The Town Crier's comical choice of a July 29 cover story ("What's bugging you?") has startled me out of my inertia and impelled me to do something I never do, write a letter to the editor. Years have passed since "Silent Spring," the book about the environment by Rachel Carson, sounded the alarm. It takes a while to wake up to the fact that individually we are all responsible for the health of our planet, but now it is past time.
My family has not used pesticides or chemicals on our property for at least six years. Amazingly, we have fewer pests than ever before. It seems that the birds or other natural predators are eating the grubs because we no longer have raccoons pulling back the grass looking for them.
We have no more snails and earwigs, probably because, not only do we have far more birds, but species of them that we have never had before. We've made peace with the gophers by planting social garlic and other attractive plants that aren't so tasty to their palates.
We don't worry when our grandchildren come to play. Even though the lawns may not be perfect, they are perfectly healthy places for a 1-year-old to enjoy. We are not adding to chemical runoff into the creeks and bay, nor do we worry about birds eating insects that have been poisoned by chemicals.
Another way to help our planet and ourselves is by supporting the organic food industry. We'll save millions in health costs, lost irreclaimable acres of sterile, unproductive soil, and pollution of our most valuable resource, water. It will make our families and our planet healthier down the line whether we see immediate effects or not. With a little research, everyone can join nature in the happy experience of life.
Shan MarchLos Altos Hills
The 'facts' on the Sunkist issue
I agree it's time to bring closure to the Sunkist issue. Let's skip over your characterization of Sunkist Lane residents and your obsession with a neighbor, who has the support of 18 of 21 families as well as upwards of 300 petition signers, and proceed to a review of the facts.
In February 1997, the Los Altos City Council approved: 1) a use permit for a second living unit; 2) design review; and 3) denied a variance but said the unit ingress-egress was to relate to Avalon Drive.
The approved design was for a Cotswold-style cottage. The "as built" was a "construction shed" as characterized in a March 1998 Town Crier article.
Two theories have been advanced for the design change. The first is that the council required it. Not true. Proper placement would have allowed the unit to be built with the design approved by council. The second is that the architectural design "as built" is reasonably consistent with the architectural design approved by the council. The question of ingress-egress was pretty straightforward until potential renters were told that all SLU access would be from Sunkist Lane. This was not the intent of the council, nor does it reflect the action taken at the February council meeting.
What the council approved is not what was built. If I order a red car and am delivered a blue one, it's clear I can return the unit. The fact that the blue car meets all car specifications is not relevant, just as, in this case, it's not relevant that the unit meets all codes. It's the wrong unit.
This leaves two options: tear it down or submit the "as built" design to the council for approval. I support tear-down, but recognize after-the-fact approval may be the only alternative.
Regarding ingress-egress, city planners say that access from Avalon to the unit is now no problem. Access from Sunkist is no longer required or necessary. My recommendation is to eliminate the pedestrian gate and other gates on Sunkist Lane.
The residents of Sunkist Lane have played by the rules and expect to see them correctly applied.
Robert NapoliLos Altos
Humility, not humidity
needed among neighbors
When I was in the seventh grade, a guest speaker came to our classroom to speak to us about the virtues of humility. Having never before heard of the term, my youthful ears translated "humility" into "humidity."
Now, the truth be known, I did not know a thing about either condition at that time, but I did listen to him with rapt attention. That night at dinner, when I told my grandmother about the wonderful man who had spoken to our class about "humidity," and how much better off the world would be if more of us would practice it, she smiled. Then she got up from the table, returning in a flash with the dictionary. "I think that he was talking about 'humility,' " said my gentle Nana. And indeed he had. "Humility, n., 1. The quality of being humble. 2. Courteous; kind."
Eileen and Gary Greenberg, newly of Avalon and Sunkist streets, have been treated very shabbily by a few abhorrent, tyrannical neighbors. Stop it! There is no room in this town for that kind of behavior. And I, for one, would like to welcome them to Los Altos. Humbly.
Honor SpitzLos Altos
Creative spelling on menu items
I love the Town Crier! Where else can you find a local restaurant review with the words pallets (sic), (correct spelling: palates), creme broule (sic), (creme bruleé), and berry coulee (sic), (berry coulis) misspelled? I won't hold it against Prima Strada, (unless it actually appears on their menus that way), but I find it a little funny to see errors like that getting by the editing staff at the Town Crier.
I will award points for a correctly spelled "focaccia," but anytime you want a spell check, feel free to call me.
Karie Z. BennettLos Altos
Article about Jesus defies logic
Every Christian (literal in the Greek - child of Christ), should take affront to the Aug. 5 article, "Borg book: Jesus was not unique."
This article assigns credibility to the Borg book, which assumes the position that: 1) Jesus was a fraud; 2) Jesus was not who he claimed to be, the son of God; 3) Jesus was not a deity and was not resurrected.
Any so-called "church" that would support the credibility of such foolishness should remove the "church" from their name and call themselves what they are - "country club."
Belief that Jesus was who he said he was does not require blind faith, but only requires the application of pure logic.
Lou MorganLos Altos
Home birth and midwives
I sympathize with the writer on home birthing (TC Aug. 19, "Another side of the story") where she shared her traumatic experience of birth at home. She is right when she recommends that women considering home birth explore the options and interview their midwife. But some important misstatements were made that I want to address.
She writes that her gynecologist told her "the majority of midwife-assisted births (I assume she means at home) wind up in emergency rooms." The question of home birth safety and success has been studied extensively, and the facts show that home birth is not less safe than and at least as successful as hospital birth. A review of materials available in our library (Sheila Kitzinger's "Homebirth: The Essential Guide to Giving Birth Outside the Hospital") or on the Web (one address is http://www.thefarm.org/charities/mid.html) will confirm this.
The writer said birth is big and easy money for midwives. Birth in general has become big money, and quite a good income is made on many an uncomplicated hospital delivery. This is why we see hospital maternity centers advertising their ever-improving facilities and services, urging expectant parents to come in and compare. My own hardworking midwife earned less than $40,000 last year.
The implication was that midwives claim to be more competent than they actually are. But midwives are, in general, conscientious and deeply concerned about the health and well-being of women and children and will not endanger clients by over-representing skills for the sake of getting business or experience.
We can all be grateful for modern obstetrics and hospitals. But let us have respect for the facts when it comes to the other options available to us.
Cynthia CollierLos Altos
Sunkist: accept, get on with life
I attended the Aug. 18 Los Altos City Council meeting, to observe the continuing saga of the new Greenberg home at 288 Avalon Drive.
I was disappointed in the way the city has continued to bury the homeowner with time and financial burdens. Is the property in compliance with the conditions set forth by the city on the construction of the second living unit? Once again, after hours of testimony, the answer is yes.
The final outcome focused on whether a tenant of the second living unit, or just the homeowner, may use the gate to enter or exit via the property border on Sunkist. I do not understand the fear that the Sunkist residents, or the council, have with the SLU tenant using this gate. Does this relate to the impact on property values? The possibility of coming into contact with a renter?
As a 10-year resident of Los Altos, living on a street nearby Avalon and Sunkist, I share the concerns of many people with the appearance of the SLU.
It could have been done better. That chance was prevented by unfortunate actions made during earlier city council hearings on the subject.
The SLU has been found to be in compliance with the city guidelines and codes. Aesthetically, it falls far short of the visions shared by the designer and the homeowner. That is the city's loss.
The city council was requested by the public to issue an apology and a welcome to the Greenberg family. A welcome was provided. An apology still needs to be included. No one should need to endure the process that transpired during this project. It's time to accept what is and get on with life.
Ed Glass
Los Altos