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

Published on 11/24/1999 All articles from this issue

Letters to the editor

printer friendly version

Support for preschools at school sites

I would like to express my support for the plan of new pre-school facilities.

Care of our children should always be the foremost concern of our communities. These schools serve families in various ways.

One of these is to allow both parents in these families to work outside the home, adding to the diversity of lifestyles here, and thus, the richness of the fabric of our community.

Preschools, of course, serve to socialize the children, but there is the important benefit of 'socializing parents' in that parents become aware of the community from the vantage point of children and so have the opportunity to participate actively in bettering the community.

As I understand it, each of the three sites, Blach, Egan and Covington, will take one to two of the existing four preschools. Each preschool is a relatively small entity, especially compared to the size of an elementary or middle school.

Traffic will be increased, but I do not think it will be a noticeable amount.

Grace TsangLos Altos Hills

Other specific revenues besides utility tax hike

One of your readers complained that Ron Knecht and I "ran negative Measure I campaigns without offering achievable, realistic alternatives."

Measure I, which proposed an increase of up to $1.14 million in the utility-user tax, failed despite intense lobbying.

As I knocked on more than 1,000 doors this fall, I told people specifically what the alternative sources for tax revenue could be.

Two hotels will be built in Los Altos in the very near future - a 190-room Courtyard by Marriott at Los Altos Avenue and El Camino Real, and a 130-room "residence inn" on the Tree Farm lot. The Courtyard in Cupertino charges a rack rate of $189 a night.

Assuming that the actual room rate is just half of that, the rate is roughly $95 a night. For the residence inn, a comparative rate is the Residence Inn in Mountain View (at El Monte), where the rack rate is $259 to 279 a night; I'll use $130 a night. Then add the assumptions of 70 percent occupancy (low for this area) and the same 10 percent city hotel guest tax that Palo Alto imposes.

The result is $892,972.50 in annual tax revenue for the city.

But that's still shy of the $1.14 million the utility tax increase would have generated. All we have to do is look to the cable franchise agreement the city is currently negotiating with AT&T.

Los Altos is entitled under federal law to charge up to 5 percent of gross revenues for the right to provide cable services in our town. Historically, the city has charged only 3 percent of gross revenues as a franchise fee.

The city estimates that approximately 6,200 homes pay $45 a month for cable services, or $3,348,000 annually. If gross revenues just included what Los Altans pay for cable, the city could put $167,400 in additional revenue into the general fund. In fact, the definition of gross revenues can include many other things, and the franchise fee revenue could thus be greater.

So, adding the hotel guest tax to the franchise fee revenue, Los Altos will soon have $1,060,372.50 in additional tax revenue.

I hope that our re-elected council members will do whatever they need to do to ensure that we can take advantage of these alternatives promptly.

Noah D. MeselLos Altos

Hills 2000 not biased against Charles Wong

The Nov. 3 letter to the editor by Charles Wong appalled Hills 2000.

Mr. Wong muddles the facts, which have been brought out in articles in your paper as well as the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. It is apparent that Mr. Wong is simply trying to spin the facts to his best advantage. However, he has made an accusation against the Hills 2000 organization that can't be left unanswered.

Hills 2000 has not taken a position on the Wong issue. One of our goals is to provide well-researched and unbiased communications, and we are pursuing that goal.

As part of that goal, we've reported on the public activities that took place before the council. Within the limits of a volunteer organization, we try to get the facts, not just the spin, to the community.

We have a letters section, much like your paper. We don't censor viewpoints, and we don't require people to be members to submit letters. At the top of the letters page is the statement, "If you don't see your opinion on this issue, please express it in a letter."

We feel all sides should be heard. We believe this statement, and we live by it. Please review our Web site, www.hills2000.org, and form your own opinion. By the way, if you don't see your opinion expressed, send us a letter.

Neither Charles Wong nor Millie Gallo chose to submit a letter to us for publication. Hills 2000 has chosen not to editorialize on the issue, but only to serve as a forum for debate. When facts are being distorted, we have published the actual documents in question.

We all have opinions. Seeing the facts and hearing the views of the opposing sides help form informed opinions.

On a personal level, I've wondered how the dispute between two neighbors, over the possibility of a leaking septic system (a health risk), could have escalated to this point.

When did the request to allow the health department to test the runoff from a neighbor's property by dropping a blue tablet into a toilet become controversial? When did not following the town's ordinances with regard to grading over septic leach lines become, as Mr. Wong stated, "singling out an Asian-American citizen?"

What I see is someone who is attempting to use his position on the planning commission to get around the town's ordinances. I look forward to hearing that Mr. Wong has corrected his violations, tested his septic system and realized the importance of being a good neighbor.

John Harpootlian

Los Altos Hills