Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 03/09/1998 All articles from this issue

Letters to the Editor

printer friendly version

The whole truth?

Your Feb. 18 article on the Mountain View High School health class HIV/AIDS Peer Education Project clearly demonstrates that while our students are becoming competent and trained (peer educators receive 50 hours of training through the Adult and Child Guidance Center), they are sadly lagging in academic excellence and competence. Perhaps the emphasis on condoms and sex education has indeed replaced the focus on what our young people deserve to know - with what they need to be able TO DO.

I am increasingly concerned with the lack of factual information being given in the high schools today in regard to the truth about condoms. The "difficulty is the message we give our youth with condom distribution and condom education and condom advertising," writes well- known Santa Cruz orthopedist Dr. Stanley Monteith, in his book, "AIDS the Unnecessary Epidemic." He writes that, "The message is that if you use a condom you are 'safe'(or safer), whereas all the SCIENTIFIC evidence suggests a 1 percent failure rate per month in a virtually 100 percent fatal disease." I suggest our classrooms return to education rather than indoctrination with some rather misleading truth about safe sex.

Let's trust our youth with the stale, mandated teaching of abstinence, and let's invite the experts, like Dr. Monteith, who have shown their concern for our young people by researching the FACTS, into the classroom. And given the facts, our students can then make their own choices. Hopefully with the whole truth.

Jan FranklinLos Altos

Abstinence objective was overlooked

We are writing in response to the article, "MVHS peer counselors tackle subject of students' safe sex," written by Linda Taaffe that was published in your Feb. 18 issue.

First of all, we thank you for taking interest in our organization and seeking to publicize our efforts.

We appreciate the fact that one of our objectives was firmly addressed, but our primary objective - promoting abstinence from sexual activities and drug abuse - was overlooked and not included in the article.

The HIV and AIDS peer education group consists of high school students from a diverse variety of backgrounds, but all dedicated to the same goal - to promote abstinence among teenagers. Promotion of abstinence serves as the basis for each and every one of our presentations, and we stress-above anything else-that abstaining from sex and drug abuse is the only 100 percent way to stay safe.

However, we realize that many teens are sexually active, and we can provide them with valuable information to keep themselves relatively safe. Teen sex is a reality, and it's extremely important that we address methods of protection. However, our main objective is not to offer protection as an alternative to abstinence. Our purpose is to educate our peers about how to stay safe, with the strongest emphasis on abstinence.

It's important to us that the community is aware of all the work that we're doing, and we just want to make sure that they see the whole picture. Thanks again.

The HIV and AIDS Peer Educators c/o R. DibnerLos Altos

Commission listened to the neighbors

My neighbors on Panchita Way and I would like to commend the Planning Department and the Architectural and Site Control Committee for their expeditious and thoughtful handling of the residential design review process.

We are opposed to the construction of large, out-of-scale houses in our neighborhood and are pleased to find that a process exists that allows neighbors to actively participate in decisions affecting them.

We found the city staff to be pleasant, patient and very helpful in explaining our rights and the process.

We especially thank Shanta Frantz, who was assigned to our case, for her helpful attitude and the patience to lead us through an unfamiliar process.

The city manager and the planning director have done a great job in establishing a resident- friendly environment in the city office.

We appreciate the open and fair atmosphere of Architectural and Site Control Committee meetings and the time-consuming efforts of the individual commissioners to understand and appreciate the specific issues. We know that they spend a great deal of time reviewing plans, visiting neighborhoods, and talking with residents as well as participating in city meetings. The committee provides a civilized forum for voicing objections to unpopular projects and its fairness ensures that neighbors can be involved and make a difference.

We are pleased with the outcome in our case, but, more importantly, we are proud that Los Altos is committed to a fair design review process and that neighbors can successfully oppose a project that deviates significantly from the city's design guidelines.

Bruce SkovLos Altos

Contradictions over design guidelines

The planning commission seems to be at odds with itself! It recommends for construction: "good neighbor design has design elements, material, and scale found within the neighborhood and sizes that are not significantly larger than other homes in the neighborhood" (Design Guidelines, P. 9).

It goes about this self-proclaimed "good neighbor design" by permitting vanity pieces: houses piled high on the entire lot, blocking out the sun, knocking out trees, destroying any semblance of rural living by replicating big city arrangements.

They fill the lot with a building from corner to corner. For the neighborhood's benefit? No, I don't think so.

On the other hand, when long time residents like myself request a variance (the lot is more than 15,000 feet, but 200 feet is an easement) to add a small cottage on the back of the lot, invisible to the street and to neighbors, for the purpose of family, a true "granny unit" that makes Los Altos affordable to my daughter - the planners say, "No."

Not one tree down, no second story, the ratio of structures to land is well below the standard, not even close, in other words a design that "illustrates the goals of the general plan, including those relating to privacy, bulk, neighborhood character, and landscaping" (Design Guidelines, P. 3). So, what's the deal here?

Possible reasons for this discrepancy don't bear thinking about.

It is time for planning commissioners to respect wishes of the current residents, the mandates of Sacramento, and the philosophy of its own design guidelines in order to promote the well-being of all of Los Altos.

Patricia Campbell

Los Altos