Editor:
I cannot help but notice the tension of Moraga Safeway's employees when their present manager, Brett Turner is on the scene. Disturbingly, I have overheard this manager berate, humiliate and demean employee's on numerous occasions. Apparently this type of "management" is condoned by Safeway Corporation, and it has created an ongoing and hostile environment for employee's in the Moraga Safeway. As a regular shopper there, employee's I have interacted with and become familiar with over a number of years are quite visibly "on guard" and no longer in a "normal" state of being. I believe this would be considered "oppression", as I have observed the manager treat the employee's like they are his personal "subjects". Has anyone else noticed or sensed this "devolution" in the employees' demeanors?
Marie Slocum
Moraga

Editor:
I read that the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) has voted to implement a new "cost recovery" fee for attending to car crashes. It is not enough that we pay $17.5 million per year ($1,500 per household) in taxes for the insurance of having emergency services, now the lucky 125 people who get into a car crash each year and actually need help have to pay for the service on top of the $1,500 insurance they pay. It is not like the district has to hire new people to provide this service as each of their 7 units, on average, only responds to two incidents per day. But they do need the money to pay back the ill conceived $70 million of unfunded employee benefits that they have granted over the past 14 years.
Steve Cohn
Orinda

Editor:
Recent letters to the editor have claimed that Orindans pay more than their fair share of the costs of providing fire and emergency medical services. Some calculate the taxes paid by Orinda and compare them to those paid by Moraga. Others divide those taxes by the number of fire fighters in each city. BOTH ARE INCORRECT BECAUSE THEIR CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON CITY BOUNDARIES.
The operations of every fire district in America are based on "service areas," AKA "station and apparatus response areas." In other words, fire districts are divided into service areas based on RESPONSE TIME, NOT CITY BOUNDARIES.
While the old fire district boundaries and the old "Moraga and Orinda Zones" have been abandoned, service areas are essentially the same as they were before MOFD was formed in 1997 which means that the 700 Orinda homes that used to be in the old Moraga Fire District are still "first due" out of Moraga stations. The significant exception is that the homes between Ivy Drive and Glorietta now get ambulance service out of Moraga, and the rest of Orinda out of downtown Orinda, instead of from AMR out of Walnut Creek.
Since 700 Orinda homes are "first due" for all emergencies out of Moraga, and an additional 800 Orinda homes are "first due" for the Moraga-based ambulance, it makes sense that any calculations attempting to determine whether or not an area is paying its fair share should factor in that information. Our city boundaries are irrelevant to the operations of MOFD and irrelevant in any calculations to determine the fair share of costs.
The claim that Orinda is subsidizing Moraga has been investigated by several agencies and committees and proven incorrect. We do not need another task force to study this issue. It is time to move on and find practical ways of generating revenue to re-build our roads and infrastructure.
Ellen Dale
Orinda

Editor:
The City of Lafayette wants to impose another parcel tax, but they have failed to prove that they are competent enough to be trusted with new revenue.
On March 1st, Mayor Carl Anduri and several other city officials met with local citizenry and attempted to justify a new "temporary" parcel tax by telling us that they don't have enough money to repair the roads.
The truth of the matter is that Lafayette had money (because of the 1995 bond measure) to do the job. Unfortunately, they weren't competent to manage the project and the money ran out before the work was completed.
Now they want us to pay again. Roughly 25% of the citizens in Lafayette live on roads which should have been repaired more than ten years ago. Frankly, I don't believe they can do any better this time.
When our government fails, it needs to be punished for that failure. Parents know that when you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Now is not the time to reward the city's bad behavior, it is time to punish that bad behavior. In this case, the punishment should be a reduction in revenue for Lafayette. Passing a parcel tax to raise revenues is the exact opposite of the right thing to do, because it rewards the city.
I explained at the March 1st meeting that the concept of a "Revenue Shortfall" is a fiction. It's a fancy way of saying they want to spend money they don't have. The alleged "Funding Gap" for repairing the roads exists only because they don't want to spend existing city funds to repair all the roads.
I was told that the city might have to close down if the budget were cut any more than it already has been recently. I have no sympathy for them. If they close, they will experience what millions of other Californians are already suffering though, and it would be wonderfully refreshing for City Hall to experience an economic reality check.
Kurt Schultz
Lafayette

Editor:
As a lifelong resident of Lafayette I am writing to urge community support for Measure B, the upcoming Lafayette Elementary School parcel tax measure. I am a fortunate beneficiary of a K-12 Lafayette education, attending Montecito, Springhill, Stanley and Acalanes High Schools. My husband and I purchased our home in Lafayette based on the excellence of the school district that would later provide an outstanding education for our three children. As a lifelong educator I value and appreciate what our schools provide for Lafayette's students in preparing them for the future. It is now my privilege and obligation to provide for the education of the current students of Lafayette.
The State budget crisis has continued to erode financial support for our schools. It is now up to our community to provide temporary emergency funding to preserve core academic programs, excellent teachers, and other classroom support. 100% of Measure B funds will go directly into classroom instruction in Lafayette schools. Mandatory audits will ensure proper expenditure of the funds. The tax will sunset in four years. It seems a small price to pay to continue the tradition of academic excellence that I and many others have benefitted from. Please join me in voting YES on Measure B. Excellent schools benefit our entire community!
Mary McCosker
Lafayette

Editor:
The Lafayette schools are a gem within our community, providing Lafayette's children with the strong enriched education they deserve. What's more, that education is provided very economically - we spend half of what comparable communities in other states spend to achieve similar results. State budget woes, now affecting education funding for the 4th year in a row, threaten the quality of that education and we must band together to preserve this critical community asset.
Fortunately school leaders have provided us the opportunity to support the school children of Lafayette by placing a temporary "brigde the gap" parcel tax on the ballot, Measure B. From my 8 years on the school board I can attest that our schools are already run as efficiently as possible - 4 years of budget cuts have a assured that. There is nowhere left to economize without directly impacting quality of education - in fact some programs have already been pared back and now face possible elimination. While scaling up is relatively easy once funding returns to normal levels, programs eliminated are very difficult to reinstate. Moreover, the children in the seats of our schools right now will only pass this way but once. A program eliminated for even a few years means a lesser education for those kids.
I no longer have children in the Lafayette schools but am supporting Measure B because I believe it is the community's obligation to provide a strong education. We cannot allow for the quality of our school's to decline - we owe our community's children better than that. Please vote yes on Measure B.
Sincerely,
Ann Appert
Lafayette

Editor:
I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed in the letters which have recently been published in your newspaper regarding the decision by the town council to approve the Rancho Laguna project.
The fact that the council made the decision even when they knew that they had the legal justification to say NO to the plan is baffling. They, more than the average citizen of Moraga, knew of the consequences: 180,000 cubic yards getting excavated off the top of the ridgeline, to mention one.
That 2/3 of the council did not consider the compromise on the table that would protect the ridgelines and the creek, while still allowing development, causes bewilderment.
Another puzzle: how can the council come up with the anal definition that says 'protect' does not mean 'prohibit', when referring to bulldozing open spaces? This new definition certainly makes me think twice about relying on the town council to protect me, one of Moraga's citizens. Under their 'protection', they wouldn't find it necessary to prohibit someone from lopping off my right arm. In fact, they might even try to convince me that such a loss, with a bit of creative effort, could become invisible.
The approval granted to the Rancho Laguna project has set a dangerous precedent. If an area deemed 'Priority Conservation Area', and 'scenic corridor' can be so badly damaged, then what of the other open spaces around Moraga? They've suddenly become quite vulnerable. The Open Spaces and Hill of Moraga were cited as reasons, along with the school system, as main reasons for people to choose living in this town; one wonders what the town council and 'planning' commission were thinking. Are we going to see the removal of a top reason for choosing Moraga as a preferred habitat one hill, one creek, one protected open space at a time?
Leslie Swartz
Moraga

Editor:
The recent 2-1 vote by the Moraga Town Council to approve the Rancho Laguna project provides a sobering lesson on the need to revise the Moraga General Plan. Despite the presence of clear language in the current General Plan to protect ridgelines, two council members, Karen Mendonca and Howard Harpham, chose to ignore this language and voted to approve a project with ridgeline development. Only Councilmember Dave Trotter spoke directly about the General Plan language to protect ridgelines and the clear intent of the Town Council in 2002 which adopted this language, citing this as the basis for his opposition to the Rancho Laguna project.
The dictionary defines the word "protect" to mean: "to shield from injury, danger or loss; guard, defend". It is baffling to hear that grading off the top of the ridge is protecting it because the homes which will be built would not be seen from a small number of arbitrarily selected viewpoints. It is even harder to understand when this argument is put forth by a councilmember who ran on a platform of protecting open space as Karen Mendonca did.
Ridgelines not protected by MOSO 1986 will only be protected when their preservation is not subject to interpretation. The current General Plan will be 10 years old in 2012, the time interval recommended by the state when an update should occur. Moraga residents need to insist this process gets underway and ensure that specific language is put in place that permanently protects our ridgelines from those who covet to build on them, and from the politicians who allow them to.
Malcolm Sproul
Moraga

Editor:
Dick Immel and Dan Smith wrote excellent letters to the Lamorinda Weekly last week. Letters are an excellent and important means of communicating opinions, but what struck me while I was reading them is that this is not enough. It is time for all of the open space supporters to think about either running for the Town Council or Planning Commission themselves or finding people willing to run. As both these men so eloquently pointed out, we were blind-sided by Karen Mendon‡a with her first vote on Rancho Laguna. Karen campaigned vigorously for Measure K to preserve and support Moraga's Open Spaces but what did she do in the voting booth? When I have mentioned to open space supporters who have packed the council and planning commission meetings about running, everyone says no. OK, so then what happens? It is time for all the people who attend council meetings in support of Moraga Open Space to think about this. We cannot have Karen reelected. Everyone together needs to change the face of Moraga politics or at least the part of politics that concerns Open Space. As Dan Smith said in his letter, "... the residents are not going to like what they see when the grading begins." There is no such thing as an invisible house. Carving up hillsides to create this "illusion" of invisibility is a travesty.
Caroline Wood
Moraga

Editor:
While we applaud Governor Jerry Brown and the Legislature for taking action on the budget, the proposal to abolish redevelopment agencies would eliminate affordable housing funding for Habitat for Humanity in the East Bay and across California.
We use this key source of support to revitalize blighted communities, help drive the East Bay economy and change lives for hard working families. These funds, along with local donations and the hands-on work of thousands of volunteers each year, have built nearly 300 affordable homes. In turn, our Habitat homeowners help sustain the economy by paying property taxes and reducing reliance on state and local social services.
Habitat East Bay uses this funding to create jobs, employing plumbers, electricians, engineers and architects. Redevelopment funds also allow us to leverage additional non-government funding to support our housing program.
Habitat for Humanity offers a hand-up, not a hand-out. Habitat homebuyers purchase their homes at cost and invest 500 hours of sweat equity as their down payment. They receive training on budgeting, money management and home maintenance. Habitat's model of true affordability and homeowner education has kept our foreclosure rate below 2%, far below the national average.
We support redevelopment reform that lays the foundation for an efficient system of affordable housing production. There must remain a mechanism for funding that enables the development of affordable housing and helps eliminate the sub-standard housing conditions and high rents that plague many areas of the East Bay.
Janice Jensen
Lafayette

Editor:
My husband and I moved to Lafayette for the schools. Do we love the new library, the beautifully landscaped downtown, the wonderful small town community, and the fantastic weather? Absolutely! But that is not why we moved here. We moved here for the schools.
That statement is worth repeating because over the last several years the Lafayette School District has made expenditure cuts in its budget in order to keep it in balance with shrinking revenue from the state. Under these circumstances the quality of public education in Lafayette has been facing a slow decline. Alarmingly, we now eminently face an enormous decline in educational funding and quality. We are facing an unprecedented crisis. Locally, if Measure B does not pass and if, state-wide, the voters do not pass the proposed tax extensions and also if Proposition 98 guarantees are not upheld, it is projected that the Lafayette School District could face a staggering 3.2 million dollar structural deficit for the 2011-2012 school year.
This loss of money means cuts to established and valuable programs such as music and science. It equates to decreases in instructional days, reducing the number of teachers and counselors, and the list goes on. That is not the education I want for my children. That is not why my husband and I moved here.
Unfortunately, at this time, we can not count on the state of California to provide our schools with the funding it needs to continue to provide quality education.
The Lafayette community must act quickly to find funding sources NOW. Saving our valuable programs, teachers, counselors, and other support staff is a necessity to ensure we maintain our excellent schools. Our children deserve to be adequately prepared for the future.
How will we do this?
First, we must pass Measure B on May 3. This is one step towards generating local stable funding for our school. This parcel tax of $176 for the next four years is money that STAYS LOCAL - it cannot be taken away by the state. If you are reading this and balking at the idea of another tax, I understand. But for less than 50 cents a day, we can make a statement that the Lafayette community cares about our schools. Whether you have children in the school system or not, our schools not only educate the children that shape our future, they are a major factor in making Lafayette a very desirable neighborhood.
Second, we must think outside the box. We need to tap into any available resources such as grants, donations from local businesses, support from generous alumni and contributions from our real estate agents who understand that the quality of our schools is tied to the value of our homes. Parents who have children in the school district were each asked to pay $1000 per student for the 20010-2011 school year. This form of donation from the parents has been going on for years and will continue but it is still not enough. Until California can stand on its own (and I look forward to that day) and sufficiently provide for an acceptable education for all students, the entire Lafayette community needs to be part of the solution.
Third, we must work together as a community. Our city officials, our school board, our teachers, our business owners, our residents - with and without children - everyone. Be an active participant in where you live by staying informed. This can be done in numerous ways such as: attending city meetings, school board meetings, reading the paper, or listening to the news. The good news: it is not late to find out what is going on in Lafayette. And the time is right to improve communication between the schools, the city, and the people they serve.
We also need to look towards the future. The only way we can truly move past this crisis is to create stability in our educational funding source. We must all take the time to write and call our state officials and tell them that our current structure for funding education is broken and we have no choice but to fix it.
On the City of Lafayette's homepage, it states that "Lafayette is noted for its high quality of life with top rated schools." That is true now, but may not be if we do not work on the current crisis in front of us and do so swiftly.
Let us lead by example in Lafayette. I look forward to our community working together and solving this urgent situation that is troubling our wonderful community.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Paul
Lafayette