Letters to the Editor

Support for doctor

Editor,

The articles of May 21 and 23 on allegations against Dr. Stebbins must be responded to.

I was diagnosed with cancer three years ago. In my search to find the best oncologist, Dr. Stebbins's name was repeatedly at the very top of everyone's list. This number one placement came from his peers--doctors whose recommendation I had sought. It was my privilege to become Dr. Stebbins's patient. He was always the ultimate professional, very obviously dedicated to his work, with a genuine concern for his patients. As one doctor put it, he was "always the last to leave" during rounds at the hospital. My initial and lasting impression of Dr. Stebbins was that he is a gentleman. I believe that he is such a fine physician because he is such a fine person. He has my highest respect and unwavering support.

What reason could possibly justify publishing allegations which cause inestimable harm to such an individual? I'd expect such sensationalized stories in a tabloid, not a paper of the Palo Alto Weekly's intelligence. If your writer/reporter, Elisabeth Traugott, had firsthand knowledge of Dr. Stebbins or knew anyone who was his patient, she could not have written these articles. Not only from my own experience, but from what I know of his reputation among fellow patients and his peers, the picture portrayed of Dr. Stebbins is inaccurate and misleading. Period.

Sadly, the real victims here are Dr. Stebbins's countless patients, current and future, now deprived of his unparalleled care.

No on Sunday ban

Editor,

As a Palo Alto home owner, I was dismayed to hear about the Sunday construction ban proposal presented by Lanie Wheeler and Sandy Eakins at a recent Palo Alto City Council meeting (Weekly, May 21).

While we all have been annoyed on occasion by the shriek of a circular saw or banging of hammers in our neighborhood, it's important to remember that we each live in a building constructed and maintained by the same methods. Your home was, for a time, your neighbor's headache.

While nearby construction is just an annoyance to you, remember that it is often a major disruption in the life of your neighbor, who wants that new home finished or existing home remodeled as quickly and as inexpensively as possible.

I urge the City Council to reject this ill-conceived proposal because it will increase the duration and cost of construction and remodeling projects. For homeowner's who do their own construction on weekends either by choice or because of economic necessity, it would, at a minimum, double the length of time required to complete a project. The proposal presents a special threat to Palo Alto's treasure of older homes, which require more than average maintenance to keep them in good health.

Finally, new laws beget new lawsuits, with litigation replacing neighborly courtesy and tolerance.

Construction is, by its very nature, a temporary activity.

Boycott the ban

Editor,

I am a resident of Mountain View, but I frequent Palo Alto almost every day of the week. Since the "sit-lie" ban was passed I decided that I would boycott the businesses on that stretch of road. I have heard similar stories from Palo Alto residents, and their intent to boycott these businesses. However, I find that these same residents don't follow through on their intentions.

It saddens me to see the lack of responsibility from such people.

I can't wait for this law to get on the ballot and get defeated. And I hope that this ridiculous law never gets passed in Mountain View.

You can't keep moving

Editor,

I'm delighted that Dave Wallace (Our Town, May 28) feels that he can live with airplane noise. I'm delighted that he doesn't mind not being able to hold gatherings in his back yard without everyone having to shout. But not all of us feel that way.

First, in 12 years of living in College Terrace I have never had a plane interrupt a conversation in my yard or (worse yet) inside my home until recently. This is not simply a change in the number of planes. If the air traffic officials claim that's the only change, they're lying.

Second, there are other dangers to frequent overflights besides noise: the planes are also dropping benzine, hydrocarbons and other toxins on us. Even if we practice organic gardening techniques ourselves, we cannot protect ourselves from this fallout.

And third, Mr. Wallace has completely missed an important difference between the noise caused by air traffic and rail or freeway traffic: one cannot predict where it is going to occur. Freeways and rail lines have fixed locations. If one wishes to live away from them, one can do so. But air traffic can be moved around without any construction or public approval process. One poor woman who spoke at the meeting in Atherton has moved three times (or is it four?) to try to escape it. She had even met with the air traffic folks before her last move to Woodside, but the flights have followed her there! I'm not talking about folks who move next to an airport and then complain. But Palo Alto is a long way from SFO. Surely even Mr. Wallace doesn't believe that we should all have to keep moving every few years to try to escape?

It's high time we stop accepting this degradation of our quality of life so that Mr. Wallace can "hop a flight to Tokyo at any time of the day or night." Since money is the only thing business seems to understand, perhaps it's time for airlines to start compensating all the folks they're disturbing. Then maybe they'd find a way to keep things quiet. Or maybe we'll learn that we can do with a bit less "hopping."

Take Dave's attitude

Editor,

I am not a person who normally appreciates editorial content, as I am inclined to form my own (strong) opinions. But I wanted to let you know that recently I have noticed how much I consistently enjoy Our Town both for its style and its content.

For example, today's (May 28) "No sympathy" column really "resonates" with me, to use a '90s kind of word. I, too, had noted in a recent Palo Alto Weekly article, that a mere 16 or so families in Atherton appear to be responsible for the apparent flap over airplane noise. Unbelievable! Not only because the problem itself seems so trivial in comparison to issues such as hunger and homelessness, but because the statistics suggest a frightening ability for the masses to be swayed by a few elite.

When I first moved to Palo Alto 18 months ago, my first impression of the community, formed from your newspaper, was that it is a town of a bunch of whiners. I believe the issue then was parking or traffic or some such thing.

People in this community would be wise (in my humble opinion of course) to take Dave Wallace's attitude, that, these are obvious (reasonable) tradeoffs for a robust economy and as such represent a fair price to be paid for living in an area with so many fantastic opportunities.

Anyway, the real point of this letter is not to get on a soapbox about air traffic, but to praise Dave Wallace for the terrific job he is doing.

Not only do I not normally read editorial comment, I don't normally supply my own (Just to underscore how impressed I really am with Our Town.) Keep up the good work Dave!

Who lost their job?

Editor,

The Palo Alto Weekly of May 21 featured a large photo of our city's new $25,000 sidewalk sweeping "Green Machine," but said nothing about the fate of the person the city "until now" employed to do the job. It seems bizarre to me that in the midst of great public debate about how to resolve the homeless issue, our city has just spent this large sum not to fund job training or shelter, but to actually eliminate a full-time job for which many homeless residents could qualify.

As we are progressively seduced by the glamour of inappropriate and wasteful technology such as the cynically named Green Machine, we progressively marginalize from productivity those who cannot keep up with the rising skill level needed to support it. This machine should be disposed of immediately, and we should start thinking of ourselves as a mutually supportive community of human beings rather than as a technological showplace.

Violation of rights

Editor,

I look forward to the city of Palo Alto's project to spruce up downtown by replacing the free-standing newspaper racks with standardized racks. However, your recent article detailing the Palo Alto Weekly publisher Bill Johnson's comments of the project posing a violation of First Amendment rights disturbed me.

Bill Johnson is merely using the First Amendment as a smoke screen to hide his true concern--profitability. The First Amendment is, after all, a law, and a law is a law on paper. Yet the observance of this law (what turns writing into reality) is in the hands of people. The First Amendment is not a license to clutter our public streets. Is Bill Johnson falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? Or is he falsely shouting "violation" in a crowded newspaper rack?

A sense of the city

Editor,

The plan to remodel the City Council chambers for $960,000 should be put into the same file as the $80,000 traffic circle which the City Council , in its wisdom, approved and later rescinded, a while back. While it may be true that the council chambers do indeed need to be updated (the benches really are uncomfortable), the major part of the proposed expenditure seems to be for high-tech toys for the council members to play with. Expensive flat screen terminals to access the internet for each council member? No thanks! I would rather have council members give full attention to what citizens have to say than be distracted by "surfing the net" or fiddling with a digital sound system that has more features that they can use or understand.

Council Member Lanie Wheeler stated that she felt like the chambers were "furnished from a garage sale." Just because the furnishings may look a little dated is no excuse to spend public money. I would like to remind her that there are many council chambers in Europe, built in the 15th century, that still function very well for city business and where the major improvements since, have been electricity and indoor plumbing.

If public money in this amount is to be spent, I would suggest that it be spent in areas that will really make a difference. For instance, improvement of the storm drain system, which was allowed to deteriorate because of deferred maintenance for some 20 years and for which we now pay a surcharge on our utility bill. Or how about spending some of that money repaving the streets in the Fairmeadow area which only have had patches for the last 20 years?

When council members listen carefully to the citizens of Palo Alto, they will indeed "get a sense of what this city is all about." The citizens don't want their money spent frivolously on a high-tech toy box for City Council members which will only become obsolete in a few years. That much should be patently clear.

Voices from past

Editor,

For anyone living on the Peninsula, the outcries over land use and land development cannot be simply quieted. Of course, you may choose to turn your attention away from the Stanford-Ohlone Field development plan and it's corresponding impacts on the Sand Hill Road corridor and San Francisquito Creek.

People who support the Stanford project often do because of their hope for traffic relief on poorly engineered and overloaded Sand Hill Road. What's overlooked is that Stanford university could have been improving this road as a responsible corporate citizen for the last 35 years, irrespective of additional shopping space.

But, save for a century, we've been here before. David Starr Jordan, Stanford University President in 1898, was troubled by the university trustees' willingness to build all sorts of structures-costly legacies which had no particular alignment with the university's academic mission. Referring to the period of unbridled, new construction as the "stone age", Jordan's plea's for investing in equipment and salaries were not taken seriously by Mrs. Stanford. "It is not the time for increasing salaries until the present drain for buildings is past," pronounced Mrs. Stanford.

Later that year in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, Jordan wrote, "that California is commercially asleep, that her industries are gambling ventures, that her local politics is in the hands of professional pickpockets, that she is the slave of corporations, that she has not yet learned to distinguish enterprise from highway robbery nor reform from blackmail."

Well, in spite of a century of building one of the finest learning institutions, what has the institution learned? The spirit of Mrs. Stanford lives on, via Stanford (University) Land Management.

Kids do count

Editor,

As Co-chair of the "Kids Count" District Wide Fundraising Committee working under Palo Alto Council of PTAs, I would like to express our committee's gratitude and thanks for the community's response of over $70,000 donated through this year's Maui Benefit Drawing. This generosity will directly benefit over 9,000 students with programs otherwise not offered in our Palo Alto-Stanford-Los Altos Hills public schools. Each school will independently decide how proceeds will be spent to further quality classroom education.

We are especially appreciative of the support the Palo Alto Weekly has offered by publishing both a guest opinion piece (April 9) by our former Mayor Lanie Wheeler, and the Weekly editorial clarifying financial issues troubling our schools today. By sponsoring our "school house" ads free of charge we were able to keep our budget to a minimum.

This committee was organized as a response to the community's expectation of quality curriculum and excellence for students in our public schools. PAUSD has historically maintained a high level of education and enrichment programs. Individual school PTA's have supported this goal by relying heavily on funds from parent donations. Measurement of our success is when a rich variety of programs for students continue to be offered in our public schools.

Thank you again for your generous contribution toward this fundraising event. And, congratulations to Meredith Warren our Maui Trip winner!

The administration failed

Editor,

I do not know Ed Hart (Upfront, May 16). I do know the Palo Alto Unified School District, having taught there for 34 years before retiring. Teachers must teach subject matter and skills, and they must also, if possible, keep their students from harm. Sometimes this includes protecting them from physical or psychological abuse by other students. As I understand it, this is what Ed Hart was doing. He was doing his duty.

It is equally the duty of the school district administration to stand behind and support teachers who are doing the right thing, regardless of the possibility of lawsuits. Here, again as I understand it, the PAUSD administration failed.

If that was indeed the case, the Board of Education and the Superintendent need to consider the effect of their actions on teacher morale and parental concerns about the safety of their children in the classroom.

Drastic changes at M-A

Editor,

This is my second year at Menlo-Atherton High School and because of the drastic changes scheduled for next year I might not stay here for a third.

I consider myself a decent kid and feel violated by these outrageous and pointless new regulations. First, they are closing our campus for the problems Woodside is having with their students. Then, they are making new rules about fights: if you have been in two fights you are expelled; even if you did not start them. They are also changing the school's schedule to a modified block schedule. The thing that angers me the most is that they are considering making us wear name tags.

Name tags are a violation of our privacy and possibly safety. They say that the tags will tighten security and help keep unwanted people off campus, but most of the problems come from students who attend our school. As for a violation of privacy I, like Superman, would like to keep my identity a secret. I think that closing the campus is a bad idea.

People think that if they close the campus that all of a sudden the school will become like one big family; but that is not going to happen. There will be so many fights the school will look like one big boxing ring. The food, they say, will be better but where are all the people going to eat it? The school is already too crowded at lunch. Also there are no activities for us to do at lunch. The only thing to do to get our energy out is to fight and even if a student is attacked for no reason he will be expelled because he is still in a fight.

I'm not sure if this letter will help, but at least I'm trying to make a difference. Our school is in big trouble and it needs as much help as it can get.

Violation of freedom

Editor,

Menlo-Atherton High School is on the cusp of major change. There is a "no exceptions" policy that is being considered. The campus will be closed by 1998, and the faculty wants the students to wear photo-identification badges beginning next fall.

This spring, the faculty drafted a very harsh "no exceptions" discipline policy which they presented to the administration, who will be responding soon with an amended draft. Students as a whole believe that these "no exception" rules are too harsh, and that there is really no need for them. For example, if a student is overheard swearing, (even to him/herself), that student will be immediately suspended from school for two days, despite an apology. Also, if a student accumulates 12 absences in a class (of either unexcused or excused) in a semester, that student would fail for that semester. (By the way, if you fail a semester you have to retake that semester) That means that if a student is sick twice in a semester, that they would almost surely fail all their classes if they did not attend school.

From the beginning of time, Menlo-Atherton has been an open campus. Students always look forward to being juniors and seniors so that they can drive to school and then go out to lunch. The administration now, however, has decided that closing the campus would make the school a better place to be. There would be police and cops roaming around the school constantly to enforce the closed campus. School would look more like a jail then a place to learn. I have to say that I do not think this is fair.

Lately, there has been another controversial issue floating around the campus. Many teachers believe that students should wear photo identification badges. These badges would serve so that the teachers will know the names of the students that they wish to address. If there is someone seen cutting in the hall, a badge would identify the student so that the student will be correctly punished. There will be severe punishments if a student does not wear a badge; everyone will need to wear one. Personally, I believe that these badges are a violation of personal freedom. I do not like thinking that someone is after me, watching every move I make. These badges will make me change my views about school. I will not feel comfortable

I am sure that all the issues and changes being discussed are trying to sincerely make Menlo Atherton a better place. However, as a student, I feel that my voice is not being heard. I want school to be a place that I can learn. Not only learn academically, but also learn from my mistakes so that I can make important decisions in the future for myself. These "no exception" rules do not allow for any mistakes. I really want to know how I am supposed to survive on my own and be a responsible person if I cannot play with the goals and limits in my life. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that was what school was all about: growing up.

Cable Co-op success

Editor,

Thank you for your recognition of my many constructive contributions to Cable Co-op in your editorial of May 21. It is unfortunate that you chose to endorse a slate rather than individual candidates based upon their merit, particularly since you acknowledged that there is a range of candidates you normally would have supported.

The (Spectrum, May 21) letter from Ken Allen illustrates many of the problems with Cable Co-op and blind support for the "team". It fails to acknowledge that others also have worked diligently to solve the operating and financial problems of Cable Co-op.

Since June 1995 I presented eight separate proposals for effective actions to obtain financing, expand data services, increase income, increase member satisfaction, and raise member equity. Our CEO and various board members agreed that many of the proposals have merit and are viable. Unfortunately a majority of the board, including the incumbents on the "team", failed to pursue most of the ideas, or delayed acting until the practical effect was to lose opportunities. I took a proactive role, attempting to get the board to act in a timely manner and not wait until almost all options are lost. It is a pity that the board majority never seriously pursued most of these proposals.

One concern is that a few officers and directors are limiting information given to the entire board. How can directors make intelligent decisions about sales, financing, or deals if vital information is limited and dribbled out as it suits a few favored members?

The answer to Cable Co-op's financial problem is to have separate subcommittees thoroughly look into a variety of solutions. Each subcommittee would present its findings. The entire board then would select the approaches to pursue. Once agreement is reached on the most viable strategies, the entire board and staff would actively pursue the best one or two. At all times every board member would have full and free access to information about the deal(s) so that they could make informed decisions. At the same time board members should be discrete about premature disclosure of information. This approach offers the best chance of success, and of assuring real co-operation and involvement of all, not just a few.

Back up to the Table of Contents Page