Fatality a reminder of LA traffic problems
Ann Wolff and the Wolff family
Our hearts go out to the family of Henry Kohn, fatally injured while trying to cross San Antonio Road April 2. I was bicycling from the Los Altos art show at Hillview Community Center with my family when we came upon this horrifying scene.
We had just been talking with other families about how much we love our town; what a great sense of community we have in Los Altos.
It was wonderful to see so many families out to enjoy art work produced by the students of our schools.
What a juxtaposition to then come upon one of our town’s citizens killed trying to cross the street.
We, as residents of this town, have got to make our voices heard that we will not accept the traffic nightmare we live with daily.
The changes at the intersection of El Monte Avenue and Foothill Expressway were supposed to divert traffic on to San Antonio Road. People now drive on San Antonio like they are still on the highway.
Is our city going to remain passive as heavy, fast traffic on San Antonio Road injures and kills our citizens? Why should we care if it takes commuters going back and forth from 101 to 280 longer because the city of Los Altos has installed speed bumps, stop signs, reduced speed limits or added more traffic lights?
It has become practically impossible to safely cross San Antonio as a pedestrian. I believe earlier in the year a child was hit going to school, trying to cross San Antonio at Pine Lane. Our family tries to walk across San Antonio at Pepper Drive daily to get to downtown, and the speeding cars make us feel like we’re taking a chance with our lives just to cross the street.
It is even dangerous to try and cross San Antonio by car these days with the greatly increased amount of traffic, traveling fast at all hours. Something must be done.
Important to have advance health directive
Dr. Philip Brosterhous
Like Terri Schiavo, none of us can anticipate the course of our lives, but each of us should take control of our fate to the extent we can.
Everyone should have an advance health-care directive. This crucial document encapsulates what you want and don’t want for your health care and under what circumstances. It removes doubt in the case you are unable to articulate your wishes.
Regardless of your position on the right-to-die debate, you should create an advance health care directive.
Make it yours, individual and authentic, and address things like your values, wishes, spiritual aspects and issues of burden and control.
Forms and directions are available on the Camino Medical Group’s and other Web sites. Camino Medical Group is also offering workshops this month on how to prepare an advance health-care directive.
Completing a directive form takes only a few minutes, but it can potentially give you the control that Schiavo never had.
Not all in LAH benefit from Bullis
Tina Darmohray
Many of my neighbors in southern Los Altos Hills have said this before, but reading the coverage of the ongoing Bullis Charter School in the Town Crier, I feel like this point has been lost: Bringing Bullis Charter School back to the original Bullis site does not provide a local school for all of Los Altos Hills.
We live in the southern part of Los Altos Hills and Bullis is not our neighborhood school. Our children attend Loyola, and perhaps Covington.
Folks in our neighborhood are not clamoring for Bullis to return to the Hills and be “our neighborhood school” because it is not.
During the school-closure study period, when Bullis was being considered as our neighborhood’s school, many southern Los Altos Hills parents clocked the morning school commute between their houses, Bullis and one of the junior high or high schools.
The reality of it is, you cannot get to all the school drop-offs from our neighborhood if Bullis is our “neighborhood” school.
It’s clear that there are a group of people for whom the convenience of Bullis is a real plus, but please don’t let them couch Bullis as “all” of Los Altos Hills’ “neighborhood” school in your paper.
No controversy about gay pride
David Reitman
This letter is in response to your March 30 editorial. While I do not support your contention that the city council should not issue proclamations, I do not think this point worthy of argument.
What I do find offensive is your contention that gay pride is a controversial issue.
In fact gay pride and the ability to freely declare and practice the proclivities of one’s sexual orientation is not controversial.
Our Constitution guarantees a right of privacy as witnessed by the Supreme Court’s recent finding against Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. In fact, gay pride and gay rights have not been controversial issues for over 20 years.
Certainly gay marriage is a controversial issue and one I will not debate in this letter, but it is totally separate from the fundamental right of Americans to express their sexual orientation free from expressions of bias and predjudice from others.
I am tired of having to defend the rights of all Americans against attack by the narrow “moral” view of a small fraction of our population.
The Constitution does not establish an offical religion, gender, race nor sexual orientation. Saying gay pride is controversial is as ignorant as proclaiming a Native American pow-wow or a women’s advocacy march controversial.
The only location of the controversy is in the narrow minds of the biased and ignorant in our society who are afraid of tolerance lest their bigotry and stupidity be revealed.
.
