By Build town hall, then come together
When the World Trade Center was first proposed, the project was widely denounced as “a supreme example of self-glorifying monumentalism on the part of unaccountable, autonomous public-authorities.” But it was built — and it went on to become a defining symbol of pride and identity for every New Yorker.
My guess is that we’ll have much the same experience here in Los Altos Hills with the new town hall. The town hall debate has become so alarmingly rancorous and personal that the underlying issues and trade-offs for the town are hard to pick out in all the cross-fire.
We need more face-to-face compromise among more people and groups, and not just during high-pressure council meetings. We need a place, accessible to diverse groups of its citizens, to do this: to gather, make plans, work out problems, and generally work toward a shared vision for our community. This kind of community space is exactly what the new town hall design emphasizes and provides.
Opponents of the original design have played a crucial role and have reshaped the project in many positive ways. But opposing new uses of town hall in general is wrong. More contact among more people, and more participation in town issues in their early stages, is exactly what Los Altos Hills needs.
So, let’s go build this thing. And then, let’s come together inside it.
David GilmourLos Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills gerrymandering
It appears the Toni Casey “New Guard” gang has another scheme to control Los Altos Hills. In March 2000, the Casey gang narrowly (by 41 votes) seized control of the town council in a special election in which many of their supporters illegally voted and used questionable campaign tactics.
In November 2000, they kept control of the council in another close election (by 78 votes) in which many of their supporters attempted again to illegally vote (the district attorney stopped them).
This election, the Casey gang scheme is best described as gerrymandering a lot so gang member Bill Kerns, who voted illegally in March 2000 and attempted to vote illegally in November 2000 (Kerns said he was one of more than 100 people registered in the Hills who didn’t live there), can try to get elected to the council.
Kerns claims that he can’t afford to live in the Hills unless the Casey gang-controlled planning commission and council let him subdivide his lot. The subdivision requires creating a lot resembling a gerrymandered legislative district and ignoring a deed restriction prohibiting the subdivision.
Less than two years ago, Kerns gave assurances in order to get a building permit that he wouldn’t subdivide (remember this when you hear his campaign promises).
On Sept. 12, the commission approved the subdivision with two abstentions - Kerns and Janet Vitu (another Casey gang member seeking election to the council claimed a conflict of interest apparently because she and Kerns are running as a slate).
Earlier that night, Kerns, in what some called an act of hypocrisy, criticized the family who demolished the Winbigler house for breaching a condition imposed when they received their building permit - essentially what Kerns is doing with his deed restriction and earlier assurances.
What will the Casey gang try next?
Kim CranstonLos Altos Hills
The outstanding value of Measure H
What is value? In this difficult economy, everyone is seeking the best value for their money. “Best value” means receiving outstanding benefits from a given investment. The investment being referred to in this case is Measure H funding for our local Los Altos School District. The outstanding benefits extend to our children, teachers and community residents.
It is indisputable that LASD provides a K-8 education that is No. 1 in the state. It is also indisputable that our community, which values education so highly, attracts others with the same values to our city. While real estate values in other areas languish in this economy, our community continues to enjoy a double-digit increase in property values, partly because of our top-ranked school system.
The fact is that LASD is one of the leanest districts in the state, with administrative expense that is half of comparable districts. Nearby school districts receive nearly 35 percent more state funding per pupil because of inequities in a statewide educational funding system established more than 25 years ago. Our state funding has not kept pace with increased costs of materials, services and staff.
Like many in the community, I was dismayed at the budget crisis after the defeat of Measure A last April. Save Our Staff was born of this defeat and raised generous, one-time donations to protect teachers and programs this year. But private funds will not exist next year. Local funding is the only means to retain our superior and dedicated teachers so that our outstanding curriculum will continue to be delivered to our children.
Please vote yes on Measure H on Nov. 5. I welcome any questions or comments at mad.2@worldnet.att.net or 224-7325.
Maria DickersonLos Altos
Help maintain quality of Los Altos schools
We read with dismay Aaron Broholm’s letter to the Town Crier (Sept. 25) describing his unfortunate conversation with a volunteer from the Measure H Campaign.
We are very sorry that his concerns were not addressed and that he was contacted by someone who was obviously not properly trained. This never should have happened. However, we hope your readers will not let this one unfortunate incident dissuade them from voting in favor of Measure H.
We recently made a move to Springer School after spending seven years and a lot of money at a small, independent, well-regarded school on the peninsula. We can honestly say that everything is better at Springer than it was at this costly independent school.
We are fortunate to live in a community that supports education so passionately. That is why our public schools are ranked top in the state and our property values are as high as they are.
However, we are in danger of losing all of this if Measure H does not pass in November. Due to state budgetary problems, we need the extra revenue raised by Measure H just to maintain our current standards.
We do not believe the district has any extra fat to cut and that it is run very efficiently. The district has already said that it is quite likely they will not be opening a seventh elementary school even if the parcel tax increase is approved.
We don’t even want to think of the consequences if it is not approved. Based on our experience, you would be hard pressed to find a better education in the private school arena, even if you could afford the high tuition.
Even if you do not have a child in Los Altos public elementary or middle schools, think of your property values and how they are directly linked to the quality of our public schools. Please support Measure H in November.
Emily Wu and Drew HoffmaLos Altos
No quarrel with the water district
We want to correct the eroneous information in the caption beneath our picture (Sept. 25). We have no quarrel with the Santa Clara Valley Water Disrict. The Adobe Creek restoration program, as planned by the water district and scheduled for 2003, is necessary and welcome. Our concern lies with the city of Los Altos Environmental Committee’s proposal for creekside protection as described at length in the Sept. 18 Town Crier. That proposal, which would brand many if not all of the approximately 500 creekside properties nonconforming, is a potential neightmare for creekside owners.
We welcome and encourage the implementation of the water district’s Adobe Creek restoration plan. It is, however, our fervent hope that the city council, upon review of the environmental committee’s proposal, will reject its well-intentioned but dreadfully misguided proposal.
Marge and Mike BrunoLos Altos
Wood smoke is toxic and carcinogenic
This is the time of year to lay in a supply of firewood for your fireplace or fuel for your wood stove for those cold, still winter nights that are coming soon. Please don’t.
Unfortunately, the wood smoke curling up your chimney and permeating your house and neighborhood is deadly for you and your friends, family and neighbors. It shortens all of our lives. It produces allergic reactions for many and an agonizing slow death for some.
Wood smoke contains over 100 extremely poisonous and carcinogenic chemicals or compounds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency researchers say that our cancer risk from burning wood emissions is 12 times that from the same amount of cigarette smoke. The emissions aggravate asthma, emphysema, pneumonia and bronchitis. They sting the eyes and trigger headaches and allergies. Long-term exposure may lead to emphysema, chronic bronchitis, arteriosclerosis and nasal, throat, lung, blood and lymph-system cancers. Wood smoke is especially threatening to newborns, young children and the elderly. For more information, logon to www.burningissues.org.
Fireplace and wood stove use may be acceptable for open countryside and widely separated homes, but in relatively crowded areas such as Los Altos the pollution is enormous.
Many communities have banned wood fires and stoves. When will Los Altos recognize burning wood and wood products for the serious and harmful crime that it is?
Please voluntarily stop burning wood and wood products in your fireplaces and wood stoves. The health and well-being of us all is at stake.
Donn Parker
Los Altos
