Publication Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Letters
Letters
(October 19, 2005)
The value of 'fiber'
Editor,
Fiber to the home (FTTH) should not be shut down, ever. I am in the FTTH trial.
I have a very selfish reason for the above statement. I am visually impaired and mostly homebound. I rely on my computer/Internet many hours every day of my life. It is my connection to the outside world.
I use this high-speed connection for shopping, research, records-keeping, keeping in contact with physicians, medical-test results, making and confirming appointments, bill payments, reading newspapers and visiting friends and family through e-mail.
These are just a few of the things I am able to do in a rapid manner with FTTH. FTTH has been so reliable and consistent in service. In the three-and-a-half years we have had this trial it was down just a few hours. I know there are other high-speed services, but once you have experienced the FTTH high-speed reliable service, there is no way to envision anything else.
It is my hope that FTTH is never shut down and is made available to all residents. We must move forward.
Ruth Fisher
Greenwood Avenue
Palo Alto
Responding to Simons
Editor,
I enjoyed reading Ms. Simons' article about PiE's efforts in helping Palo Alto schools (Weekly, Oct. 5). Ms. Simons states, "We can see to it that every child every year has essentials such as small classes, knowledgeable librarians and effective counseling -- all of which, I know as a parent and former teacher, comprise the backbone of our kids' education."
There is a critical ingredient missing in Ms. Simons' formula: great teachers. Teachers are the backbone of our kids' education. You can throw all kinds of money at smaller class sizes, therapy, all kinds of warm and fuzzy things, but without stellar teachers, the Palo Alto Unified School District would not be the envy of the rest of the state.
This is precisely why we must pass Prop. 74. Education receives more than 50 percent -- or roughly $50 billion a year -- in California. The teachers in Palo Alto schools are amongst the best in the state. Yet we allow a teacher with just two years of experience, regardless of his or her success at teaching, to be tenured.
A new teacher barely grasps how critical the job is after two years, yet in California we place blind trust that they are a great fit for our schools for the next 30 years after just two years? It's absurd.
The problem we Californians fail to grasp is that the easier we make it to keep bad teachers, the more teachers go bad. Just like a bad piece of fruit in a fruit bowl spreads its disease to the rest of the fruit, a bad teacher that cannot be removed will infect the enthusiasm and dedication of the best teachers that are around them.
This is why we need to support higher standards for our teachers, and our kids.
Sunana Batra
Mildred Avenue
San Jose
Heartfelt column
Editor,
Big thank you to Don Kazak (Our Town, Oct. 12) for his heartfelt coverage of the Darfur Rally at the Palo Alto City Plaza on Oct. 6.
With the news bombarding us almost daily of the disaster du jour (hurricanes, avian flu, earthquakes, etc.), news of the genocide in Darfur keeps getting pushed back out of people's awareness, if they even knew about it in the first place.
Of the 100 or so people at the rally, approximately 60 of them were from Congregation Kol Emeth in Palo Alto. Our Rabbi, Sheldon Lewis, who is retiring after 33 years in the same pulpit, challenged us in a sermon last August by asking us what we were doing to stop the world's latest genocide.
Several of us organized, became educated on the issue and asked our neighbors of other faiths to join us in bringing this issue into the spotlight. We need everyone's help and are grateful for Mr. Kazak's column on the rally.
Please urge folks to call their congressperson to urge passage of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.
Nechama Tamler
Co-chair, Darfur Working Group
Congregation Kol Emeth
Manuela Avenue
Palo Alto
Goodbye to garden?
Editor,
What is happening in our small part of this world? Someone in power has decided to break the backs of people who enjoy being members of a community garden.
Some people in Palo Alto cannot afford to own the over-priced property that would support areas for gardening, i.e. renters/apartment/condo owners. So they formed a community garden on unwanted city property years ago, now paying fair-market water-use charges.
Recently new members of the community, some ego-driven tax and development types, see a small area of land and decide to try to balance the city budget on the backs of people that can least afford it. Are they trying to discourage what is left of the old Palo Alto community spirit or do they actually want to eliminate the garden completely and make the land available for commercial development?
Let's see, a plot of land used to grow veggies is schedules to go from 15 cents a square foot to 50 cents per square foot -- an increase of 333.33 percent. That's enough to scare people away. We use our plot to subsidize our food budget, create an area of land that many people wander around, marvel at all the flora and fauna, and just basically enjoy the open space behind the library -- and the City Council wants to destroy it?
Currently we pay $60/year. Now it is going to jump to almost $200/year. How can an increase like this be justified? What is the thought process? Where were the discussions? How were we to be notified: Surprise, here's your bill?
It's price gouging worse than that of the oil and gas industries. We will have to leave our plot -- for what?
Gary Schneider
Grant Avenue
Palo Alto
LWV against Prop. 76
Editor,
The League of Women Voters of California urges a "NO" vote on Proposition 76, which would significantly decrease funding for education while dramatically increasing the powers of the governor.
Proposition 76 changes the Proposition 98 minimum-funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges. While Proposition 98 allows suspension of that guarantee in tight budget years, it also requires restoration of lost funding and inclusion of those restored funds in the funding base for future years.
Proposition 76 eliminates both of these requirements.
This would result in a permanent loss to our schools and community colleges of $4 billion annually. This amount, now owed from suspension of Proposition 98, would no longer have to be repaid or counted toward the base for future years -- a loss of $15,000 per classroom in California, or $600 per student, every year.
Proposition 76 also gives the governor significant new powers to cut funding for all state programs. A revenue shortfall of as little as 1.5 percent would allow the governor to declare a "fiscal emergency." If the legislature failed to act within 45 days, with a 2/3 majority in each house, the governor would be authorized to make whatever cuts he or she chose.
At that point there would be no legislative oversight, no public input, no accountability. Our system of checks and balances would be imperiled.
We urge readers to consider carefully the potentially devastating effects of Proposition 76 on education and governance in California and join us in voting No on 76.
Veronica Tincher
President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
Kingsley Avenue
Palo Alto
About community
Editor,
Bayfront Park in Menlo Park is once again being threatened for development. Whether it is turned into a golf course, an amusement park, playing fields or car dealerships, it will no longer be open space.
Any of these proposed uses will exclude some portion of our community.
Bayfront is available to everyone in our community and surrounding communities unlike other cities that restrict open-space usage to residents only. Please take a moment to help rescue Bayfront from development. Contact the Menlo Park City Council (city.council@menlopark.org) and/or Parks and Recreation Department.
Pixie Couch
Almanor Avenue
Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
