On last week's opinion page, Carl Heintze ("War in Iraq is not like your grandfather's war") observed that "patriotism ain't what it used to be." Longer on reverie than on analysis, he could also have noted that his personal model, World War II, began when Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Thereupon our articulate and farsighted Commander in Chief, President Franklin Roosevelt, explained reality to the American people. Clarity and truth from the top sustained a unified patriotism from the Bataan death march through the Normandy invasion.

Emulating Heintze's benign journalistic style, I will halt here. Each of us must be our own ultimate analyst as to the application of patriotism and the requirements for a war to be just—then and now.

James P. Walsh

Los Gatos

Something needs
to be done with
Highway 9

The May 12 article and editorial about Highway 9 safety demonstrates how concerned we are as a community about the issue.

Tragedies have become too frequent on this
4.34-mile stretch of highway. There are six speed changes; the lanes switch back and forth between four and two lanes several times and narrow shoulders force bicyclists and pedestrians onto gravel shoulders. Accidents will continue to happen until something is done.

Who is responsible for safety on Highway 9? Is it Caltrans? They say, "State highways in California are built to such high standards from the beginning that it is very difficult to find ways to make improvements that will lower accident rates any further." Is it the motorists, the bicyclists and the pedestrians who live, commute and recreate along it?

Caltrans must accept responsibility and work with the cities to maintain Highway 9 and address the safety issues on the roadway. Highway 9 needs to be updated. Caltrans needs to work with the cities to address safety issues on the roadway. There are easy, low-cost, partial solutions that can be done quickly to make the highway safer now. A long-term, expertly engineered bicycle/pedestrian lane plan should be accelerated as quickly as possible.

Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians must do "their part" to be as safe and visible on the roadway as possible. The cities, bicycle and pedestrians groups can and should help educate these users on how to be safe.

Could these tragic deaths have been avoided had the roadway been clearly marked with bike/pedestrian lanes, well-painted visible crosswalks, fewer confusing speed/lane changes and signage/striping alerting motorists of their speed and to share the road? We will never know. What we do know is that with today's users on this highway, unless something is done to make it safer, this will happen again.

For more information or to participate as a community on this project, please log in to www.highway9safety.com.

JoAnne Peth
Lana Malloy

Monte Sereno

Women working
on Highway 9 to
be commended

Maybe the community doesn't want a safer Highway 9. Maybe it's easier to explain away the three fatalities in two years as their fault, or the fault of drugs and alcohol.

But one thing you can't say maybe about is the fact that everyone who uses Highway 9 on a regular basis has a near-miss to tell about.

The two women who are trying to clean up this mess should be commended and listened to. I've been to their website at www.highway9safety.com and participated in their effort. You should too.

Barbara L. Allen

Monte Sereno

Dangerous
situation on
Summit Road

The Redwood Estates Water Company has given permission to the Redwood Estates residents to dump their dead brush and trees limbs on its property located on the summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains, on Summit Road between Hutchinson and Woolaroc roads. Unfortunately, I own the property directly in front of this area, and am a resident of Los Gatos.

As I write this, there is now a huge pile of brush approximately 6 to 7 feet high covering an area over 2,000 square feet. This pile of brush is only 10 feet from Summit Road, and even more frightening, it is within 25 feet of my property line and 50 feet of my home.

Additionally, my house as well as five other neighbors' houses are on a private dead-end road with absolutely no escape route if this pile should catch on fire. Adding to this severe fire danger is the fact that this site lies under a canopy of old oaks and redwoods with no firebreak or clearing. One spark from a car, one thrown cigarette and our homes will go up in flames and we have no way to escape. By the way, there are power lines directly over this brush, and believe me, the winds have been blowing hard and I have seen sparks fly from these lines many times in the past during high winds.

I have contacted the Redwood Estates Water company and demanded that they remove this brush, but they refuse to comply. I have contacted the local fire department, the California Department of Forestry, the consumer complaint department for utilities and the local Sheriff. No one seems to be able or willing to help me and my neighbors. I am in fear for my life, my family's and my neighbors' lives!

Cheryl Poland

Los Gatos

Council needs
to create a
clear policy

I recently read a novel in which a U.S. senator was quoted as saying "it would be great being a senator if I didn't have to vote." While that is a nice dream, the reality is that it is the job of all elected and appointed officials to make the tough decisions. These decisions are not easy, and no matter which side of an issue is taken, someone will ultimately be unhappy.

Perhaps that is what has motivated me to comment on the Weekly-Times article of May 12 regarding personal-service businesses. Over the last several months, we have seen issues brought before both the planning commission and town council that have become a matter of community debate (i.e., chain stores vs. local stores; requiring a percentage of the ground floor to be retail in office buildings on Los Gatos Boulevard; and the saturation of the downtown with nail and hair salons). In many of these issues, the council has found itself reversing (on appeal) a decision made by the planning commission, which raises the question, what is it that the two bodies are interpreting that causes them to come to such different conclusions?

In my opinion, the answer is (and it applies to all of these recently debated issues), town council has not focused on the development of a policy that supports the objectives in our General Plan. A lack of policy leaves the planning commission walking in the murky waters of interpretation of past decisions and how those may or may not apply to the case at hand.

The recent decision by the council to use conditional-use permits to determine if a personal-service business is appropriate is a good example of the problem. Instead of developing a clear policy (i.e., personal service businesses will be allowed except when, or will not be allowed except when?), they invoked the use of a procedure. You cannot substitute procedures for policy. CUPs are a very good procedural tool; however, without the establishment of an underlying clear policy, the council has only postponed the argument to a future date.

Some personal-service business is going to pay the $3,800 CUP fee in an attempt to open a new business. The issue will come before the planning commission, which without clear policy may deny the application. Should that occur, the business could then appeal to the town council for a final decision, and we're back to the same issues that should have been settled in May 2004.

The council may be hoping that the process, in addition to the $3,800 fee, will discourage applicants. In some cases it will, but that does not solve the problem. This is just one of the many instances in which the rules of the planning process are not clear or understood, and it is costing staff, commission and council time, as well as the expense and frustration of the applicants.

The "buck stops" with the town council. It's time to invoke a new procedure, one which focuses the council on the development of some badly needed policy.

Paul Dubois

Los Gatos

The photographer who shot the picture of Ali Dodson in the sports section on May 12 was incorrectly identified. The photograph was taken by John Nicewonger.