By Help save our schools

After having spent seven years in the private school realm and 16 years living in the Los Altos community, we are making the move next year to the public school sector. We were very disappointed like everyone else that Measure A failed by such a narrow margin.

However we still believe in the strength of our community, faculty and administration and feel that we can overcome the shortfall in funding by raising the necessary funds privately.

The Save Our School (SOS) Committee met today for the first time as a group of grass roots parents committed to raising the $3.6 million deficit through the support of our community.

There are approximately 2,800 families in the school district. Hence we need to raise almost $1,300 a family to make up for the shortfall. If we don’t, it will mean larger class sizes, reduced janitorial services, no enrichment programs (math, science, PE) and no library staffing. It would be a huge disservice to our children and teachers if this is allowed to happen.

We are all aware that we live in difficult economic times. However, please remember that your donation is tax-deductible, that the quality of our schools affects our property values and that the alternative is private schools.

Based on our experience, the quality of private education is not necessarily superior.

We will be conducting a phone-a-thon on April 30, May 1 and May 2, as well as soliciting businesses and individuals personally. You can help support our efforts by volunteering to work on our committee, being as generous as possible when you are called or making a personal contribution now.

If you are interested in any of these activities, contact Maria Dickmad.2@worldnet.att.net or call 961-6167.

Emily WuDrew HoffmanLos Altos

A reminder in defeat?

Have you so quickly forgotten? California’s public schools are ranked right down there near the bottom of all the states in the nation. How is it possible that the Los Altos School District (LASD) has become the best in the state?

Through the high quality of support for teaching provided by local parcel taxes and by contributions by parents to educational foundations. Now, at a time when the state funds sent to LASD are continuing to dwindle and a multimillion dollar deficit will occur in September, you have decided to punish the school district, teachers, and the children. Dozens of teachers will be fired, class sizes will increase dramatically, libraries will close, and certainly the quality of our children’s education will drop.

The argument that the need for the funds was not made clear is spurious. Full details have been provided multiple times over the past three months in these pages, in other newspapers, and online at www.losaltosonline.com and www.klasscampaign.org.

Even if you do not have children in school or are not eligible for the over-65 exemption, you still should have voted yes on Measure A. Our outstanding schools are a primary reason for our high housing values and their continued appreciation.

The quality of our schools is a source of housing value that does not fluctuate as fast as the boom and bust cycles of the dot-coms. Yet still you voted no. I am ashamed and concerned for our future.

W. E. MoernerLos Altos

Blach student laments Measure A failure

I am so disappointed that the valiant efforts to pass Measure A were unsuccessful.

It is ironic that the people most affected by Measure A could not vote and that those who voted against the parcel tax did not take into careful consideration how much their votes will negatively affect us.

Teachers and support staff will lose their jobs. Class sizes will increase, programs and electives will be greatly reduced or eliminated entirely.

There are those that say that these “extras” are not necessities, but I have always been thankful that I live in a community that is willing and able to make the quality of education a priority.

There is a phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child.” It is my sincere hope that my village will come together in support of future measures.

Sienna KramerBlach Middle School seventh-graderLos Altos

More parking spaces not the answer

Parking in downtown Los Altos needs to be seen in the bigger picture.

Traffic planners are finding that if you build roads they fill up with cars and more need to be built. I suspect this concept transfers to parking spaces. The answer is to manage the spaces we have as best we can, with perhaps building something at Main and First with underground parking.

We would be better served by adding shuttles and encouraging walking, biking and higher housing density near transit corridors. The general plan update is considering all of these.

I spent last year studying transit in the bay area and participated in the Los Altos open general plan update meetings.

In the next 20 years, the Bay Area is projected to have one million more residents, and traffic in Los Altos is projected to increase by 20 percent.

At the traffic charrette, participants agreed we would like to see a 5 percent traffic decrease in that time frame.

That means each of us needs to decrease our driving by 25 percent over the next 20 years, starting with 5 percent immediately.

We’re at a change point in transit. One car, one person isn’t working anymore.

Listen to the traffic reports on the radio or notice how many people you know with asthma, other breathing difficulties, or airborne allergies.

Check out the general plan update when it’s open for critique. It’s well worth you time.

Betty Jo ByrneLos Altos

Need for pool complex questioned

Why is the city of Los Altos even bothering to consider a pool complex opposed by so many of its residents when recreational pools are available at both ends of Los Altos, even though they are not within the city’s boundaries?

The YMCA/YWCA has pools on Alma in Palo Alto and Grant Road in Mountain View that can accommodate the needs of local swimmers. Swimmers interested in more than recreational swimming should go to a swim center more suited to their needs without asking Los Altos to support them. The city with its limited revenue stream cannot afford to satisfy the whims of each and every resident.

One question which has never been answered is how many of the current members of the swim club at Covington are not Los Altos residents.

Edward KelleyLos Altos

Student urges end of pathways in LAH

I am writing in response to the article, “LAH Council defers decision on vacating Carse pathway easement until May” (March 27). I was glad to see that finally a resident taking legal action on this issue has been heard.

As an environmental politics student, the Pathways System and its guidelines act as an area of concern. Not only is the Los Altos Hills pathways system an environmental frenzy, it is also a threat to our neighbors’ security. It is clear that easements for paths cut through residents’ yards, which limits not only their privacy, but also their security. Who would feel safe with a public pathways system running through their back yard?

Although the paths are designed to benefit residents, how do we control the use of these paths and assure that residents of other towns, or even worse, burglars, do not use these paths as an entrance onto private properties?

Essentially, new property owners are buying their land for public use if the town requires that they either dedicate easements to the town or construct paths on their own.

If development of new paths occurs as town funds permit and as development generates increased demand for the system based on increases in population, won’t population levels soon overcome the amount of open space available on which these paths are built?

I am dumbfounded as to why hikers, equestrians and bicyclists would even want to meander through someone’s back yard in the first place.

It is my argument that further construction on the pathways system should be halted.

Blythe BeaubienLos Altos Hills

Resident requests zoning information

I would venture to guess 90 percent of Los Altos residents would vote against two-story homes in obvious residential areas.

Those new single-story homes being built are for the most part architecturally sound, pleasing to the eye and original. Would your fine publication let us know requirements to obtain zoning for low-height homes? How many residents in a zone? What constitutes a zone? Should not the builder obtain permission rather than the other way around?

If a contractor is planning a huge two-story job eight or 10 houses away, do I have a vote and if so, at what stage?

Also, while on residential areas, why doesn’t the city council listen to the town’s citizens? It’s most apparent the addition of swimming pools (yes, multiple pools) in a residential area where baseball fields already exist just won’t work.

To even consider additional construction beyond upgrading Covington School is ludicrous. When will council members and our planning person listen and take the pulse of its residents?

Yvonne Baker

Los Altos