Referencing Hugh Biggar's story (Courier, Aug. 30) about the Vallco Mall: We YIMBYs (yes in our backyards) were confused about Vallco's backup plan for a new hotel, since Vallco said many times it had no backup plan if its effort to rezone the retail property in Macy's back parking lot to housing failed. What wasn't clear in the article: Is this hotel the one that already passed, unopposed, in Penney's back parking lot? Is it in place of the mixed-use 203 Rosebowl condos/retail it already got but hasn't started building (unopposed, because it included retail)? Or would it be in place of the additional 137 condos it asked for on land it wants rezoned just for housing in Macy's back parking lot?

No on Measures D & E is not about stopping new housing--low-income, senior or any other. No on D & E is about not rezoning tax-generating land that pays for infrastructure and city services to housing. Rezoning from retail does not support upkeep of streets, parks, etc. One or two hotels would bring in needed tax dollars, but occupancy is down. The YIMBYs ask: Why not just bring in more stores? We can't shop at a condo in Vallco's parking lot.

Stuart Chessen
Cupertino Courier Letters
Wednesday, September 13, 2006