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

Published on 09/01/1999 All articles from this issue

Letters to the Editor

printer friendly version

Design flaws could still be changed

I feel compelled to respond to the letter of Robbie Groves that appeared in your Aug. 18 issue. I am one of the neighbors who lives on Almond Avenue across from Los Altos High School. We are not in any way trying to stop, delay or impede the construction of this new facility.

Our primary objection is threefold: 1) The use of corrugated steel for the window awning and walkway covering is, in our opinion, inappropriate. Corrugated steel is an industrial type of material widely used on commercial buildings in INDUSTRIAL areas.

2) The contrasting colors (yellow and blue) do not appear appropriate, in our opinion. We feel the blue should be used for window and door, etc. trim, but not in such large areas as is seen on the newly constructed buildings. 3) The contract plans call for the removal of one of the existing sycamore trees on Almond Avenue to provide a 25-foot concrete entrance-way to the campus. We feel there is adequate space for it to be placed between these existing trees.

We visited the construction managers' office to look at the plans. Three of the five of us who attended are engineers and are familiar with reading plans. It was not readily apparent that corrugated steel was being used. We had to carefully review these plans to be certain that corrugated steel was being specified.

We also visited the architects' office and saw a very nice model of the school project. The window awnings were shown, but the model was so small that the type of material was not apparent.

The placement of the intended corrugated steel and painting will be among the last items of work, at least one year away. So there is plenty of time to make these minor modifications without any delay to the overall project All we are trying to do is to make this new facility blend into our neighborhood, much as is presently being done to the Mountain View High School buildings.

Ed CobleLos Altos

Tax proposal results from 'do gooders'

Come on folks - let's get real. The August 1999 issue of the Los Altos Homeowners League newsletter has quite an article about the proposed increase in utility taxes. I think the league or the Town Crier ought to consider a more open and unbiased look at things.

Proposition 13 happened 21 years ago. Stop making this the excuse. At the time the taxes were fixed at about 1 percent of the fair market value of the house, subject to sale. Since that time the value of the houses in Los Altos has skyrocketed. The turnover of houses continues to increase with huge fair market values and therefore the property tax increases proportionally.

The "long proposed need list" is outrageous. With exception of the sports facility, the highest item is for the police. The total is $489,000, cleverly disguised as 2 separate line items (911 and the police). Who are you kidding?

Last year, a small group of "do-gooders," the City Council and the police department pushed through a measure to get two new police with grant money. Nobody wanted these police except for a handful of people. But we got them anyway. And now the city is still trying to fool us. The grant money would run out and the citizens have to pay for the two we have and two more.

Furthermore, last year the police chief and others swore that the fines they will be collecting would not be used to offset the police costs. I have that in writing. Yet now they are telling us in the article in the August newsletter that the costs of the police are "partially offset by fines." What is true? With the increase in tickets and fines, the city is raking in millions to use as an offset. Isn't it enough to get this extra form of taxes from us?

We don't need any more police. We have one of the lowest crime rates in the Bay Area. In the newsletter, what facts do you have to prove that two traffic enforcement people are not enough? Come on. Get with it.

John ToppelLos Altos

Another round in gun debate

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.

The above words are attributed to George Washington in his address to the second session of the U.S. Congress and these words still ring true to me, especially after reading today's Wall Street Journal article (Aug. 25), headlined "State Can't Find 25 percent of Parolees," or only a mere 25,000 felons in the Bay Area alone. The total statewide includes 84 murderers, 66 kidnappers, 143 rapists and 401 child molesters.

To those who share Mr. Schuster's opinion (Aug. 25 Town Crier, letters), it's OK to be P.C. to the max and malign guns. You're even welcome to put a BIG sign on your door (but not mine) telling the whole world you don't have a gun in the house. Dialing 9-1-1 may work just fine for you if trouble should ever end up at your doorstep, but I certainly hope that you don't get a busy signal.

It seems much more prudent to be prepared to "deliver the whole nine yards," while praying that you won't ever have to. Frankly, following the lead of Don Perata, one of California's most anti-gun state senators who is working diligently in Sacramento to take away our guns, makes a lot of sense. He has a concealed weapon permit to carry his own non-P.C., 16-shot, 9mm semi-automatic Beretta pistol. I wonder, Mr. Schuster, do you think he knows something the rest of us don't?

Finally, in recent movie vernacular, I would like to say to Kirk Kellogg (Aug. 18 Town Crier, letters).You're dangerous, you can be my wing man anytime!

Chris Watters

Life member, NRA

Los Altos