The Cupertino Courier

Letters

Speaking of integrity, where was the editor?

Once again, DeCinzo demonstrates his absolute lack of journalistic morals and ethics--if, in fact, they exist at all. This time, on the eve of Christmas!

In his political cartoon he derides the Diocese of San Jose for its planned development of the San Jose Seminary land. In his opinion, the diocese is more interested in financial return than in caring for the general welfare of the public at large.

Even if DeCinzo were telling the complete story, his cartoon would be far more appropriate in Doonesbury and the other clowns on the comic page than the editorial page of a supposedly respected town newspaper. But he does not tell the complete story. What he does not say is that the diocese is dedicating two-thirds of the land to public open space at no cost to the public. How many property owners would do this? Given the same situation, would DeCinzo? Even a person of DeCinzo's limited mental ability surely is aware of this fact. So one must conclude that he intentionally is misleading his readers.

So much for morality, virtue and integrity.

And, speaking of such attributes, where is our editor?

Jack Birkholz
Cupertino

Council, not the diocese, responsible for high prices

Your Dec. 24 editorial cartoon depicts the exclusive and high-priced nature of the development planned for the diocese property. Unfortunately, your barb misses the true perpetrators.

I have followed the plans for this property for most of their 10- or 15-year history, some of those years from a seat on the Planning Commission.

The first development (zoning) plan approved by the Planning Commission and endorsed by the diocese called for many more homes, but smaller homes. It even encouraged single-story homes (unheard of today). It was intended to provide a significant stock of more reasonably priced housing in Cupertino.

(Using the words reasonable, housing and Cupertino together is inherently conflicting. We were never talking about people living on welfare. At the time I was laughed at for saying $200,000 is more affordable than $500,000. Your cartoon suggests, realistically, $1,000,000 price tags. I still contend that lower prices are more accessible to more people.)

The plan was changed from many small homes to a few exclusive homes by the City Council, largely due to the efforts of ex-Councilmember Marshall Goldman. (Marshall and I agreed on most issues during our terms of public service, but obviously not on this one.) The delay in providing this housing resource to Cupertino, and the type of housing that is being developed here and elsewhere, is the responsibility of the City Council. The council has consistently made planning decisions that lower the availability and raise the cost of housing in Cupertino.

Many people have compromised to reach the current plan for this property. The diocese has remained especially patient and open-minded, more so than any other landowner I've known. Responsibility for the plan, whether you like it or not, should not be laid only at the landowner's doorstep.

Don Mackenzie
Cupertino

Something needs to be done about post office

I heartily agree with Hugh Thomas' remarks regarding the post office and mail delivery. I stood in line for 35 minutes to send two certified letters. I realize this is the Christmas season, but last month it took 20 minutes. As far as mail-delivery service, we usually get our mail about 6 p.m. When it comes in the afternoon, it is cause for celebration. Something needs to be done to improve this situation as soon as possible.

Janice Weiner
Cupertino

FUHSD should wait till June for bond measure

In The Courier of Dec. 17 we read of the sad plight of schools in the Fremont Union High School District. After 30-plus years, the roofs leak, heating and plumbing are deteriorating and restrooms need repair. As a result of this, FUHSD trustees are calling for a bond measure of up to $144 million to be decided in a special election next April.

Superintendent Joe Hamilton justifies a special election with only one item on the ballot by stating, "It might get lost among other initiatives if we waited until June." Who does Hamilton think he is fooling? In my opinion, most school bond issues are decided by special elections for one reason only: Voter turnout is very low, and an organized minority of voters can get these issues passed.

If this district's handling of taxpayer dollars is of interest to anyone, let's compare the cost of a special election in April to putting the same issue on the ballot in the June general election.

Information from the office of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters reveals that as of Sept. 15, there were 100,000 registered voters within the district. The registrar estimates the cost of preparing and mailing materials to these voters runs between $2.25 and $2.50 per voter. That means there is a minimum cost of $225,000 to pay for a special election. If this same issue would be placed on the June ballot with these "other initiatives" Hamilton alludes to, the cost would be $35,000, as the costs would be shared among all the issues.

It seems that as good stewards of the taxpayer dollar, the administrators and trustees of the district would see the $190,000 difference between the costs of these two election dates. After all, school maintenance has waited for many years, and the wait in election dates from April until June is only two months.

So, why don't we wait until June and save the $190,000?

Kenneth C. Bruce
Sunnyvale

[ Back to Contents Page | Cupertino Courier Home Page | Archives ]