Viewpoint ■ EDITORIAL
THE OPINION OF THE VOICE Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
■ S TA F F Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Andrea Gemmet
A good deal for high schools
Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt, Martin Sanchez Intern Ellen Huet Photographer Michelle Le Photo Intern James Tensuan Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Jennifer Pence, Monica Schreiber
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Advertising Representatives Anna Mirsky, Brent Triantos Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz Real Estate Advertising Coordinators Diane Martin, Samantha Mejia Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 E-mail news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com E-mail letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales (650) 964-6490 • (650) 326-8216 fax (650) 326-0155 E-mail Classified ads@MV-Voice.com E-mail Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for $60 per year, $100 per 2 years are welcome. Copyright ©2010 by Embarcadero Media Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
■ WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM POST your views on the Town Square forum at www.MountainViewOnline.com E-MAIL your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if it is a letter to be published. MAIL to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405 CALL the Viewpoint desk at 964-6300
M
ountain View voters should find it easy to approve Measure A on the June 8 ballot to extend the current bond measure. It would raise $41.3 million by extending the payoff period on bonds for the Mountain View Los Altos High School District from 2024 to 2030. The extension will allow the district to accommodate enrollment that is expected to surge by 900 students by 2012. The extension maintains the same rate of $14.70 per $100,000 of a property’s assessed valuation. Although it will take six more years to pay off the bonds, the proposal is a good deal for voters as their taxes will not go up a nickel. Passage of the measure will create a bond oversight committee, a requirement for lowering the threshold for passage to We urge voters 55 percent of the vote, rather than the two-thirds normally to approve required for tax measures. Measure A. In the last six months or so, district officials including Superintendent Barry Groves have done their homework, talking to many local interest groups about why it is important to support the bond extension. In support of the proposal, school officials believe it is better to plan now for the additional students coming over the next three years. “We wanted to provide for our schools’ future without creating a heavier tax burden on local taxpayers,” a board member said in a statement issued in support of the measure. Much of the bond money will be used to build new classrooms at the district’s two high schools and to pay for other improvements, including new restrooms, earthquake and fire safety upgrades, improved security systems, updated wiring for new technologies and conversion of teacher offices to science labs. Some “green” improvements will also be included, such as installing solar electricity systems, improving insulation and replacing or upgrading inefficient boilers. School officials estimate that making all these changes could save up to $400,000 a year in energy costs. We urge voters to approve Measure A. Now is the time to prepare for the expected bubble of 900 additional students, rather than after they arrive. It also makes sense to install energy-efficient improvements that could save $4 million over 10 years. And by simply continuing the current bond repayment amount for another six years, voters will not see their tax bills increase. Measure A will provide good value to the district and its students and should be approved on June 8.
■ EDITORIAL ■ YOUR LETTERS ■ GUEST OPINIONS
■ LETTERS
VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY
A CHALLENGE TO MAYOR’S CLAIM ON HOUSING PROJECT
the council’s hands when they made their decision. Max Hauser Loreto Street
In her guest opinion last week defending her support of the Minton/Prometheus development proposal, Mayor Ronit Bryant made the profoundly misleading claim that no studies in the case indicated “significant impacts on the neighborhood.” The main “Study/MND” report in January concluded as follows: No increase in site car traffic. (Assuming the “existing use” is a hypothetical big-box store with 1,717 daily visits. It isn’t.) No garage overflow, based on “six similar developments.” (Four had heavily occupied garages and one had unspecified street parking, none of which was counted; only two sites had known tenancy percentages. From the site with the least data, the report estimated the proposed garage would be 97.7 percent full at full apartment occupancy. No current use of existing streets by Caltrain commuters to park cars overnight was mentioned. (Resident Annette Nielsen simply waited for morning commute trains, and promptly photographed 20 of them.) All of this information was in
DRAWINGS NOT NEEDED TO MAKE RAIL DECISION I didn’t get particularly excited about the urban designer concept drawings for high-speed rail in Mountain View. It was obvious a long time ago that the only reasonable alternative for Mountain View was a trench or tunnel option for the train — everything else is a disaster. I did get excited about the $100,000 that the mayor or council spent on these drawings, when the city has a structural budget deficit requiring cutting a variety of services, and our schools are suffering as well. I’m shocked that those on the council who voted for this expenditure couldn’t use the judgment and intelligence we presumed they had when we elected them to office. Any reasonably intelligent person could have figured out what the city’s position on high speed rail should have been on his/ her own. The $100,000 could certainly have been put to better uses. Carol Lewis Oak Street
MAY 21, 2010 ■ MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE ■
15