Letters Letters (October 22, 2003)

Unfair profile

Editor,

Last week, the Weekly published a profile on LaDoris Cordell (Oct. 8) in which it was alleged that Judge Cordell has a "go-it-alone style," and thus is a divisive person. This characterization is inaccurate and an unfair criticism.

Obviously, making unilateral decisions is a function of being a judge. This is what judges are required to do. It does not logically follow that LaDoris Cordell would be discourteous to others.

This letter is written and supported by individuals who have known Cordell for a long time, both professionally and personally. Cordell is not a divisive person. On the contrary, Cordell is well known for fostering communication and cooperation among diverse groups of people.

She is reasonable, judicious, hard working and innovative. Judge Cordell has long been held in the highest regard for her personal integrity. In a 1990 poll by the San Jose Mercury News of lawyers of the Santa Clara Bar Association, Judge Cordell was one of the three judges who received the highest ranking given for professional integrity.

As a judge in the family law court, a place where emotions often ran high over the dissolution of marriages and families, Judge Cordell was unshakably calm, courteous and even-tempered. Our collective experience of Cordell was of a jurist who strove for fairness and encouraged cooperation. These continue to be the hallmarks of her character.

Cordell is a person who believes that everyone has the right to disagree, but that they should not be disagreeable. The electorate of the City of Palo Alto should not be misled into believing that Cordell might perpetuate disharmony among the members of the Council.

Cordell has time and again exhibited, under the most difficult of circumstances, her ability to work well with people to resolve problems. The Palo Alto City Council needs a person like Cordell because she has the ability to focus on issues, stay on point and maintain positive working relationships with her colleagues. Jennifer J. Hagan, Esq., former law clerk to Judge Cordell Thomas Nolan, Esq., Attorney in Palo Alto John Miller, Esq., Family Law Attorney in Palo Alto Margalynne Armstrong, Esq., Professor of Law at Santa Clara University
The right size?

Editor,

In their Oct. 15 ad in the Weekly, 800 High St. promoters carry on their customary grousing about my computer rendering of their project. I appreciate their discomfort. My rendering accurately portrays their project's true size in the context of its environment.

None of their images do. Most cleverly conceal their project's impact by showing pieces of it out of context. But an egregiously deceptive image (which they created by pilfering and altering mine) depicts their building at three-quarters of its actual size.

That fact is easily proved, and I have repeatedly demonstrated it to them. Yet they brazenly push this misrepresentation on Palo Alto voters. Clearly they do not want their project shown as it is. Why?

On Nov. 4, voters should decide 800 High St.'s fate with the truth.

I'll lead off again. My original computer-generated image shows the building's correct size relative to its neighbors, although by technical necessity it omitted the windows.

But technology advances. I've created a new image with the windows, vines and trees exactly as drawn in the promoters' plans, which our City Council actually approved. Check it out at www.800highstreet.org.

In return, I challenge 800 High St. backers to quit griping about the truth and start practicing it. Let them publish their own rendering accurately depicting their whole project, as approved by our City Council, in its context.

In the meantime, just say No to Deceit. Vote No on C. David Bubenik Homer Avenue Palo Alto
Palo Alto's George Bailey?

Editor,

The news in the Palo Alto Weekly about the 800 High developers offering to buy out Larry Hassett of Palo Alto Hardware could have been taken straight out of Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life."

Evil Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore) realizes he can't defeat George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) in business so he offers to buy him out and make him a highly paid employee. After a moment of weakness, George realizes this would be the end of his Savings and Loan, the only financial institution in Bedford Falls not controlled by Potter.

George refuses: "You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter!"

The attempt to buy out Larry reveals the true nature of the issues concerning 800 High St. It's not about housing and transit (for which we all see the need), but about control and profits taken at the expense of our community.

Larry's response shows the solid character of Larry and the other owners of small businesses in Palo Alto who are opposing this poorly conceived development. Larry runs one of the best hardware stores, period.

No amount of money could replace his store, his wonderful employees or all he has contributed to Palo Alto.

Don't let them turn Palo Alto into Pottersville. Vote "No on C." Lee Collins Embarcadero Road Palo Alto
Better use for funds

Editor,

There is no emergency need for the $87 billion sought for Iraq. The Congressional Research Service issued a report Oct. 16 showing that the funding bills already passed provide enough funding to continue the occupation of Iraq and protect the troops until spring of next year.

Congress could have taken the time to properly debate and analyze the request, but Congressional Republicans wanted to rush the request through in order to limit the political damage. (Congressional Research Service, Oct. 15, 2003)

If the American budget still had $87 billion in its coffers, then why don't we have a national health-care system for all Americans here at home? A better use of $87 billion would be to fund health care and education, and leave the Social Security Funds alone. Donnasue Jacobi Haight Street Menlo Park
Teen-drinking disaster

Editor,

Teens in Palo Alto know that if they are partying in someone's home, they will almost certainly avoid any repercussions from the law. It's far safer for them to find someone's home and party there rather than be in a public place such as a park.

Once in awhile, it gets even more out of control and someone gets hurt ... and then the public gives this problem some attention. But really, it's been going on for a while, and there's a lot of latitude that lets this sort of thing happen.

Last year, our family -- including our teen -- went on vacation and entrusted a teen we had known for years to take care of our cats while we were away. Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

Well, we received a phone call from the police one night, after they broke up a party in our house, a party that had an estimated 40 teens from Gunn in attendance (but not my own teen).

These kids made a mess in our house, drank alcohol, smoked pot, burned holes in the carpet, had sex on our beds and decided that they were comfortable enough to rummage through every drawer in the house to steal whatever struck their fancy.

Some of these teens were kids who have known our family since they were in elementary school with my kid, but somehow that didn't matter because our house was now a place to party.

When the police arrived and detained several of them, all that happened was that the kids' parents were called to pick them up. Getting them home safe was the priority, not punishment.

Why? Because they were "safe" in someone's home and because one of them had a key, all of them implicitly had permission to be there. It didn't matter where the alcohol that was being consumed came from (not from my liquor cabinet), if they were underage (they were) or that they were smoking pot (which probably wasn't for medicinal use).

They were in a house, and that made it all OK. Not one of the kids detained by the police were booked on any charges -- their parents simply picked them up from our house and took them home. The police couldn't tell us the names of any of these kids because they're minors. Only a couple of the parents even had the decency to have their child apologize to us for what had happened in our house.

Now what kind of message does that give to kids? Certainly nothing about being responsible for your actions. Probably the parents of most of the kids who were at our house never even knew where their kids were that evening.

Several thousand dollars worth of our possessions were stolen that evening, and by the time we talked to the police about it we were told that it was unlikely that we'd get any of it back because the kids know if they keep their mouths shut nobody gets in trouble.

Yet, had one of these kids, with their implicit permission, driven away from the party and had an accident, we would have been liable. Imagine that. That should make you think twice about who gets a key to your house. Name withheld by request