Publication Date: Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Letters
Letters
(June 01, 2005)
Bored or bothered?
Editor,
The definition of "anarchy" is a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control. This demonstration was organized. As applied to the recent protest, "Reclaim the Streets Palo Alto" (Weekly, May 25) does not demonstrate a lack of control or government. Rather, this group embodies a concept only too familiar -- the haves versus the have nots.
In the age of globalization, technology and capitalism, the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen at a rapid pace. Technology serves as its accomplice. Individuals remain attached to their hi-tech devices and in constant cyberspace communication. The overarching economic capitalistic system upholds the status quo -- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Meanwhile, today's youth witnesses their decaying socioeconomic surrounding without much recourse. In their idealistic minds, they view a chaotic situation. They have not created their world. Many want to change it. The young generation is not necessarily "bored" as claimed. They are frustrated. Anarchy is their labeled counterattack, not against boredom, but social injustice.
The need to be part of something looms larger than oneself. If society cannot provide that signals an unhealthy environment. A divisive society bent on marginalizing groups, maintaining order through physical force, and utilizing economic and social controls never achieves a just outcome.
Such an environment may expect demonstrators to protest. They are not bored. More often than not, they are aptly and genuinely concerned.
Mona Lisa Safai
Irving Avenue
Atherton
A caring community
Editor,
It has been wonderful to be part of a community that cares deeply about quality education. I spent eight years on our school board. We debated issues but our focus was always on effective ways to provide the best education. There's no debating that Measure A is what's best for our kids' education.
We know that the key to educational success is the classroom teacher. Despite enrollment growth and cuts in state funding, our school board has maintained reduced class size so students can get the attention needed. In the last two years, administrators have been reduced by 13 percent. It is no longer possible to keep cuts away from the classroom.
The quality of our students' education is at risk. The district will lose $5.5 million when our local parcel tax expires. The state won't fill the gap. Measure A is part of a measured financial plan. Without it's passage the district will spin into financial crisis.
I just read the Registrar of Voters "Voter Information Pamphlet." None of the signers of the opposition statement even live in Palo Alto. None have spent top dollar on a Palo Alto home with the expectation they were moving to a community that believes we have a responsibility to invest in our children.
Measure A will cost less than $1.35 a day. Please join me in voting "yes" on Measure A. Together we can take a stand for our kids, for high-quality education and for the kind of community we believe in.
Susie Richardson
Martin Avenue
Palo Alto
Tough times
Editor,
Times are tough. Gasoline prices have just jumped another 30 percent. Our utilities ask for an 18-percent increase. The state is still essentially bankrupt and the school board asks for more money.
Before we grant them this favor I think we need to review their performance.
Reducing class size to 20 students proves excruciatingly expensive. Available evidence (London University, Institute of Education) shows mixed results above grade three. Fiscal evidence shows the district may save millions by simply allowing class size in grades four and five only to slip upwards by two or three students.
The district's expense/staff ratios have remained unchanged for decades. This indicates a lack of innovation and development. Textbooks are the clearest example. They are bulky, weighty and expensive. If, as I have reason to suspect, the selection practices that Richard Feynman describes in his book, "Surely You Must Be Joking," still prevail they are also of poor quality. Surely money can be saved here.
Tinsley (Voluntary Transfer Program) students cost us $6,500 per year each. This decades-old arrangement is out-of-date, yet the board is reluctant to challenge it. Divorced wives do better than that. Both the state and federal governments mandate programs they do not fully fund, yet the board fears telling them to get lost. Such policies of appeasement do not have the most attractive track record.
These are serious issues. If the board is denied the money it's asking for, it may drum up the nerve to face them.
Michael Goldeen
Tasso Street
Palo Alto
Better believe it
Editor,
David Lieberman (ReadWire, May 20) opposes Measure A, which provides critical funding for Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), claiming central administrators are overpaid.
Lieberman doesn't mention that funds from Measure A cannot be used for PAUSD central administration. Nor does he mention that PAUSD administrative compensation is in line with comparable school districts and that PAUSD has cut administrator positions by 13 percent in recent years.
The truth is that Measure A has nothing to do with administrative salaries. Measure A provides vital funding to maintain current class sizes, avoid teacher layoffs and reverse a fraction of the $6.5 million in cuts to our public schools in the last three years.
Voting "no" on Measure A will have absolutely no effect on administrator salaries. But it could lead to layoffs of more than 100 teachers, significant increases in class size, reductions in course offerings and the closure of a school.
Don't believe it? See what's happened to other school districts that rejected parcel taxes in the face of the funding shortfalls affecting most public schools in California. PAUSD's current parcel tax expires next year; voting "no" on a replacement means the loss of $5.5 million a year to our schools.
If voters want PAUSD to reduce compensation for senior leadership, they should lobby the school board or elect new board members in the upcoming election. But anyone who cares about the quality of public education and property values in Palo Alto should vote "yes" on Measure A.
Megan Swezey Fogarty
Bryant Street
Palo Alto
Seniors showing support
Editor,
As senior citizens, we could opt out of paying the Measure A school assessment, but we won't. We will vote for the measure and pay the tax increase.
Why? When we were looking for a home in the '60s we could have purchased more house and property in other communities for less money than we paid for our home in Palo Alto, but we didn't even look elsewhere. We wanted the famed Palo Alto school system for our children and we were very pleased with the education our children received.
But cutbacks in recent years have taken their toll on our schools and they need our support now.
Improving our school system will have practical benefits for all Palo Alto homeowners, regardless of whether they have children in the schools. Just as we paid more for our home in the '60s to take advantage of the excellent school system, ensuring a return to excellence in our schools will keep all our property values up.
Previous Palo Alto homeowners provided the funding for the schools that our children enjoyed. Now we have an ethical obligation to provide the funding for this and future generations of Palo Alto children.
Support Measure A.
Alice and Rich Stiebel
Talisman Drive
Palo Alto
Misguided description
Editor,
I support allowing City of Palo Alto employee Dennis Harman to retain his job and congratulate the Weekly for covering the story (May 18). But I deplore the Weekly's misguided description of Mr. Harman as "a disabled employee" instead of "an employee with disabilities." This isn't a trivial grammatical syntax mistake.
The simple rule is this: people first. A person is a person, first and always. It is unjustifiable to precede a person's identity with an adjective that describes a potentially negative perception or less desirable trait if it is a disability over which the person is powerless. Such language irreparably diminishes the person's image. Remember the old adage about first impressions?
For years the state of California has ensured that legal documents correctly identify "people first" followed by appropriate descriptors as required, e.g., a person with disabilities, a veteran with handicaps, a student with special needs. It's long overdue for the Weekly's journalists to do the same.
As the article points out, Dennis Harman is highly regarded and valued. It would not have been objectionable had your headline more accurately described Mr. Harman as a "highly regarded and valued employee," using his positive traits, which are equally if not more important to the story.
Shelby Valentine
Governor's Appointee to Area Board VII, State Council on Developmental Disabilities
21st Street
Sacramento
Premium reasoning
Editor,
As an owner of a residential property served by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), your "yes on A" vote will help preserve educational excellence in Palo Alto schools which, in turn, will help you retain your "Palo Alto Premium," both great values to you.
The "Palo Alto Premium" is the amount paid above the price that could buy a similar property in any surrounding town; the "Palo Alto Premium" portion directly related to public school educational excellence consistently ranges from 10 to 20 percent of your property's value.
When you "do the math" on your probable rate of return on each $493 investment in PAUSD educational excellence, you will see why your "yes on A" vote should be automatic.
Using conservatively low assumptions: Assume your home would sell for $500,000 today, that it will appreciate just 5 percent each year for the next six years and that your "Palo Alto Premium" is just 10 percent. When your $500,000 home appreciates 5 percent, or $25,000, next year, your 10 percent "Palo Alto Premium" portion will be $2,500.
So your $493 annual investment will earn you at least $2,500 each year in the future, over a 500 percent annual return.
"Do the math" for yourself; plug in your own assumptions. You'll discover even better results. Measure A opponents don't want you to think about the "Palo Alto Premium" since it financially overwhelms every one of their negative claims. It is so compelling that naysayers are finally "getting it" by changing their votes to "yes on A."
Bob Harrington
Fulton Street
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
