Publication Date: Friday, August 20, 2004
ReaderWire
ReaderWire
(August 20, 2004)
A bigger problem
The Weekly article, "Winnie The Poohâ and Windows, too" (Aug. 6), missed an important consideration in its focus on young children with computers, especially those who have one in their bedroom.
Obesity.
As a pediatrician-in-training at Stanford, I can attest to the fact that obesity is an epidemic among our children and sedentary activity is one of two major contributors (excessive caloric intake being the other).
The number of overweight and obese children has doubled in the last two decades. As Dr. Spooner, the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Clinical Internet Technology has stated, "There is a false sense that looking at a computer has a higher value than looking at the TV."
Additionally, recent research suggests that access to computers increases the total amount of time children spend watching television. The AAP advises limiting all media exposure (TV, video games and computer use) to less than two hours per day.
Furthermore, computers and televisions should be in a public area of the house, to encourage interaction and monitoring.
Kate Leonard, M.D.
Yale Street, Palo Alto
Schools have quality
I just wanted Tom Ashton (Spectrum, Aug. 18) to know that I wholeheartedly support the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in its efforts to maintain quality education for our kids in the face of huge budget cuts.
I have had two children go through the PAUSD, one of them currently, and I have never seen anything that I felt was a waste of money. They have had opportunities there that have truly supported them as people and in their education.
I attend board meetings and other meetings regularly and see first hand how hard the district works to keep up the quality education of our kids. I am very disappointed to see Mr. Ashton's letter, which I feel would undermine those efforts.
The money the district raises and spends creates excellent education and opportunity for the kids of Palo Alto.
Janet Dafoe
Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto
Liberal bias?
Don Kazak's "Fair like a Fox" commentary (Weekly, Aug. 11) is laughable. Hey Don, try looking a little closer at your own liberal team.
TV news and print media is dominated by liberal bias. We now get biased, sloppy, PC and plagiarized news reporting. A Kerry party member actually said that with the media on his side, he probably has a 15-point advantage.
Imagine that. The major networks pimping for the Democratic Party. What is a "true journalist"? Is it someone that uses the Michael Moore technique of out-of-context film clips and biased facts?
And for the record, I don't have cable TV, but I do watch Fox News when I travel.
I find it to be a refreshing change.
Paul Heinemann
Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park
Reform PC zone
Palo Alto's "Planned Community" process enables developments that offer outstanding civic benefit, but do not conform to standard zoning regulations. Per PAMC 18.68.010: "The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments not otherwise attainable under other districts. (It) is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit."
To me, this says PC developments must themselves be definite public benefits. Baubles don't count.
For example, when economic realities drive affordable-housing developments to densities above normal zoning limits, they can only be achieved as Planned Communities. The Alma Place affordable-housing development at 753 Alma St. illustrates the PC district applied as intended.
In general, however, the PC process gives away too much for too little return. Too many PCs are super-sized private developments whose "public benefits" too often benefit only the project itself. Too few "Planned Community" projects deliver public advantages justifying their civic impacts.
PC "benefits" are frequently modest or meaningless. Some are hilariously silly -- check out the toy cars framing the doorway at 390 Lytton Ave., official "public benefits" of that souped-up PC office development. Whatever would our town do without them?
Other purported "public benefits" are never delivered at all: Palo Alto has a notoriously poor record of enforcing its (our) end of PC deals. Our doggedly gullible city routinely sells valuable development concessions at yard-sale rates, payment optional.
Palo Alto's PC process obviously needs reform. That would be a substantial public benefit.
David Bubenik
Homer Avenue, Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
