Publication Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Letters
Letters
(November 16, 2005)
Go smaller red?
Editor,
Immediately following Saturday's season-capping football match between the UC-Berkeley Bears and the Stanford Cardinal, Stanford will commence rebuilding its football stadium, on a fast-track schedule to complete it by the start of the 2006 season.
This construction would not deserve comment if it were not for its price tag -- $85 million -- and its end product -- a smaller stadium. Is there no end to the foolish extravagance lavished on big-time college football?
I'm no fan of the cavernous and uncomfortable Stanford football stadium, and it's embarrassing to witness 20,000 fans rattling around an 85,000-seat stadium. Moreover, a new stadium might attract more fans willing to pay a higher average ticket price, or better players or better coaches. But $85 million to make the stadium smaller and more intimate?
This $85-million investment would never pass the kind of return-on-investment analysis used in the for-profit world and taught in all universities' business and engineering schools. Generous assumptions as to increased revenue from the sale of more and higher priced tickets, discounted at typical endowment-earnings rates over a 25-year period, might justify half that investment.
At $85 million Stanford will be subsidizing each football game by more than $1 million over those 25 years. On a per-game basis, that's equivalent to the endowment to support four student scholarships, or an additional faculty member every two or three games.
Recently, a great booster of Stanford athletics said to me, "So what? It's not your money!" To be sure, all the funds are coming, or have come, from donors, but about half could otherwise be directed to endowment, albeit for the athletic department.
Since gifts are accorded favorable income-tax treatment, a little bit of this cost falls on each of us who pays federal and state income taxes. Did congress have in mind this kind of lavish "investment" when it conferred tax advantages on gifts? I think not.
Gifts to not-for-profit entities are presumed to support socially useful activities. Big-time college football is neither not-for-profit nor socially useful.
Henry E. Riggs
Former Stanford University Vice-President of Development
Peter Coutts Circle
Stanford
Library compromise?
Editor,
I read about the latest battle over Palo Alto's library (Weekly, Nov. 11) with great frustration.
As a board member of the Palo Alto Library Foundation I have many opportunities to work with Paula Simpson. She is direct, trustworthy, capable, and perhaps her only flaw: patient to a fault.
She has a wealth of experience running libraries. And I believe that given the opportunity and community support she could rescue the shabby, overcrowded facilities we currently "enjoy" and turn them into public spaces that really meet the needs of all Palo Altans. Yet she is continually met with suspicion, anger and personal attacks.
We can and should do better, Palo Alto. The current situation in the libraries is not sustainable. We need to face the fact that $5.6 million is not enough to run five branches and we all need to compromise.
A bitter pill for some Palo Altans, apparently. But better to compromise now than watch the libraries continue their downward slide so that they meet the needs of no one.
Colleen Dunn
Coastland Drive
Palo Alto
Knee-jerk reactions
Editor,
On the Palo Alto Police Department's enforcement of the false-alarm ordinance against the Packard Gallery, I am disturbed by the knee-jerk reactions.
First, most cities I know of have much stricter policies than Palo Alto. Second, it appears that Mr. Packard and his contractor failed to take normal precautions, even after having multiple false alarms.
An interesting question is what sort of warning and advice did the police provide after the first few false alarms. Police necessarily take a hard line on false alarms because so many people are so cavalier about the effects -- without restrictions false alarms cumulatively add so much to response times that police have little chance of interrupting a crime in progress.
I remember a local merchant complaining about the policy, saying that his alarm was being set off by his door being rattled (passers-by, wind gusts?). He adamantly refused to even consider that he had a faulty installation.
The sanctions against the Packard Gallery may simply mean that alarms must first be human-verified, rather than going directly to the police. This arrangement is familiar to many homeowners -- the alarm system telephones an alarm company or them and they check the audio (and video?) feed before calling the police. I attempted to confirm this with the police department, but they didn't respond.
There are too many unanswered questions -- from both Mr. Packard and the police -- for newspapers and the public to be making judgments and pronouncements.
Douglas Moran
Matadero Avenue
Palo Alto
Shameful treatment
Editor,
I just finished reading about the shameful way the City of Palo Alto is treating David Packard and his new gallery (Editorial, Nov. 9). It brings to mind the same kind of behavior demonstrated by the Menlo Park building department.
After jumping through hoops, Menlo Park Presbyterian Church was given a permit to remodel the old Menlo Park Hardware building. The plans called for awnings to be placed on the windows and doors to dress up the old warehouse look.
After the doors were installed, the inspector made the church remove the awnings that extended into the adjacent property. The neighbor gave their approval but the inspector said the awnings still had to come down.
Now it is my opinion that the city should make an exception to the rules. The aesthetics of the building are important to the look of downtown and the city should pay to put the awnings back up. If the Menlo Park City Council does not fix this wrong, it should at least pay for the awnings the planning and building departments approved and then unapproved.
I do not attend Menlo Presbyterian but I live in Menlo Park and the abuse of power by city employees disturbs me.
Kurt Armbrust
Almanor Avenue
Menlo Park
Blum should resign
Editor,
Now that Jeff Blum has announced his slant on things publicly (Spectrum, Nov. 9), perhaps he should do the appropriate thing and resign his position on the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission.
By his attack on the person of William Bennett, rather than the ideas expressed, he has shown himself to lack the goodwill that we hope to find in public officials. He has given the impression that he is a humorless, one-eyed, left-wing ideologue.
If he wanted to object to hurtful and inaccurate statements in general, rather than make an attack on Bennett, he could have used plenty of examples from media coverage of Hurricane Katrina.
Raymond R. White
Mayview Avenue
Palo Alto
Palo Alto's loss
Editor,
Palo Alto was the loser in not electing Karen Holman to the City Council Nov. 8. Working as the campaign manager of the Drekmeier campaign, I had the unique chance to really get to know many candidates first-hand and hear their opinions at multiple forums and coffees.
Time and again I found Karen to be at the top of the group. As a relative newcomer to Palo Alto politics, I had little or no prior knowledge of Karen or any other candidate (other than Peter) before August. She is articulate, genuine, smart, honest, thoughtful, has innovative ideas and as a planning commissioner has an in-depth knowledge of city issues.
I hope her supporters will encourage her to run again in 2007. If she does, I hope the residents of Palo Alto who voted for Peter Drekmeier and Yoriko Kishimoto because of their work ethic and values will consider casting a vote for Karen in 2007.
I feel she is cut from the same fine cloth as Peter and Yoriko and also has many other unique complementary assets to offer the city.
Amy Adams
Clark Way
Palo Alto
Satisfying victory
Editor,
The victory Nov. 8 (in the defeat of the state propositions) was no accident and it cannot be entirely credited to ad campaigns. We won this victory through thousands of voter contacts going back to early summer. In this county we registered voters and handed out information all summer long at more than 60 events. We were present at almost every possible street fair and had continuing presences at two north county farmer's markets.
Every voter we registered -- every call, every door we knocked on -- went into this satisfying defeat of Schwarzenegger's schemes and the Rove agenda to take over California.
Organized labor -- most in Arnold's crosshairs -- mounted a massive and well-organized campaign. Help was sought from other grassroots groups starting last spring, when we weren't even sure we'd end up with a November election.
All volunteers gave what they could. Some covered a precinct three times or more, some phone-banked every week and some tabled every weekend. This kind of participation was happening all over the state. On Election Day more than 15,000 volunteers were out there.
Our job was to raise voter turnout, targeting voters who don't always vote in special elections. In this county the turnout Nov. 8 was 44.7 percent -- much higher than usual for a non-presidential election. Everyone who registered voters, handed out information, phone-banked, showed up to protest at Arnold's events, helped out at headquarters and walked neighborhoods -- this is your victory.
Arnold and his advisors picked a fight with the wrong people, didn't they.
Carolyn Curtis
Director, Community Services and Voter Registration, Santa Clara County Democratic Party
Alger Drive
Palo Alto
Idealistic viewpoint?
Editor,
What is happening in this country? Has the idea of peace and harmony been replaced by a hunger for war? It seems the universal strive should be for a peaceful coexistence between all people.
Maybe that's idealistic, but I believe hope is important in a world with so much bloodshed.
What really concerns me right now is the chasm between the Democrats and Republicans of our own country. Two cases in point: Local letter writer Brad Steinhoff (ReaderWire, Nov. 11) seems to support war while condemning candle-light vigils. Meanwhile, recent statements made by Fox News "analyst" Bill O'Reilly (Nov. 8) encouraged terrorists to murder his fellow Americans by destroying San Francisco's Coit Tower. "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly said.
These views are not democracy, nor are they conducive to extinguishing the horrors of terrorism. In a time of war, famine, flooding and fear, shouldn't the people of the United States -- or at least the political leaders -- find a common ground before we tackle the troubles of the world?
I understand the necessities of war. For five years I've wanted nothing more than to see Osama bin Laden answer for the crime that essentially initiated this war, and he is still on the loose. I, like most Americans right now, simply want our president to provide us with a resolution to the war. An exit strategy, or simply a light at the end of the tunnel.
And until he does so, there will be unrest.
Daniel Rand
Park Boulevard
Palo Alto
Dylan's 'prophecy'
Editor,
On Veterans Day, King George gave a hysterical speech attacking Iraq war critics: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
In fact, he is the one doing the rewriting many times over.
Graduated from Yale with a history degree, King George apparently does not understand that history is written by the people, not the kings. If not now, eventually.
Remember Bob Dylan's song, "The Time They Are A-Changin'"? 'And don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin...."
After 40 years, Dylan's prophecy still rings loud and clear.
Simon Chiu
Talisman Court
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
