Equitable arrangement needed for tennis courts
Following is an open letter to the Los Altos Parks and Recreation Department.
The tennis teaching program (run by Whitlinger & Sarsfield Tennis), at certain times of the week, currently has priority use of one of the courts at two-court sites (Montclaire and McKenzie parks), and two of the courts at three-court sites (Marymeade and Rosita parks.)
As I’ve indicated previously, I am in full support of offering teaching on the public courts, especially for our city’s children.
However, I believe that the city-sponsored teaching should never be allowed to prevent public use of more than 50 percent of the tennis courts at any time at any one site.
If no one else wants to play, all unused courts can be used for the teaching program. However, when others wish to use the public courts, the teaching program should relinquish the “nonteaching” court(s) and confine its activities to the single designated “teaching court” so that the rest of the public can use the other court(s). Thanks for considering my suggestion.
Giving up schools won’t stop lawsuits
Having followed the back and forth between the Los Altos School District and Bullis Charter School these many years, I believe that I’ve come up with a solution: The district should just give over both Egan Junior High and Blach Intermediate schools to the charter school.
On second thought, I just realized that this would never work because the charter school would reject this as an unfair offer (and file another lawsuit).
Pretty sad what’s going on in our town because of a charter school that should have never been allowed in the first place. File your complaints with the worthless Santa Clara County Board of Education. They are 100 percent responsible for this debacle.
Require schools merger before bond measure
Just like the Town Crier, I am frustrated by the relationship between the Los Altos School District and Bullis Charter School. The Town Crier has called for a merger, with the charter school being an autonomous magnet school. I applaud that suggestion. I say the community has to take back our schools (the charter school being one) and make a merger happen.
Both the district and the charter school want new school venues within the district. The district is floating the idea of a bond measure for construction of two new schools, one for the district and one for the charter school. I say to the community, take back our schools. Neither side gets a new campus unless and until they agree to a merger, period.
We can do it. These schools exist for us, we do not exist for them. The parents at the charter school can take charge of their facility and make that happen, the community can take charge of the district and make that happen. A merger benefits both sides, each gets a new campus, the lawsuits end and, most importantly, our community is reunited.
I have had it. Take back our schools!
Online poll about BCS questionable
Regardless of opinion relative to Bullis Charter School and its program, the Town Crier’s March 5 Poll of the Week is misleading and questionable.
If you think Bullis Charter School is an outside organization, then the bond election cannot include them.
If you think Bullis is part of the Los Altos School District, then it is not necessary to include them.
The bond election can’t alter the legal obligation of the district to share facilities with Bullis. That’s not subject to local voting. It’s part of state law.
If the district increases its total facilities, then the proportionate share due to Bullis is increased. Conversely, even if a bond election fails, the district still has an obligation to provide the same share to Bullis.
The facilities purchased with bond money belong to the state of California, for which the local school district is merely an agent. That’s why school districts are exempt from city zoning controls.