Why 'Dump Mendonca?'

I am the person who created the "Defeat Mendonca" signs around Moraga, and many have inquired as to why.

It's about the responsibilities of town officials. I had always thought they were to act in the best interest of the majority. This would mean a cost/benefit analysis of a proposed action before spending tax dollars. If 90 percent of citizens want green grass, would you waste their money painting it red?

This is what happened with the Rancho Laguna Park issue wasting $100K plus. Hundreds spoke at Town Council meetings saying, "Leave RLP alone!" Mendonca wouldn't listen. She claimed, "There is a silent majority afraid to use RLP due to off-leash dogs," but few ever came or spoke at the council meetings. Where was the "silent majority?" Being silent, I presume?

Then they played the "dangerous dog" card, but provided no evidence that anyone has ever been killed in an off-leash dog park. Then came "town liability," but their insurance carrier cited negligible risk. It then became clear that their allegiance was to private soccer organizations to turn Rancho Laguna into a soccer field, for which they would pay town rental fees. Check the Moraga Master Plan, which shows a soccer field at RLP. Mendonca claims this is not the plan. Really?


Advertisement

Mendonca then stated willingness to entertain a compromise plan if a "group of citizens could work together in the true spirit of compromise." Our amazing citizens put together this group of 15 who formulated and approved Compromise Plan C, by a 13-2 vote and presented to it to the council. How did Mendonca, Harpham and Chew vote on this? No, no and no. Then they voted to stop all off-leash dog activity at Rancho Laguna immediately -- the proverbial slap in the face -- to which Mendonca added, "I don't care about you people. This issue is over!"

The fix was in. We were Charlie Brown, Mendonca was Lucy, Rancho Laguna was the football.

If Mendonca doesn't care about our opinions on a "dog park," on what other issues does she not care about us?

Douglas Home

Moraga

Reilly would hit ground running

I urge Lafayette residents to vote for Traci Reilly for city council. She has the experience, dedication and passion to do an outstanding job.

Traci has served on the Crime Prevention Commission since 2006 and has been its chair since 2008. She worked steadfastly to help Lafayette pass the No Solicitors Ordinance providing police with a mechanism to respond to calls about unlicensed solicitors knocking on doors. Additionally, Traci understands the important issues facing our city, including road and infrastructure maintenance and repairs, t balancing growth, traffic and public safety, and the need to continue a fiscally sound city budget. With two of three incumbents stepping down from the council this election cycle, Lafayette can count on Traci to hit the ground running. She will bring to not only her experience, but also her well-developed skills and her great personal rapport.

Please vote for Traci Reilly for Lafayette City Council.

Linda Murphy

Lafayette

Pedophilia knows no sexual orientation

Letter writer Jeff Morris (Oct. 16 Times), in defending the Boy and Eagle Scouts' homophobic exclusion of gay youth, resorted to the tired cliché that all gay men are sexual predators who would seduce or rape children. In doing so, he cited the case of former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, convicted of molesting boys. Whether Mr. Sandusky is "homosexual" is irrelevant; he was guilty of pedophilia, a crime that knows no gender or sexual orientation.

The molestation of children is reprehensible whether committed by gay or straight adults, and in this regard it is relevant that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are straight men. Is Mr. Morris equally concerned that men should not be leaders in the Girl Scouts? Statistically, they would be much more likely to molest their wards than gay men.

Whether pedophiles are gay or straight is immaterial. Nonetheless, all this begs the issue of barring gay or questioning boys from the Scouts, which is indefensible from every standpoint.

Stephen Lysaght

Orinda

Smith 'positive, clearheaded'

To be brief: Let's re-elect Victoria Smith to the Orinda City Council!

Victoria is a person sensitive to Orinda's needs. Along with that she is also is a positive, clearheaded analyst of how to address those needs to the best effect. This is why, once again, I enthusiastically encourage you to join me in supporting Victoria Smith. I also encourage everyone to complete the voting process on all levels.

Sue Littlehale

Orinda

Measure L not the solution

In the Oct. 12 Sun, Orinda Realtor Rick Booth said, "We need to fix our roads."

I agree 100 percent. I was involved in both Measures Q and E (on the losing side), have attended innumerable Citizens' Infrastructure Oversight Commission, city council and subcommittee meetings on the subject of roads, and even applied for a position on the CIOC but was denied because my ideas did not mesh with the ideas of our leaders.

So, as someone who really understands what is going on, while agreeing that we need new taxes, I can tell you that Measure L will do more harm than good.

Why? It is not enough money to make any substantial changes but, most importantly, it endorses a 10-year plan which is a pipe dream and which will never become a reality.

Orinda needs a real plan and new leaders to enact one. The current leadership keeps coming up with the same ideas which are proven unworkable.

For a fuller description of why the current 10-year plan and Measure L are not the right idea. see www.RoadToNowhere.info. To understand more about Orinda's road problems and the possible solutions, see www.OrindaRoadFacts.virb.com.

Steve Cohn

Orinda

Meuser for Senate 7

I have met both candidates for State Senate District 7. I sat beside Lisa Vorderbrueggen at the candidates' early morning breakfast debate. Lisa did not declare a winner in the debate, but I was incredibly impressed by challenger Mark Meuser's intelligence. Before the debate, I was only impressed by how incredibly humble and polite he is.

Both candidates send me e-mails. I send replies to both of them. Mark DeSaulnier never replies back. When I went to his "meet the public," I had to deal with his annoying aides. Another aide replied back by telephone, basically telling me to get stuffed.

The latest e-mail from Mark Meuser told me he was on YouTube. That seems to be a better way to inform the public than polluting every fence, field and signpost with a short ad, even on property belonging to the opposing party.

I am a registered Democrat, but I don't rubber-stamp incumbents. I believe there should be an intelligence test for all candidates for public office.

I'm voting for Mark Meuser.

Bruce R. Peterson

Lafayette