Apr 9, 2008

Letters

Bill unnecessary

Dear Editor: Your article on Saturday did not disclose the full story on inspection of hospital construction.

The "inspector of record" employed by hospitals or owners does not have the final word on the acceptance or rejection of any item being considered. That is enjoined by an inspector hired by the state of California. No construction/alteration project obtains a release without inspections by state-employed inspectors.

AB 2966, introduced by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, is not necessary; it should not become law.

Carl W. Otto,

Palo Alto



Supervisor's record

Dear Editor: It seems Supervisor Jerry Hill's apologists will just continue the same ridiculous excuses for Supervisor Hill as he has spun for himself. In a recent op-ed, a defender of Hill's environmental record claims that Hill is a good green vote despite the tens of thousands of dollars he has taken from developers and real estate interests over the length of his entire career ["Hill's green record defended," by Lennie Roberts, March 20].

According to the writer, voters should disregard his terrible environmental record because Hill is really a good guy. That's about as funny as Hill's own excuse for why he was a Republican for more than three decades. He has stated publicly that he was a Republican so that he could support former U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey for president on an anti-war platform against Richard Nixon. That was in 1972. What about the other 30 years?

Hill's responses to his critics are laughable.

Pat Gray, secretary, Green Party of San Mateo County,

Burlingame



Hill on health care

Dear Editor: Catherine Brinkman, my Republican opponent for state Assembly, incorrectly states that I am "suggesting that every city in the county pass local ordinances to compel local businesses to pay for health care for all uninsured residents." [Letters, April 8] That is false.

The group working to find ways to expand health insurance coverage for the uninsured is The Blue Ribbon Task Force, a commission of local stakeholders representing health care providers, hospitals, nonprofit groups, labor, county and city government and business.

One of the guiding principles the Task Force has adopted is the concept of shared responsibility: that health care finance is the joint responsibility of individuals, employers and the public sector. One proposal under consideration is to require businesses to contribute a small percentage of their payroll toward health coverage for their employees. At no time has the task force ever proposed or suggested that businesses bear the sole financial responsibility for expanding health coverage to the county's uninsured adults.

The concept of universal health coverage in San Mateo County is not a new one. The highly successful Children's Health Initiative (CHI), a coverage program first implemented by the county in 2003, ensures that all children in San Mateo County up to 18 years of age receive access to health care. I am proud to have helped create that program without raising any taxes. And, studies show that coverage programs like CHI save taxpayers millions of dollars in health care costs through better care management and reduced emergency room visits. Expanding coverage to uninsured adults will achieve similar cost savings.

Health care is a basic human right. Our success in expanding health insurance to the uninsured in San Mateo County can be a model for the reforms needed on health care in Sacramento.

Jerry Hill,

San Mateo County supervisor



City's financial plan

Dear Editor: Individuals are known to on occasion turn to fantastic and unsavory schemes to avoid facing uncomfortable realities. So are governments. Unfortunately the Palo Alto City Council sets an example.

By any ethical measure, such as the Internal Revenue Service's well-known Duck theory, Palo Alto's scheme to issue "certificates of participation" - internally financed debt involving nonprofits as middlemen to private investors - is an unqualified duck. It waddles like a bond measure. It quacks like a bond measure. It has feathers like a bond measure. And the only reason for using it is to evade a legitimate vote. What chutzpah! What ironic hypocrisy to use this evasion to fund the construction of a new police station.

The upshot is that we shall be forced into paying out about $5.2 million per year, which by any sensible ethical standard should have been voted on. It's time to call a halt to this shenanigan.

Michael Goldeen,

Palo Alto



Peace center

Dear Editor: Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Director Paul George, in his letter printed Wednesday, claims that accusations made by reader Sheree Roth against his organization's involvement with the Palestinian Najah University in the West Bank are nothing more than "a baseless smear." His argument that celebrations of the recent terrorist attack of a Jerusalem yeshiva held at Najah University are not up for discussion for his group when affiliating itself with such institutions is proof in and of itself that Roth is right.

If the PPJC truly stands for peace and justice, it must take care not to partner with institutions that celebrate violence and the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Claiming that PPJC's affiliation with the same university that celebrates terrorism is mere "geographic coincidence" is like claiming that doing business with Sudan is moral because it is only a coincidence that genocide is occurring right next to places of legitimate business. Roth was right to complain, and the PPJC should take better care to promote only institutions that have a true desire for peace and justice.

Stephen Fisher,

Atherton