We were extremely disappointed after attending the Cupertino City Council meeting on Sept. 3. We were led to believe it was determined at the parks and recreation commission's meeting of Sept. 4 that the Stevens Creek trail would not be placed on the west residential side of Stevens Creek near Blackberry Farm.

Although the commission's proposal was presented showing the trail on the east Blackberry Farm side of the creek, we heard the council members suggesting and favoring a west side trail alignment.

We did not hear the parks and recreation director respond that a final decision had been made to not place the trail on the residential side.

In 2001, the task force also agreed to this.

How then can the city council arbitrarily consider realigning the trail without considering the opinions of the residents who as a majority have been and continue to be opposed to this alignment? We have expressed our opposition since this process began, both in vocal appeals as well as written petitions presented to the task force and the parks and recreation commission.

We requested that the trail not be visible from any homes on Scenic Circle; that there be no trail access or bridges connected to Scenic Circle; that Scenic Circle, a residential area, not be turned into a parking lot to access the trail; and that no trees or shrubbery surrounding the residential area be removed to accommodate a trail.

We thought this was agreed upon. Why was this not stated by the parks and recreation director at the city council meeting?

What is the purpose of a task force, all the meetings, residents input and vision packages if the council in a matter of minutes can redesign this project to their own liking? Do we have to repeat this process?

It has been a difficult, time-consuming effort for many, which seems to have been done in vain.

Simply put, we do not want the trail running through our front yards.

—Donald Bautista, Cupertino


Letter writer shouldn't have lumped HIV with other diseases

I was surprised to find in the Sept. 10 issue of The Cupertino Courier that my two-inch bit on the gay Anglican bishop in the Aug. 27 issue had evoked a seven-inch response.

I was saddened by young Nguyen trivializing HIV by lumping it in with "other [sexually transmitted diseases]."

HIV is not trivial! It is a killer! Tens of thousands in the U.S. have died from it since its recognition! Worldwide, millions have died and are dying due to HIV!

The issue is not patriotism. It is public health and a practice that would be banned if it led to deformed fetuses. Instead, HIV merely kills mothers, fathers and some of their offspring!

Any practice that exacerbates the HIV/AIDS epidemic should be rejected by responsible, caring human beings, regardless of how good the practice feels!

—R.A. Blais, Cupertino


Nguyen missed the point of Blais' letter against HIV/AIDS

Daniel Nguyen (Letters & Opinions, Sept. 10) seems to know it all already—Why bother with college? Maybe he is going to UCLA to teach.

I find it unsettling that one of Cupertino's brightest can completely miss the point of Mr. Blais' simple letter (Letters & Opinions, Aug. 27).

The point was not, as Mr. Nguyen seems to think, that sex spreads STDs. The point was that homosexual sex is the single largest factor responsible for the transmission of AIDS.

Most STDs are not fatal; AIDS is, and has caused a global healthcare crisis. Hence, the impact of STDs in general cannot be equated with the devastation and loss of life brought by AIDS.

Mr. Nguyen also claims that Mr. Blais "uses a myriad of false and fallacious arguments to make this claim."

Mr. Blais' letter was two paragraphs long, and didn't present any arguments, merely the assertion that homosexual sex is the largest factor in AIDS transmission. This statement happens to be true, according to both the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control.

Mr. Blais's implied point was that the appointment of an openly gay person into the upper echelons of the Church is against its basic principles as a religious organization. Western religion was founded on Biblical precepts of morality and proper conduct; there is little difference, in the Biblical view, between prohibited conduct like homosexuality, which I must assume, not being religious myself, is viewed as a crime against God or a deadly sin, and blasphemy, which is viewed in the same manner.

Mr. Blais felt this turn of events was "astounding" and I must agree. If Andrew Dice Clay were to be elected president of the National Organization for Women, it wouldn't be more astounding.

As for Mr. Nguyen's letter, I'm feeling a little misled by the title "Country has benefited from aberrant behavior." I was looking forward to "a myriad" of arguments affirming this unique perspective, but alas, none were presented.

—Sebastian Tink, Cupertino


Decision to tear down the town center a waste of good buildings

I've been a resident of Cupertino for 85 years except for 3¹/2 years in the Army during World War II. Cupertino has a perfectly good 20-year-old library and senior center. Now, the city is talking about tearing them down to build new ones, rather than just expanding them, if even that is necessary. In this time of dire municipal need, what a terrible and stupid waste of money! Why do we have to tear down good buildings like the Town Center when half a mile down the road there are about 20 acres of bare land growing tumbleweeds. Wake up, residents, and vote somebody into the Cupertino City Council who shows a little sense. We don't have to or need to tear down good buildings and put in high-rise monsters.

While on the subject of Cupertino, city buildings should not be named after anyone while he or she is still alive, whether heroes, politicians or donors. It could end up embarrassing the city.

—Peter J. Camarda, Cupertino


Change should be viewed as good and beneficial

After reading the article "Linwood Acres, a neighborhood divided" in the Sept. 17 Cupertino Courier, my husband and I drove down Larry Way to observe the neighborhood housing.

We noted that several original houses had additions that appeared to have been constructed several years ago since the original tract construction. We also saw Mr. Nguyen's home, which was depicted in the Courier article. We considered the house different, however, not imposing and an attractive asset to the neighborhood.

Linwood Acres is not an area of unique historical ambiance for which there would be community consensus for preservation. Let's put sour grapes aside and embrace change as something good and beneficial. After all, I'm sure the original orchardists in Cupertino had to accept change with the onslaught of tract housing.

Viva la difference! Let Phil Bush's attitude of tolerance prevail.

—Donene M. Harrison, Cupertino


Arguing won't stop the changes that are occuring in Cupertino

In the Sept. 3 edition of the Courier, I noticed in the letters section we are still arguing about the cancellation of the Fourth of July celebration, whether the city pays for other ethnic celebrations, whether De Cinzo in his cartoons is afraid to poke fun at Asians and depicts white people as fat, plodding and stodgy because he is afraid of being called a racist.

As a 26-year resident of Cupertino I think we have got to stop this insane fighting among the Asians and whites in your newspaper. Whether the Asians completely take over Cupertino is something we will find out in time. If they do, so be it. Whether the Vallco mall becomes a total Asian enclave with the new owners we will also find out in time.

If those of us who have lived here for a long time don't like what is happening we really have only two choices. Get used to it or get out. Continuing to have this bickering is counterproductive and will only lead to more bad feelings between Asians and whites.

—Jim Carlisle, Cupertino


City council is biased on time limits at its meetings

I attended the Cupertino Planning Commission meeting on Sept. 8 for the "public" hearing on the proposed high-density residential development at the Oaks by Regis Homes. With 40 to 50 "public" in the audience, Regis Homes was allowed to talk for an unrestricted time. As time progressed, some "public" left, especially young couples who needed to get their children to bed. My frustration mounted as Regis consumed the commission's time. Fortunately many "public" endured and voiced their opinions.

When finally allowed to speak, I was critical of the hearing process because it is supposed to be a "public" hearing—yet the public only gets to be heard for three minutes per person if they can endure for the unlimited time the applicant chooses to use.

The process is not "public"-friendly but developer-friendly. Citizens have a right to be heard without being subjected to hours of late-night waiting.

The language of the commission staff made it sound like Regis had a done deal. They talked about when something would be done rather than if it would be done, as an example. This indicates a disregard for public input and gives the impression that there is already a de facto vote in favor of the applicant.

Having the applicant pay for the traffic consultant is a conflict of interest even if the city approves the choice. Many, including commission members, made comments that were inconsistent with the consultant's report. If the city is seriously interested in the impact on traffic and parking, they need an independent consultant if there is to be any credibility. Does anyone really believe that a consultant paid for by Regis would arrive at any answer other than one favoring Regis?

The commission spokesperson summarized that this is an issue between growth and anti-growth people. I beg to differ. I am not anti-growth, but I am for sensible development that preserves the quality of life and character of Cupertino. Several commissioners stated there is a housing shortage in Cupertino. I'm still trying to understand where and why?

The San Jose Mercury News recently published an article on the high vacancy rates in Silicon Valley. Where is the housing crisis that the commission suggests exists in a depressed economy that has lost over 200,000 jobs since 2000? Forces unknown to the citizenry of Cupertino seem to be driving such development and our elected officials. We have a right to know the nature and source of those forces and to debate them in "public."

—Robert L. Garten, Cupertino


Resident feels nostalgic about the Oaks' history

I read your Sept. 24 edition of the Courier, particularly the fine letter by Peg Goodrich about the Oaks project. I remember when we came to Cupertino 25 years ago and lived just a few blocks from the Oaks. My family and I loved to stroll around the Oaks and eat at that great Senor Pepe's Mexican restaurant or the Sandpiper, where they had live music, or catch a movie at the theater. We would stroll around Memorial Park and then come back to the Oaks and have an ice cream at Mom's Ice Cream store. We usually ended up in the bookstore. It was great fun.

I now read from your readers about what a great place the Oaks is and what a fine heritage it has and should be preserved. The problem with the Oaks is that we residents of Cupertino let it die. We didn't patronize it and buy anything there, and slowly the businesses closed and turned it into what it is today. Just empty and dead. If you don't tend properly to things like this, they will always die, and it is almost impossible to bring them back.

As is normal in these situations, there are always developers sitting on the sidelines watching while we, the residents, ignore these places like the Oaks and when the time is ripe, jump in because they see the opportunity to make some bucks. That is what is happening now. They want to tear down a lot of the Oaks and stuff it full of huge condominiums and fill it with cars. These are not necessarily bad people; they just see an opportunity when it presents itself. And we residents presented it to them. It is really too bad, but we really have only ourselves to blame.

I am afraid it is too late for the Oaks now, but we might want to look at any similar places in Cupertino and get busy saving them before it is too late. If we don't, Cupertino in the years to come is just going to be one big paved parking lot.

—Jim Carlisle, Cupertino