Fate of annex rests with MV City Council
The photo at right depicts Mountain View’s Cuesta Park Annex in 1959, photographed by the late Gerry Gerontinos.
It looked this beautiful in 1968 when my father drove his 1957 Chevy up onto the annex dirt, and my mother, father, brother and I picked fruit off the trees and put them into our popcorn bags on our way home from the Monte Vista Drive-In Theater (which used to be at Grant Road and El Camino Real).
At Tuesday’s Mountain View City Council meeting, councilmembers will decide whether they agree with the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s decision to remove the historical annex orchard remnant from its Permanente Creek flood protection plan so that present and future generations can enjoy its rural beauty.
Let the city council know what you think.
Robert Schick Los Altos Hills
Resident questions tennis court restrictions
Note: This is an open letter to the Los Altos Recreation Department.
A sign has been posted at the Monteclaire public tennis courts, promoting fee-for-service tennis lessons by a specific professional.
It also announces that use of one of the two courts is restricted to these lessons for several hours per day. It states in capitals:
“ONLY THE ABOVE CITY INSTRUCTOR(S) ARE PERMITTED TO TEACH LESSONS AT MONTECLAIRE PARK. PLEASE REPORT ANY ILLEGAL LESSONS TO THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT.”
Why would Los Altos promote a monopoly on teaching? And what is the justification for declaring any other teaching “ILLEGAL”? Such heavy-handedness seems intended to intimidate players from choosing their own instructors.
What happens to those who want to share their love and knowledge of tennis with their children, grandchildren and friends?
Lessons, by anyone, shouldn’t take priority over the use of the courts by residents who simply want to play.
Unreasonable restrictions and threats foster resentment, and any policy that benefits a few at the expense of the many must be reconsidered.
1"White Misses the Point"
at Monday, 10 December 2012 16:12
I think Pat White’s letter to the editor (December 5, “Column misses point”) itself misses the point. Ms. White reveals her personal bias with the comment “The Cranston family has received “huge monies” in rents.” What does that mean? They own property and receive rent? Should they have to rent for free? What nonsense!
The real point is that Mr. Cranston is not conducting a holy war against the project; it is a struggle against a secretive City Council and City Staff. The memo makes it clear the City and the Council pushed for the sale of this property at a price significantly below market value and ignored the interest of other qualified developers. Why? Is Ms. White against transparency in government? Is Ms. White okay that the City violated the law and may have given away millions of dollars? What Mr. Cranston appears to be asking is who knew what and when did they know it?
I think that basiic communication is the least that we should expect from our City off
We reserve the right to use comments submitted on our site in whole or in part. We will not publish comments that contain inappropriate content, advertising or website links to inappropriate content.