matter of Divisiveness
• Council Election
• Media
• Town-wide Mailing
• Fundraising

SUMMARY OF TWO INITIATIVES IN A NUTSHELL:

As reported earlier, the Town Council has voted to put a competing initiative before the voters. But, don't be fooled! Here are the differences in a nutshell:

What the Citizens' LAH Open Space Initiative Would Do:

1. Prevent the sale of 157 acres of Town-owned lands without a vote of the residents

2. Protect all of these lands as either Open Space or Public Recreation - also irreversible except by a vote of the residents

What the Town Council's Initiative Would Do:

1. Prevent the sale of 168 acres of Town-owned lands without a vote of the residents

2. Retain many of these lands for either Low-Density Residential or Private Recreation - also irreversible except by a vote of the residents

The Critical Difference:

The lands referred to in the last paragraph above are many of the lands that we wish to protect for Open Space or Public Recreation (Edith Park, Juan Prado Mesa Preserve, Rhus Ridge Properties, Murietta Ridge, and Westwind Community Barn). The Town Council's Initiative does exactly the opposite!

WHY WOULD TOWN COUNCIL WANT TO DO THAT?

Despite being offered our version of an Open Space Initiative on a plate, which they could have simply adopted - to the plaudits of our residents - Council chose instead to develop and move their own measure. Why would they do this?

Two motivations were cited:

1. It covers all town-owned lands. This means that it covers all 168 acres instead of the 157 acres of "open space and recreation" lands to which our original initiative was aimed. (In effect, it includes the Town Hall property itself, and some other properties that we felt were either too small or inhospitable to be vulnerable for sale to a developer. We did not feel that Town Hall qualified as an Open Space or Recreational area.)

2. It is a much simpler measure and thus more easily understood by the voters. (We note Council's concern for the level of intelligence of town residents. But it is the alleged simplicity that creates other significant differences between the two initiatives, but that were not addressed in the Council's justification for their version.)

What are some of these other unspoken but significant differences?

As described above, Council's competing initiative indeed would prevent the sale of Town lands without a vote of the residents. By locking in the designations "private recreation" and "low-density residential" however, the Council's measure not only permits the possibility of Town-sponsored development (without voter approval), it would also require that an election be held to change the designations we question as follows:

Why would they want Westwind Community Barn designated as Private Recreation?
Why would they want Edith Park designated as Residential?
Why would they want Murietta Ridge designated as Private Recreation?
Why would they want Rhus Ridge designated as Residential?
Why would they want Juan Prado Mesa Preserve designated as Residential?

In the case of Westwind Community Barn, while the Council's measure indeed would prevent it being sold outright without a vote of the residents, Council could certainly decide to lease it to a third party for purposes of developing and running a "private recreation" facility of some kind. (Perhaps as an exclusive club?)

Via this "simple" initiative, money could be made to flow to the Town to support Council-members' pet follies and the residents would have lost the use of their community asset, just as effectively as if it had been sold.

In the case of Edith Park (at the entrance to town on Edith Avenue) we can also only guess why the Council would want to lock in its designation as "Low Density Residential" - but it might be a suitable location to help alleviate the Town's requirement for low-income housing?

And so on... Your guess is as good as ours as to the motivation for the others.

None of these scenarios was mentioned as justification for the Town's competing initiative. The fact that the first one (for example) happens to be consistent with the Mayor's "vision" for the future of the Barn property and its "highest and best use" is therefore (we must presume) entirely coincidental.

Whether this language in the Town's initiative was a result of hasty sloppy work, or carefully crafted to bamboozle the residents -- to enable the achievement of certain council members' "vision" -- that will no doubt be judged by you the voters.

WE WOULD PREFER A SINGLE INITIATIVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS

We delivered an early draft of our initiative to Town Hall as a courtesy in case they wished to comment during its development. No comment was forthcoming.

At the council meeting when the Town's competing initiative was under discussion, we pleaded that they either amend theirs to correct its flaws and/or combine theirs with ours to achieve a single initiative to present to the voters.

However, cooperation toward a single initiative was clearly not what the Town Council had in mind, as they went right ahead and voted their version in on the spot. The Town's attorney was still scribbling frantic- ally to fix the language as the vote was taken - without Council members ever having cast their eyes over the final text that they were voting on.

Nevertheless, we remain prepared at this late hour to work with the Town Council should they wish to amend their initiative so that it achieves our stated objectives -- protection of open space and public recreation properties.

ON THE MATTER OF DIVISIVENESS

We wish we understood the thinking of our Town Council. Our Town has become so divided on so many issues, and we really believed that our efforts toward an initiative with broad-based support might be one vehicle where the Town Council could just adopt what we had done. By this means, not only could they have saved the cost of a special election but also earned the applause of the community.

Instead they chose to create a competitive initiative so the citizens' open space group is forced to work against the Council, instead of with them. The Council once again has rejected the extensive preparation and input from the residents and taken the "my way only" route.

We need a council that works harder to bring this town together, not divide us more than they already have!

COUNCIL ELECTION:

At the council election coming up in November, you will be asked to vote for two candidates for City Council.

Despite an invitation from us to endorse our initiative, the two candidates who are currently on the planning commission chose not to do so. Indeed, one of them states in her campaign materials that she "spearheaded" a preservation measure. Since she had nothing to do with ours, we assume she is the spearhead behind the competing one.

Both of them are endorsed in a mailing from Mr. Fenwick (signing with his title of Mayor) as ensuring continuity with the current council. We feel this speaks volumes.

By contrast, two other candidates have been involved as supporters and endorsers of our initiative from the beginning. Dean Warshawsky and Breene Kerr were both motivated in part to run for Council because of the open space issue. Both Dean and Breene have made our initiative a part of their campaigns - and both have pledged to work towards adoption of our initiative, once the signatures are gathered and have been validated, if they are elected to the Council. We hope you will vote for these two outstanding Council candidates.

MEDIA:

Two excellent in-depth articles have recently appeared in local news- papers. Check out our website - www.lahopenspace.com/Press.html - for the latest articles from the San Jose Mercury News and the Los Altos Town Crier.

TOWN-WIDE MAILING:

Many of you have offered to help us with a Town-wide mailing. If you are available at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, October 22nd, to help us put a mailing together, please contact Nancy at 941-4808 or via e-mail at couperus@mindspring.com

FUNDRAISING:

Thanks to all of you who have responded and are continuing to respond to our request for donations. These are very much appreciated!

E-mail distribution list:

If you have friends or neighbors in Los Altos Hills who would like to be placed on this e-mail information list, please have them contact either Nancy Couperus at couperus@mindspring.com or Val Metcalfe at metcalfes@worldnet.att.net