Human pride day

The debate on Gay Pride Day seems to be dividing our community.

Our community, made up of people with many different backgrounds and views, is known for its richness and diversity. Giving special respect or attention to any one particular group can bring other groups to ask for similar attention.

Couldn’t this drive us away from cohesiveness? In my opinion it can. Los Altos is a community that shows respect to all human beings.

If we have to designate a day in our community, how about designating a special day as “Human Pride Day”?

Firooz Ghaffari

Los Altos

Los Altos council scolded for limited debate

This is an open letter to the Los Altos City Council.

The (Los Altos) city council’s rejection of requests to recognize Gay Pride Day, followed by its recent decision to refuse to consider future statements on sexually related issues, constitutes a real step backward for our city. The publicity it has engendered, in this era of strengthening respect and acceptance of racial, national origin, religious and sexual orientation, is a black eye for Los Altos.

A city council might legitimately decide to devote its energies entirely to local city management issues.

Parking, traffic, zoning, police matters, parks, new public buildings certainly demand your time and attention. We appreciate your efforts in these matters. But if this is your sole definition of your role as a council, then you must clearly state that you will issue no proclamations whatsoever on any subject or respond to any requests, even to support such noncontroversial issues as a cancer fund-raiser or Girl Scout projects.

Such a limited view of your role, however logical, is a disappointment. Many of us hope to elect leaders who have the vision and strength of purpose to respond appropriately to the larger issues of our time as they affect citizens of our community. Certainly you cannot be a debating society on the myriad national and international problems facing us all. But you should choose, when an issue is brought before you, to conduct discussions and make decisions that are locally relevant.

Refusing to consider an issue in the future severely limits the opportunities for this council to dialogue with its constituents. In this particular situation, the constituents are youth, some of the most thoughtful and constructive members of our local high school. What are you saying to them by your actions?

You can rise above the mistake you have made. You can reopen dialogue and show yourselves to be the true leaders we need, not simply civic managers.

Katrina M. Smathers

Los Altos

Many questions for Foothill-De Anza

Almost all of us in the community believe that Foothill and De Anza colleges are a major resource for our area. Most of us have taken courses here and many of us have taught here. There is no question that these two community colleges have enhanced life on the Peninsula for many and will continue to do so for decades to come.

However, I have had strong questions related to the issues you brought out in your March 1 editorial.

I find myself similarly asking about the quarter-billion-dollar bond that is currently being implemented. I find no solace in the oft-used justification of ever- increasing construction costs. These need to be in the plan initially, not added later.

The current request of another half billion dollar bond really asks the question of who is really watching these expenditures. Are there business-savvy people consulting with the board of trustees on these points?

What has already been accomplished with the first bond? What needs to be accomplished now that was not listed before? What are the cost estimates and how were they determined?

For the amount of money involved, we need more than a casual statement of “dramatically rising construction costs and the discovery of an earthquake fault under the old facility.” This description does not explain enough to justify an added half billion dollars.

I feel that it is in the interest of our community that a detailed study be presented related to the old bond expenditures as well as the new proposed bond expenditures.

Your editorial spelled out the issue quite clearly and your timing is relevant. Hopefully, the board of trustees will hear this important message and reassess its approach to this most important issue.

Joseph J. Krackeler

Los Altos Hills

What are Westwind’s specific issues?

Once again, the town of Los Altos Hills is embroiled in a debate centering around the elected officials. The handling of the Westwind Barn issue seems to be based on mostly posturing by the city council and mayor (March 15 Town Crier).

When Friends of Westwind state that the issues seem to be manufactured by the city, there are no specific issues of concern cited by the council in the article to prove otherwise.

Instead of allowing politicking and emotional responses to illuminate the rest of us to the problems surrounding Westwind, learning what the specific concerns of the council and the response by Friends of Westwind would be very helpful.

In elections, there are two sides given for each issue and rebuttals allowed to answer the other side’s statements. Maybe for issues concerning Los Altos Hills’ elected officials things should be presented in the same format so the facts of the issue can be learned. Other facts, like possible conflicts of interest, should be reported as well. Two councilmembers valiantly recused themselves because of possible conflicts of interest. Are there any other elected officials who should recuse themselves as well for other reasons?

Questions that need to be addressed and reported on are issues concerning the amount of time the barn allots for the community, the pros and cons of bringing in outside management and the issues surrounding the lease contract Friends of Westwind has for the next eight years.

I am not involved with Westwind Barn in any capacity. I am just tired of seeing more issues in such a small town being addressed by the elected officials in a seemingly less-than-objective manner.

Kathy Lawless

Los Altos

Affordable housing the solution

As we bid a fond farewell to the Alpha Omega Shelter, we must address the main causes of homelessness and the best use of our resources to end homelessness.

We all know that neighborhoods succeed when everyone has a decent place to live. When parents and children can put down roots in the community with confidence, our whole community benefits.

According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the No. 1 cause of homelessness is lack of affordable housing. There is no community in America now where a minimum wage worker can afford a market-rate apartment.

Providing housing options gives people the opportunity to find a stable job and become self- sufficient. And affordable housing is cost effective. In California, affordable supportive housing could save more than $9,000 a year per person in health care, emergency and shelter resources.

The best way to end homelessness and make our neighborhoods more successful is to provide housing choices that people can afford.

Stephanie Schaaf

EHC Lifebuilders

San Jose