Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Letters

Size matters

Editor,

I have been following the process and procedure of the City Council's review and decision regarding the builder's request to construct the oversized apartment project at Page Mill in Palo Alto and I was really surprised to learn that the council has accepted this proposal despite the fact that it doesn't conform to the size and height limits on file.

It sounds to me as though the builder used an "or else" argument and the council folded because of that. Why? What is the good of having instituted limitations and rules about building restrictions and allowances if they can be overruled so easily?

From what I've gathered, the people living in the areas adjacent to this project will have an unsightly, oversized concrete block looming over their neighborhoods and obstructing their view of the hills and landscape. I can see how unpleasant this prospect must be.

Has this really been explored enough?

Tibby Simon

Palo Alto

Natural growth

Editor,

Sheila Barker writes (Nov. 22) that parents need to consider closely what we are imposing upon our children. I second her concerns.

As a middle-school teacher (mathematics) I am obliged to teach my students far too many subjects, without enough depth, and give too much homework. They learn too little about too much, to the detriment of basics.

At home, if they are not doing homework they are watching television or playing with video games often given by parents compensating for not spending quality time with their children.

If you try to make a plant grow too fast, it will become weak and die. If you let it grow at its own natural pace, it will thrive and reach its potential. So too with children.

Parents need to learn to engage their children -- play games with them, commit to shared activities, talk with (not to) their children. If you respect your children, they will respect you. If you believe in your children, they will believe in themselves.

If you are what you hope your children will be, you will be their model.

Arthur Michelson

Palo Alto

Senseless destruction

Editor,

Imagine my shock to discover that my neighbor's house that was immaculately maintained and tastefully remodeled is now going to be torn down by the new owners.

This is a house that 99.9 percent of the world would consider a mansion. Life is sorely out of balance when people with obviously far too much money can tear down a perfectly fine home and so many people have no shelter at all.

Welcome to Palo Alto the capital of greed, excess and ostentation.

Melinda McGee

Palo Alto

Eager for rebuild

Editor,

I grew up in Menlo Park and there was no children's hospital for my brothers, sisters and me. I left California in 1978 seeking excellence in pediatric training, but I returned to Palo Alto in 2001 to be part of the commitment to excellence in health care for children at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.

As both a cardiologist at Stanford Hospital and Packard Children's Hospital and a resident of Palo Alto, I support the Stanford Medical Center renewal and replacement project.

Stanford Hospital and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital play critical roles in the health and welfare of our community. The hospitals provide world-class care in our own backyard. The success and renown of the hospitals have created a need for growth and improvement of services.

But Stanford Medical Center faces obstacles that can't be ignored. We must act now to ensure the hospitals can remain at the forefront of medical care. Both Stanford and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital lack enough beds to accommodate the growing number of patients. They also lack the physical space needed to accommodate advanced medical technology.

The existing emergency department the two hospitals share is too small. Renewing and replacing these outdated and undersized facilities not only solves these problems, it will meet the community's growing health care needs for decades to come.

I urge my fellow Palo Altans to join me in supporting the Stanford hospitals' rebuild project. The future of community healthcare depends on it.

Daniel J. Murphy, Jr., M.D.

Palo Alto

Time to grow up

Editor,

Thanks for the article regarding the Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital proposed renewal and replacement project. Many of my own children were born at Stanford and my family and I have grown up relying on these hospitals for care. It makes sense that these hospitals need to grow up too.

These institutions have provided us all with the highest level of care over the years and have been a blessing to have in our own backyard. Our health is the most important thing we have and much like the hospitals we have right now, can easily be taken for granted.

We cannot risk losing Stanford Hospital or denying children who need care the services of Packard Children's Hospital. We will all benefit tremendously from this project and the new medical facilities it will bring, which in turn will take care of our children and grandchildren in the future.

Celeste McDonnell

Atherton

Not so simple

Editor,

Gretchen Reynolds' letter (Nov. 17) implies that choice schools equal increased traffic and unsafe schools.

In fact, Escondido, home to the Spanish-immersion choice program, had one of the highest rates of alternative transportation usage. In the latest Palo Alto Unified School District Fall 2005 survey of commute modes, 62 percent of Escondido students walked, biked, scootered, bused or carpooled to school. Only two other schools, Walter Hays and Duveneck, at 68 percent and 66 percent respectively, rated higher.

The reality is that people drive their kids to school -- at choice schools and at neighborhood schools. The problem is not inherent in choice versus neighborhood school but rather in our lifestyles and lack of a coherent and convenient alternative. Parents work. We live busy, fast-paced lives and school is usually one item in a packed morning.

Or our neighborhood schools may be in places where our children have to cross major thoroughfares. Or, given past school closures and wider school boundaries, some kids live too far to walk to their neighborhood school. The solution to the problem of traffic is really to offer feasible alternatives to parents, e.g. a comprehensive and well-run carpool plan, a well thought out school traffic-flow plan, etc.

To imply choice programs create traffic and unsafe schools is a gross oversimplification of a much more complex issue.

Pearl Chow

Palo Alto