Jul 26, 2007

Letters

Student needs

Dear Editor: We have burdened our classrooms with a rigid curriculum. Real education is built on the spark of self-discovery. Are we prepared to devise a curriculum in which music and art and dance are primary? I believe many students become low achievers because they have not experienced the excitement of discovering something for themselves. It is time to restore the vitality of learning by providing students numerous opportunities for self-expression.

Romila Khanna,

Albany



Monstrous homes

Dear Editor: We see huge new homes rapidly replacing older homes in Palo Alto, transforming our modest neighborhoods into a wealthy, elite society.

The size alone of the new homes doesn't make them "monster houses." However, when plunked between two older homes, they indeed appear to take on monstrous proportions. As the houses on either side are razed and replaced by similarly dimensioned new structures, as will surely happen, a blending effect will occur.

And soon enough, the only homes that will look out of place will be the remaining older homes.

So size doesn't make the new large homes objectionable. It's the designs of some of the new structures that make them true monstrosities.

For example, a home on Waverley Street northwest of Oregon Expressway has the appearance of "Mission Control." One wonders: Has NASA established a new branch in Palo Alto?

Nearby, another home on Santa Rita Avenue, also northwest of Oregon Expressway, has the appearance of a commercial office building, looking nothing like a family residence.

Fortunately, its owner apparently recognized his error and had the decency to put in tall shrubbery to obscure the building from view.

But the worst - by far - is a huge, windowless mausoleum on Melville Avenue.

There's no way to stop the inevitable revamping of our neighborhoods, but perhaps we can keep the truly horrible eyesores from being erected in our midst. How? When notified that a building permit has been requested, review the plans and voice your opinion if you think the design is inappropriate.

Ruben Contreras,

Palo Alto



Edwards being selfish

Dear Editor: I think John Edwards is being somewhat egotistical and selfish by running for office. While I don't believe he has a chance at winning the Democratic nomination, much less ever becoming president, what would happen if he did? Who would be running the country when his wife's condition worsens? I feel very sorry that Mrs. Edwards has cancer and wish her nothing but the best. However, I don't think her condition should be used by John Edwards as a campaign crutch. It's difficult concentrating on an everyday job when one has a loved one going through cancer treatment or any life-threatening situation. How could someone give their full attention to the presidency when their spouse has cancer? The new leader of our country has a big mess to clean up and that will require that person's full attention.

Toni M. Villa,

Mountain View



Sea Scout Building

Dear Editor: I was appalled at Sunday's article on Palo Alto's plan to rehabilitate the Sea Scout Building at the former Yacht Harbor and turn it over to the Environmental Volunteers as a teaching facility. That building was donated for the Sea Scouts, and if they can't use it themselves, it should be converted to a use that they approve.

The Palo Alto City Council was extremely arrogant and highhanded in rejecting their proposal out of hand, and then approving, and paying for, its restoration and conveyance to the very people who evicted them. This is just plain theft.

Yes, the building is an architectural delight, and should be preserved as a fine example of its era's style, and superbly appropriate for its intended use. But when Palo Alto destroyed the Yacht Harbor and evicted the Sea Scouts, it forfeited the right to keep it and turn it over to others. If it can't be moved to Redwood City for use by the Sea Scouts it was designed for, it should be destroyed, because Palo Alto doesn't deserve to have it. It made that decision when it demolished everything else. As for the environmentalists, they have their nature interpretive center. That's what they left us, and it's all they should have.

Thomas B. Stebinger,

Palo Alto



Artificial turf costly

Dear Editor: In response to your article on Tuesday, I simply cannot believe the San Carlos City Council thinks it's a good use of our hard-earned tax dollars to spend $50,000 "to study the possibility of switching to a synthetic surface" at the Heather School sports field. (Can I get that consulting gig, please?) Such a switch would cost $600,000 more over a 20-year period.

Call me crazy, but as a kid growing up in the Boston area, I loved the smell and feel of natural grass. And to think the natural stuff is cheaper? Cool! In fact, the only legitimate objection I read in the article to natural turf was that, at the present, the Heather School field has a gopher problem. Also, Council Member Inge Tiegel Doherty, champion of those infamous S.C.O.O.T. buses back in the day, said, "I think the synthetic turf is much better from a health and safety standpoint." Um ... the empirical proof that backs up your opinion, Ms. Doherty?

How about ditching the $50,000 study and instead spending $1,000 per year over the next 20 years to eradicate or move the gophers. Oh, and how about investing the $600,000 in further improving our high quality schools?

Steve Diamond,

San Carlos