Taxation without representation
Dr. Thomas M. Burns
At around midnight on May 10 at the Los Altos City Council meeting, with only three citizens in the auditorium, the council unanimously passed an ordinance to raise the sewer assessment fees listed on city residents’ property tax bills by $2 per month from $19 a month to $21 a month. At the same time, they unanimously passed on a premium for sewer services to the residents of the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County within their political sphere of influence, raising their rates from $32.30 per month to $35.70 per month. When I asked the city council why the residents of the unincorporated area were paying 1.7 times the city rate, nobody was able to state why, but City Manager Phil Rose “guessed” that the premium was initially set years ago as an inducement to get the unincorporated area annexed to the city.
I have two concerns with the passage of this ordinance. Firstly, I always thought that the California Constitution guaranteed a properly noticed hearing for the affected residents to voice their concern about a tax rate increase before a “rubber-stamping” of such an increase by their elected representatives.
Secondly, in the case of the unincorporated area, the city council is not our elected representative. Wouldn’t it be ethically correct for the council to mail a notice to all residents informing them of their pending action? Additionally, couldn’t the council have adequately researched the rationale behind the premium for the unincorporated area before raising our taxes without representation?
I look forward to an explanation by the city council. After all, they were elected to serve the public good. Shouldn’t the public be notified of their actions ahead of time?
Politics to blame for Pinewood decision
John Ritchie
In your editorial last week you wonder rhetorically why there is a “disconnect” between the planning commission’s view of the proposed Pinewood School expansion on Fremont Avenue and the city council’s view. The answer is simple: It’s politics, which play no part in the planning commission’s decision but which are of paramount concern to the city council.
The planning commission (whose members are appointed by the city council) is responsible for making land use recommendations to the council. Those recommendations take into account not only the potential impacts a proposed project may have on the immediate neighborhood, but also the benefits and burdens for the city as a whole.
I sat on the planning commission for two terms, and I can vouch for the dedication to principle - and to the best interests of the city - not only of every commissioner but also of the city staff who review all project applications.
On controversial projects, there are always vocal members of the public who strongly express their views at public hearings. These views are usually self-interested, which is as it should be. In the heat of public debate, it can be hard for the decision makers to remain objective. However, without exception, the commissioners I served with took pains to focus on issues and maintain their impartiality, reaching decisions and making recommendations without regard to political consequences.
The elected members of the city council, on the other hand, do take political outcomes into account. There is no “disconnect.” Everyone is doing the job they were appointed or elected to do, with the best interests of the city in mind.
LASD board has warped perception of equivalency
William C. Downey
Los Altos School District’s plan to use three rooms of the Bullis-Purissima School site for an extended kindergarten rather than opening up the campus to Bullis Charter School is one more example of the district’s unrelenting opposition to the charter school.
The school district board claimed that the Bullis-Purissima campus was not an equivalent facility as required by law and denied the charter school use of the campus, but they put the charter school in an eyesore tenement temporary camp school on a corner of the Egan campus. Anyone passing by on San Antonio Road can clearly see the school board’s definition of equivalency!
In spite of these actions, the charter school has become a thriving institution with a growing enrollment.
When will the school district end its negative behavior and show some class in its dealings with Bullis Charter School by offering them the Bullis campus? Will the voters of Los Altos Hills support the next parcel tax for educational enhancement - as they did in 2002 - if the charter school is denied use of the Bullis-Purissima campus?
Irony in rejection of Pinewood plans
Bruce Van Nice
It is sad that Pinewood’s proposal for expansion of the lower campus was rejected last week.
Pinewood is an extraordinary place. It is an asset to the community and it is producing our future assets, children who will become good neighbors and good citizens here and elsewhere. My son has spent three years at the lower campus and I cannot begin to describe the knowledge and positive behaviors the staff and teachers have imparted.
Responsibility and consideration for others are instilled in the children and parents at Pinewood. We are continuously reminded of our obligation to treat Pinewood neighbors with respect.
No one at Pinewood views expansion of the lower campus as an opportunity to intrude on the neighborhood, quite the reverse, we understand our obligation to preserve the serenity and privacy of Pinewood neighbors and abide by the policies established to maximize same.
It is especially sad to see that expansion of a school is positioned as tantamount to wholesale development. Does anyone really believe that if Pinewood expands that developers will see the neighborhood as an open playing field and rush in with new projects?
There is a certain irony in the fact that the charter school proposed for Los Altos Hills is viewed as a “good” cause but expansion of a wonderful institution like Pinewood is “death by a 1,000 cuts” (as quoted in the Town Crier).
Maybe the logic is that schools are great so long as they are in someone else’s neighborhood. Where does that lead?
