By Send letters to editor Bruce Barton at the Town Crier, 138 Main St., Los Altos 94022, or e-mail:
Answering key
questions on charter
As our community focuses on the Bullis Charter Elementary School petition, it is important to ask two key questions: 1) Why is the charter being started? and 2) What is the appropriate action by the Los Altos School District?
I can help with those questions.
The idea for the charter first came from Superintendent Marge Gratiot when she urged me several months ago to consider the approach. I’ve worked hard on it ever since and, with 327 other petitioners, filed the charter petition.
Marge suggested a charter school to solve a Los Altos Hills specific problem - half of us are in the Los Altos School District and half in the Palo Alto School District. The options to achieve a “town school” is to form our own school district or to form a charter, open to all, with preference granted to those in the school district and in the hills.
In short, this charter will win. The district only controls whether it is a smooth transition or a contentious one. The district should embrace the charter now, as required by law. That’s best for district budgeting, parents and teachers. And it’s best for all of our kids.
Mark Brier
Los Altos Hills
Charter proposal is
morally wrong
The question of the charter school proposal is not whether the petitioners have a legal right, it’s whether the petition is morally right. Should the petitioners prevail, 4,000 children in the Los Altos School District will pay the price.
The CACF has analyzed the financial impact of the charter on the district. On top of already devastating state budget cuts, the district will lose an additional $700,000. What is the district? It’s 4,000 elementary and junior high children. Legally, the petition is fine — but who would normally choose a course that impacts the education of thousands of children?
The petitioners state their intent is to create a “neighborhood school” for Los Altos Hills. Strangely, Craig Jones (lead petitioner), Francis La Poll (former Los Altos mayor) and Diana Neiman (charter treasurer) are residents of Los Altos, not Los Altos Hills.
To the Los Altos Hills City Council: Keep in mind that only 70 families support the charter on their Web site, and not all of those families are residents of Los Altos Hills.
While the motivations of the petitioners are unclear, the impact of their efforts is crystal clear: The education of thousands of children will be adversely impacted. Again, what is morally right?
Throughout the years, this community has demonstrated the value it places on educating our district children. Now it appears a choice must be made. Bullis parents must decide on whether to go forward with a charter school or not, with a known price tag on other children.
As this issue plays out, those who support public education for all district children can only hope that those deciding between pro-charter and pro-district children will make the morally correct choice.
Amy Allison
Los Altos
Law against
nature
It may soon be against the law for trees to grow in Los Altos Hills. A new ordinance now being considered by the town council would ban all new growth of trees and bushes in town if they block someone’s view or cast a shadow on a neighbor’s home.
Structures and fences are exempt from this view and shadow rule so they may grow in complete freedom.
You can plant a fence blocking your neighbor’s view of the bay and the Town will steadfastly defend your right to rob your neighbor’s visa with pieces of cut up dead wood. However, plant a few trees in the same place and the Town may soon be able to insist that you hack them down. Paul Bunyan would be proud.
In the 15 years I’ve lived in this town, I don’t know of a single instance where neighbors could not work out veggie problems like this between themselves - not a single one.
I’m sure it happens, but this proposed ordinance alters property rights in an uneven manner. It essentially gives a neighbor up the hill or to the north, the inalienable “right” of view and sunlight. Neighbors down the hill or to the south conversely lose the “right” for their trees to grow. The potential for this ordinance to be abused and actually create conflicts far outweighs the few disputes it will resolve.
Today, neighbors can work these kinds of issues out between themselves. Why does the town need to insert itself by drawing a line through the treetops?
Trees grow. It’s a universal natural law. Let’s not try to outlaw this malicious vegetative behavior on certain properties and insert the town’s limited resources between contentious neighbors.
Vincent Zunino
Los Altos Hills
Editorial marked down
for not doing homework
Regarding the Editorial “Crisis spurs call for finance reform”, March 19, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the following:
Editorial: an article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.
Opinion: a belief or conclusion held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
In the editorial, you technically met the minimum definitions above. However, when you question the involvement and activities of an individual, in this case Rep. Joe Simitian, it would behoove you both in the interest of fair journalism and as an example to the community to do at least minimum research before running your pen on paper.
Five minutes exploring the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District web site (http://www.mvla.net, latest news) would show you that Rep. Simitian has been involved in fighting Governor Davis’s proposed school budget cuts.
Do your homework: “D-”; good topic, good points expressed, incorrect spelling of Rep. Simitian’s name, unfair assessment due to lack of research, therefore, low credibility.
Ed Yuschak
Los Altos
