February 11, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Letters

Editor,

The content and tone of Walter Sedriks' Guest Opinion on Wednesday (Feb. 4) did an admirable job of confirming the elitist attitude of some Downtown North residents.

"Over the longer term, congestion on arterials doesn't relate to neighborhood traffic anyway," he writes about the traffic on Middlefield Road, Lytton Avenue and Alma Street. With no apparent regret, he brushes aside the traffic hurdles faced by dozens of families.

Are we excluded from neighborhood status because we live on Middlefield? This cold dismissal of the welfare of neighbors says volumes about the lack of perspective and concern for the overall community.

He goes on to cite the highest accident rate in Palo Alto at the corner of Everett Avenue and Middlefield. Need I remind him that the Downtown North Neighborhood Association excludes most residents of Middlefield from their organization?

The reality is that the highest accident rate occurs on Middlefield, where barriers make the problem worse by funneling even more traffic onto a residential street that is at capacity.

"One can empathize with the residents of those streets," writes Sedriks. Well, we don't want your empathy; we want you to bear your fair share of the traffic burden that impacts all Palo Altans. John Guislin Middlefield Road Palo Alto
Not 'childish'

Editor,

I'm sorry you chose to label the teachers' association's refusal to re-open contract negotiations as "childish" (Weekly, Feb. 4). Teachers don't think it's childish to try to protect the pensions of their colleagues who have served this district faithfully for many years and who will be retiring in the next three years.

The State Teachers Retirement System uses teachers' compensation in their final three years of service to calculate their pension amount. Furloughs would reduce these individuals' pensions for the rest of their lives. That's a heavy price to pay to help balance the budget.

The teachers' association did suggest other options besides furloughs or layoffs to help balance the budget.

1) The district has a healthy reserve that has been saved for just such a rainy day as we are facing.

2) The district spends $66,000 a year on car allowances.

3) Last year the district exceeded its legal budget for collective bargaining with employees by $284,000.

4) The district is still paying bonuses to cabinet-level administrators.

A pay cut in the form of a work furlough just doesn't seem necessary. Annette Isaacson, El Carmelo Webster Street Palo Alto
Trattoria alive, well

Editor,

I am concerned that your readers will misunderstand a statement made recently in the Weekly. In coverage on Cafe Verona's troubles, you have left your readers to think that the good woman who was kind enough to give them an interim home, Annie Nunan of Nouveau Trattoria, was going to lose the building in which she has provided such warm hospitality and delectable food for years.

This is not the case. Nouveau Trattoria is alive and well, and if you are one of the fortunate diners who has spent an evening there at 541 Bryant Street, you will be so grateful. It is a delightful refuge.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. I'm sure you will want to set the record straight. Faith Bell Emerson Street Palo Alto
Repeat technique?

Editor,

After reading Bill D'Agostino's Our Town column, "The said and the unsaid ... " (Weekly, Jan. 28), it occurred to me that this article might be the repeat of a technique that the Palo Alto Weekly has used in the past to put a certain council member (Nancy Lytle) on notice that she better get in line or else.

In this case, council members Hillary Freeman and Yoriko Kishimoto are the Weekly's targets. No less than five times are their names mentioned in the column as compared to the anonymous "some officials" and "majority of council members" or "some council members."

It seems to me that if you are going to use the names of those accused of supposed improper behavior, it behooves you to name the accusers as well.

I hope that I am mistaken, but I fear that the Palo Alto Weekly will start dogging these council members as it did Ms. Lytle. I remember a Jay Thorwaldson opinion piece, "The elephant in the council chambers" (Weekly, Nov. 7, 2001), that began the media assault on Ms. Lytle which ended in her failed attempt to serve the citizens of Palo Alto once again.

If the Weekly is troubled by what its staff considers improper behavior on the part of council members, it should directly oppose that behavior in its editorials rather than indirectly through its articles.

Finally, using the direct but crude quote of council member Jack Morton at the end of the column could be interpreted as a misogynistic trend in the Weekly's editorial council watch.

I know that the Palo Alto Weekly can and does do better than this in the many socially conscious articles it has published recently. Joel Davidson Bryant Street Palo Alto
'Work for no pay'

Editor,

The Palo Alto teachers are justified.

1) It is within their rights to not reopen negotiations until the contractually agreed upon date. Any proposals can be entertained at that time.

2) Agreeing to meet is tantamount to agreeing that only two solutions to the budget deficit are viable, furloughs or layoffs.

3) The superintendent did not initiate a process of collecting input from teachers, principals or parents prior to her proposal. Any meetings with the aforementioned groups have been to receive the information she presents, not to solicit alternative solutions.

4) There are only three possible days where teachers could even take a "furlough day." Of the 186 days, 180 are instructional days and teachers are not allowed to take a furlough day on any of these days. Six days remain -- three are Staff Development Days, better known as "buy back" days since the district receives money from the state for the implementation and completion of staff development.

A furlough on any one of these days saves money while losing money, therefore is not prudent. The final three days are the two days prior to the opening of school and the last day after students have completed their year.

To take a furlough day on any one of these days cuts into important planning and preparation time for the arrival of students and the close of operations. Teachers find this arrangement unacceptable and would be compelled to work.

Therefore, the furlough day(s) would be "work for no pay" not "no work, no pay." Rick Ehrhorn Chimalus Avenue Palo Alto
Cut the fat first

Editor,

I agree with the principle expressed by Carolyn Frake (ReaderWire, Feb. 6) that all members of the community must be willing to discuss solutions to our problems. But I disagree that Palo Alto's teachers are setting a poor example in this particular situation.

I wonder if Ms. Frake is aware that teacher pay raises in this district have lagged behind increased costs of living in recent years. I wonder if she's aware that the district has added administrative positions in that same time period.

I wonder if she's aware of the salary bonuses and car allowances paid to top district administrators. I wonder if she's aware of the size of the district's reserve fund.

Who exactly is setting a bad example when the fat hasn't been trimmed at the top yet those at the bottom are asked to renegotiate a contract to make yet another sacrifice? David B. Cohen Ramona Street Palo Alto

E-mail a friend a link to this story.