Loading...
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor \õ)11E (C; IE ~ VIle ~ lru AUG 1 5 roOl I~ Election Date: November 6, 2001 Measure D: Garden Gate CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Jurisdiction: Garden Gate, an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County to be annexed to the City of Cupertino Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure D 1. According to many Rancho Rinconada homeowners, annexation has provided no major benefits or noticeable improvement. In fact, many homeowners feel that annexation has increased restrictions, expenses, and construction time. fe moll ~ e¡<+v<>-- \:)\Q.I'\\:. - \\\'\01 2. In recent years, the county has implemented additional building codes to increase our neighbors' privacy. .,. 3. Annexation proponents would want you to believe that there would be no increased taxes or cost to the area's homeowners. The facts suggest otherwise. The City will impose the Utility Users' Tax, the Storm Drainage Service Fee and the Business License Fee. 4. All government services cannot be free and will never be free, as the citizens will always be required to provide the funding through different forms of taxes. Some of you might benefit from free compost, reduced fee city-run classes, and crossing guards funded by everyone's tax money, even though only a few of us would really take advantage of them. Are unnecessary cost and city government programs really beneficial to all Garden Gate residences? Currently, traffic enforcement, crossing guards, street lighting and maintenance are already provided by various agencies. As long as the services are provided, it doesn't matter who provides them. 5. For decades, Garden Gate homeowners have enjoyed less government, and fewer restrictions from the county and at the same time have access to all the amenities from the surrounding cities - Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, etc. We live in the best of both worlds. Why mess up a good thing? Î}.' SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS REBUTTAL ARGUMENT DECLARATION BY AUTHOR(S) (Elections Code § 96(0) fô) lE ~ lE ~ \'U lE rRI lfì} AU G 1 5 2001 l1lJ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK The undersigned author($) of the rebuttal·to the argU~éI'I~~o..~a¡nstballot measure:D at the ~deon~ (~ttéq ~~ ~ eleClionforthe6~(:u:Ò,,,,,^~~,,v;U~A~4 (títle of election) -f,. ~ (M<"-t¡eeA f. ~ame ~ri(d' . n) to be held on fl ð 1/ £ ,µ, 0 ( herebY$tate that such a.rgumønt is true and eörfect to the best (date of êlectiol'l) -t?t e ì r kMWIedgeand belief. (his I hér(theED J2~ ({-? Q'~~.1T Signature of 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 2~ Signaiure Title to Appear on Argument ~YD,~ Si.gnature Title to Appear on Argumønt ç., /.)' I '.' ~ ~ ('~ Signature Title to Appear on Argument IIßr1ff~~ Signature Title to Appear on Argument J/ (~(o I Date Print Name as Signed F//ft({) I Date ~. L, C-ô-fIUK Print Name as Signed ~emale ¡lie¡ /01 ( Date 1llav-,'aVl In_ Crowe I ~ Print Namø as$ígned Ma.1~al I) g 11'1- (T) I Date Í- f¡r.~QvrJ Crowd Print Name asSigned ~emale f/ ( Cf ( D ( Date CUPEI{fINO FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM, Kimberly Smith, Cityderk DATE: 8/16/01 Shannon Bushey COMPANY: Registrar of Voter's Office FAX NUMBER: (408) 998-7356 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 3 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S PHONE NUMBER: (408) 777-3217 YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: o URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY o PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: ~ -W fu ~ fp yJµ. tM.~ ~ Hu-o-t 1J ~ b. / J 0 neT a.-n ~ tt.b... ~f 'I-f¡µL wdR. k ~ ~ fp ~ O')'LL.. / ux.le .~ ~ oY-I>.M /~tJ ~ ~ a.ð~f tt..:J AßO'ì1 ¿;W L A.€ ~ 4 ,.,:..~ .... ~~ r,~~, i.~ ....~ ..,..' I;) :.!} ~. '~~, ~.~ .. . . .. ...... ..' City of Cupertino FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Kimberly Smith DATE: 8/6/01 ~.:- Shannon Bushey COMPANY: Santa Clara Registrar of Voters FAX NUMBER, (408) 998-ï=:3t+ 7~ ~{¡¡ TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 5 PHONE NUMBER: (408) 299-2161 SENDER'S PHONE NUMBER: (408) m-3217 RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Ballot Arguments, Nov. 6 Cupenino Election o URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY o PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Following is an argument in favor and an argument against the Cupertino measure. The argument against the measure appears to have some underlining, which mayor may not show up on your faxed copy. The author explained to me that the lines are an artifact from a clogged printer cartridge, and it was not his intention to underline any of the words in the argument. The signers of the argument against did not print their names on the form, so I have included them here: Pauline D. Crothers Lee L. Crothers Marian M. Crowel F. Richard Crowel Cathy R. Brendli Please call me at (408) 777-3217 ¡fyou need any further information. 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO CA 95014