By Fix police problem very quickly
You have a big problem if what I read in the paper is even close to true. You need to fix this problem very quickly and you need to fix it correctly. I am referring, of course, to what is a deplorable situation with the Los Altos Police Department.
I’ve lived in Los Altos since 1972. During this time I have encountered our excellent police department on a number of occasions. Sometimes, I had a party that was a little loud and they gently reminded me to keep it down. On another occasion my wife and I were being stalked - somewhat more serious than a loud party. I’ve had a need for assistance in cleaning up a fire hazard in a neighbor’s yard. I’ve also witnessed the police work when a neighbor’s home was broken into on occasion.
Once, I got into a discussion with Chief Carlton over rules governing home alarm systems. I didn’t win, but I thoroughly enjoyed her sense of humor and the interchange.
In every situation where I have needed or witnessed police services the conduct of the officers was very professional. They did their job promptly and politely with a minimum of fuss. When appropriate, they followed up and kept us informed.
The Los Altos Police Department has always cared about this community and its residents and it has served all of us very well. The time has come to reward this dedication.
I have great respect for Chief Carlton, Detective Mark Laranjo and every officer in the department. I suggest all of you develop a similar attitude toward these fine professional people and act accordingly.
Fix the problem. Fix it right now. And, don’t even think of per diem or the sheriff as solutions. The fact is, the requested raises are needed in the valley we live in today. I don’t think many residents would disagree and I don’t think many would want to settle for reduced services and professionalism.
Bob PerdriauLos Altos
A community without police
It is alarming and a matter of deep concern to contemplate living in a community without a police force. And on that subject I can speak from personal experience.
After World Waw II, I moved into a new tract (today’s development), in Contra Costa County. It was a most compatible suburb with young families, new schools, blossoming churches and even a small shopping mall. In all, a kind of veterans’ paradise! We had RFD mail, garbage collection and our utility companies, for the most part, provided us with quick response to our problems.
We lacked only one essential service: local law enforcement. Because we were not incorporated, we had no city government, and therefore no police department. We depended on the county for our law enforcement, namely the sheriff’s department.
Without casting any aspersions on the local sheriff or her staff, I must warn you that this service was far from adequate, particularly in terms of quick response to complaints. Normally this branch covers such a wide geographic area that it should never be expected to replace a local police department (look to East Palo Alto’s past experience).
Our community soon became a prime target for burglars and other criminals. The woman across the street had a daughter molested. One night we chased a voyeur from a bush beside our bathroom window. We reported it to the sheriff immediately, only to have an officer arrive at our door two days later. A friend living nearby sat on his roof for three nights with a loaded shotgun, concerned about the rash of peeping Toms and burglars on his street. Believe me, it’s no fun living in a neighborhood of vigilantes.
The community I refer to was in no way as affluent as Los Altos. Yet it didn’t take long for the word to get out that we had no police department. If you were a potential burglar, robber, mugger, rapist, car thief or drug dealer, would you regard Los Altos - without a police department - as a fertile arena of operations? Certainly, I would.
But, finally, let me tell you how I solved this problem years ago.
I moved!
Dave MarinLos Altos
Funny comments, but she didn’t make them
While I appreciate the effort of Clyde Noel to find humor in the “rooster dispute” in Los Altos Hills (July 5), I personally take any controversy between neighbors very seriously. I have worked very hard to try to solve this problem by promoting real communication and understanding. Needless to say, I made none of the punny, humorous quotes attributed to me.
Elayne DauberLos Altos Hills Council member
Changes making LAH life better
Los Altos Hills is doing just fine, thanks.
Recent changes in our council and planning commission are making life better in Los Altos Hills. Voters knew what they were doing in the last two elections when they placed members on the City Council that no longer treat residents like ‘the problem” but rather as valued customers when they come to Town Hall. The promise of a consistent and objective application of town ordinances will improve residents’ demand for accountability in Council and Planning Commission decisions.
Our existing town ordinances and municipal code are comparatively strong when we look at other communities in the foothills, and they have stood the test of time protecting our countrified lifestyle and the beauty of our hills. With one-acre minimums and ordinances that keep house sizes to under 15 percent of the total lot size we can be sure that Los Altos Hills remains rural and the most desirable place to live in the Bay Area.
The “Old Guard” town government put itself in jeopardy when it decided to carry out an unpopular protectionist agenda by subjectively changing and bending ordinances making site development applications lengthy, difficult and unpredictable. The effect of the “Old Guard” was to discourage, delay and sometimes humiliate residents wanting to remodel or build their dream home.
Adjusting our municipal code requires notification and broad- based input by town residents. Our Council must objectively apply our ordinances and seek out majority opinion before implementing changes. The promise of an upcoming town-wide survey will help in defining the concerns of our residents. It may be that several areas of controversy, such as our pathways or home sizes, are better answered by placing one or more special measures on future election ballots. This would allow a healthy debate on the pros and cons and more clearly establish the majority position.
Evan Wythe M.D., President, Los Altos Hills Civic Association
Town has always, usually, been in turmoil
Inspired by your June 28 front-page article “Los Altos Hills - town in turmoil?” I write to say that LAH is always (or anyway, usually) in turmoil. Some think it is the water, some (me) think it is in our genes.
‘Twas so when we incorporated in 1956, indeed the question of whether to incorporate engendered arguments and commentary that today’s can’t match for passion. One of the hot preincorporation meetings was held in the old Purissima School, off Duval Way. I can’t even remember which side I was on, but I surely remember my husband’s and my involvement in the argument. (I don’t even know that we agreed.)
Over the years there were other heated episodes of greater or shorter length, and best forgotten. But we survive, in our feisty way. I hope the new century doesn’t have the effect of calming us down by imposing a uniform way of thinking and living. Nobody can say it is dull here.
Marjorie W. EvansLos Altos Hills
Use of ‘old guard’ seems a bit odd
I agree with your front-page assessment that Los Altos Hills is in turmoil and am pleased to see the coverage you gave to the pathway system, which is a legacy from the town’s founders.
Off-road paths are quite popular with youngsters, who can use them for getting to school safely, and for people of all ages who wish to get a little exercise or visit nearby friends.
I see that you call those who support the pathway system the “Old Guard” and suppose that is because they are defending the legacy, but it seems a bit odd to call those who are looking after the interests of children and the athletically inclined “Old Guard.”
In actuality, this kind of land-access controversy goes back to the Old West, when early ranchers and farmers were at odds with each other, with most ranchers wanting to maintain open ranges while farmers fenced in their property.
Some of our modern “ranchers” still ride horses, but more of them travel on foot or by bicycle, and none of them want to have to travel six miles to go around the block, as would be the case in the Hills without off-road paths.
The modern “farmers,” who mostly grow monster houses, don’t want riff-raff traveling nearby and generally like to build tall fences. Since there is more money in this new version of farming, it should not be surprising that their political candidates are very well funded.
In summary, I suggest that you adopt the terms “ranchers” and “farmers” for the main political factions, which I believe better characterize their differences.
Les Earnest
Los Altos Hills
