Issuu on Google+

You are what you eat The roots of picky eating WEEKEND | 17 AUGUST 31, 2012 VOLUME 20, NO. 33 650.964.6300 MOVIES | 20 Taxpayer group threatens to sue water district By Nick Veronin the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters’ restriction of 75 words he Silicon Valley Taxpayers for ballot descriptions by two Association is threatening words. to sue the Santa Clara ValThe board found out about the ley Water District for violating problem on Aug. 7, three days the Brown Act — a charge that before the Aug. 10 filing deada representative from the public line for the Nov. 6 election, and utility said was politically moti- was acting as quickly as possible vated and twists the facts. to address it, Grimes said. The In a letter to the public utility, district missed notifying the the taxpayers association told Mercury News by 59 minutes the water district that it would and posted the notification of the consider litigation if the “Safe, meeting on its website 45 minClean Water and utes late, Grimes Natural Flood Prosaid. tection” measure “Our read of it ‘I can’t imagine is, we made good — an extension and increase of the efforts to why they would faith Measure B parcel meet the Brown tax from 2000 — make this mistake Act,” he said. is not withdrawn “There wasn’t on purpose.’ from the Novemreally a substanber ballot. tive breach of JOHN ROEDER, The SVTA claims the Brown Act PRESIDENT OF THE SVTA that the water disin any way.” trict violated the “I agree that it Brown Act when was an honest officials there failed to notify the mistake. I can’t imagine why public and local press, as they are they would make this mistake required by law to do, a full 24 on purpose,” said John Roeder, hours before convening a meet- president of the SVTA. But, he ing pertaining to a parcel tax continued, “the law says that extension proposal. these are the notification periods. A representative from the dis- There was a violation of that.” trict said that “good faith” efforts Grimes maintained that the were made, and claimed his only reason Roeder and the assoorganization missed the deadline ciation care about the violation by only about an hour, at most. is that they are opposed to the Marty Grimes, spokesman for measure and always have been. the SCVWD, admits that district “They are going to do anything officials were late in notifying the they can to try to kill it any way Mercury News and in posting a they can,” he said. notice on the SCVWD website Roeder does not entirely disthat a special meeting was to be pute this statement. held Aug. 8. However, Grimes “I would like to see Measure said, the meeting was held for B simply taken off the ballot, one reason only: to remove two and I would like to see them put words from the parcel tax ballot together a better, well thoughtdescription because officials at the water district had exceeded See TAXPAYER GROUP, page 9 T MICHELLE LE EASING THE TRANSITION Transitional kindergarten students learn to color within the lines during Ann Hanneman’s class at Theuerkauf Elementary School. See story and additional photos on Page 7. More residents say PG&E will strip their yards ONE GAS LINE WILL BE MOVED NEXT YEAR, BUT TREES STILL HAVE TO COME OUT, PG&E SAYS By Daniel DeBolt A group of residents who live in a Rock Street condo complex are joining a chorus of complaints from Mountain View residents about PG&E’s plans to strip backyards where major gas lines exist. “It’s never going to be as nice,” said Kenneth Hauck, a resident of the condos at 1963 Rock St., as he looked at the view of eight trees that shade his second-story balcony, a hummingbird hovering nearby. PG&E wants to remove all INSIDE the trees that shade his yard and seven other households because they are over major gas lines 132 and 109, and could damage the line and cause an explosion. The trees include two large pines and a redwood with a 3-footdiameter trunk, all apparently ignored by PG&E since the 1970s. “That one they are very anxious to get rid of,” Hauck said of the 80-foot-tall redwood in the parking lot next to his unit. “It’s right on the pipeline. PG&E clearly didn’t pay any attention to this the whole time” the tree has been there. What bothers Hauck even more is that PG&E insists on removing the trees even though next year it may relocate the section of gas line 109 that runs under the them. “I want them to move the whole thing out to Middlefield and not destroy my backyard,” Hauck said. “The trees are just gorgeous right now. They provide a sense of privacy, a sense of beauty.” Residents of 15 other households on San Lucas Avenue find See PG&E, page 6 VIEWPOINT 15 | GOINGS ON 22 | MARKETPLACE 23 | REAL ESTATE 25

Mountain View Voice 08.31.2012 - Section 1

Related publications