Letters to the editor | September 26, 2008 | Danville Express | DanvilleSanRamon.com |


Danville Express

Perspective - September 26, 2008

Letters to the editor

Candidate views

Dear Editor:

A few weeks ago, I read on the protectmarriage.com Web site that Mayor Candace Andersen endorsed Proposition 8. Her stance is not surprising since she also supported Prop 22. I hadn't planned to write a letter to the editor about this issue until I saw a letter in the Danville Weekly titled, "Keep council incumbents." Andersen is joined in her support of Prop 8 with former State Sen. Bill Morrow who sponsored SCA 1, which sought to repeal ALL domestic partner laws, leaving many families without any legal protections or recognition. Does Andersen advocate such views as well?

Most troubling is a statement that appears on the Web site where she offers her endorsement of Prop 8. The protectmarriage.com Web site states, "While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father." I think my children would beg to differ. Just as heterosexual parents, my partner and I worry about education, instilling a work ethic in our children, and making sure they strive to reach their full potential. Although we don't exemplify the ideal family according to most Prop 8 supporters, I sacrificed a full time career to stay home and put family first. How many of the Prop 8 supporters can say the same?

Andersen's apparent belief that her family structure is superior to mine is dangerous, elitist thinking by an elected politician. Please consider carefully when you are deciding whether every incumbent on the Danville council should be brought back for another term.

Kenny Woolley, Dublin

More government for Alamo?

Dear Editor:

Tax promoters want more government in Alamo. Not for the residents, who won't benefit, but for the aspiring politicians as a springboard to higher offices.

Consider how the neighboring Danville "profited" by incorporation:

1. No political campaign signs are allowed on public property. (A few years ago some former town officials on their own time took a chainsaw and destroyed a sign standing on private property reflecting, in my opinion, the town's attitude. The court slapped them on the wrist slightly.)

2. Street repaving leaves a lot to be desired, whatever little is done is substandard;

3. Increased taxes for parks. These are maintained at an exorbitant cost and unnecessary perfection;

4. Promoting and pushing every conceivable unnecessary bond measure particularly those of the school district - for buildings only, not for better academic achievement;

5. Purchasing an old private clinic as city offices;

6. Pushing all kinds of rationing, carbon taxes, watering restrictions and anything that can make your life more uncomfortable.

Some residents of Alamo will oppose this new expansion of government - as in the famed story of Alphonse Daudet about the little goat that fought the wolf all night only to be devoured in the morning - the wolf on our doorstep will get them in the end.

If only our economy would grow as well as the government.

Vote NO on incorporation.

Vlado Bevc, Danville