Thank you for your article concerning our opposition to the west-side alignment of the Stevens Creek Trail. By making this public, others in the community will feel as we do; nobody wants a trail in front of their homes, and they too will support this issue. We continue to communicate with the city council to convince them that, if we must have a trail, it belongs on the east side of the creek where it will not disturb our neighborhood.

And it will be much more enjoyable for trail users to be in a natural environment.

—Don Bautista, Cupertino


Maybe owner drove business out of Oaks

After reading the second publication of Jim Carlisle's letter in the Courier I am prompted to offer an alternative explanation for the "decline" of the Oaks.

Could it be that the absentee landlord of the Oaks has systematically driven out the businesses so it could be sold for development?

Mr. Carlisle referenced many of the fine businesses that have departed the Oaks and there are more in recent years. In each case the business owners, including a favorite, The Clean and Well Lighted Place, stated that they left the Oaks because rising rents made business untenable The absentee landlord appears to have continued raising rents even during an economic downturn to keep business out and justify the "decline" of the Oaks.

The Oaks is our local shopping center, which I patronize every day. We should not capitulate by saying it's "too late" for the Oaks. Rather the residents of Cupertino should urge city officials to promote business, reject development that would reward the objectionable behavior of the absentee Oaks owners and line the pockets of developers for pouring more concrete into our city.

City officials gain much more revenue from retail space than from housing developments, so it is common sense to encourage the revival of the Oaks even if it means pressuring the current owners or encouraging new ownership who will invest in the Oaks and make it thrive once again.

—Robert L. Garten, Cupertino


Signs about Cupertino residents, not Realtors

To return to the sign blight we had in l997 would be of financial benefit only to a few Realtors and certainly wouldn't be a financial or any other benefit to residents. Residents also got to enjoy the blight long after an event or election was over.

Please bring forward those poor souls who can't read a map or the newspaper and can only drive around just looking for the home of their dreams and I'll show you a very scarce individual.

Also, please bring forward those who ran for public office that have claimed they lost the election because they just couldn't put up more signs on public property.

Mayor Michael Chang is correct about being concerned and so should every other city council member.

Please, it's not about allowing no signs, it's about not allowing signs on public property or on private property without the owner's permission.

It's the Cupertino citizen, not the Realtors (many living outside Cupertino) whose rights and quality of life need to be protected.

Please contact your city council and attend the Nov. 17 city council meeting to voice your concern.

—Bob Hendrickson, Cupertino


If buyers drive around why do we need more signs

I really hope the city council says no to the real estate lobbyists who want more signs to clutter the sidewalks and right of ways in Cupertino.

Are the current laws being followed? And, if not, are realtors being cited?

From my drives around town, it sure doesn't look that way. If most new buyers already cruise the neighborhood, as one source pointed out, why do they need more signs to point the way? Or has home buying become as impulsive as buying a TV Guide at the grocery store checkstand?

The existing law already gives realtors an advantage over all other businesses and forms of public expression.

Making Realtors obey the same laws as everyone else is only fair.

—Matt Conens, Cupertino


Foreign language is important for children

I am very happy to learn that a the new Tamil language class is now taught and credited in the Fremont Union High School District. Foreign language is a very important skill for all of our students in the United States. I just went to Paris, France to attend the 32nd Session of the UNESCO General Conference shortly after Mrs. Laura Bush, our first lady, gave a speech for the U.S. to rejoin UNESCO.

In that conference, a lot of the national leaders and delegates preferred to speak in languages other than English, such as French, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese or even Chinese.

That shows how important our K­12 foreign language education is. We want to educate our children with a solid foundation so they can build global-ready products or services that will bring revenue to the U.S. from foreign markets. We want our children to be able to keep the U.S. strong by being influential diplomats or ambassadors or missionaries in different parts of the world, or CIA agents to prevent foreign terrorism.

Foreign language education is very important! (Currently, the CIA has a serious lack of personnel who can speak foreign languages, and I'm sure there are a lot of job opportunities in the CIA requiring foreign language skills.)

College is simply too late for most people to become fluent in foreign languages. Almost every country outside the U.S. starts their foreign language learning by middle school. You may not be able to find any other K­12 education system, outside the U.S., that does not require foreign language learning.

In fact, more and more foreign language education is taught in elementary school in other nations. That builds up the global competition and communication skills for the whole nation. Foreign language education not only helps our children with their future careers, it is also important for our homeland security.

President George W. Bush recognized this need when he set up the Foreign Language Assistant Program in the No Child Left Behind Act, Title V, Part D, subpart 9.

I truly hope our local education department will implement this national education policy effectively and 40 years from now we will see a lot of successful U.S. national leaders, diplomats, ambassadors, and international businessmen come from our school district.

—Frank Yung-Fong Tang, San Jose


Pepper Tree Lane has lost its shelter from noise and traffic

Our family moved to Cupertino three years ago! We love our neighborhood and we love Pepper Tree Lane. Stelling Road is a bustling street—especially with all the vehicles driving in and out of De Anza College. We had some sense of shelter from De Anza traffic with all the beautiful trees that surrounded the parking lots. There was peace of mind.

We are saddened by the removal of these towering trees.

Today, we walk out our front door and our street seems naked, yes naked, from De Anza College's cutting of the trees.

Instead of the once-beautiful 40-foot trees, all we see is hoards of metallic, matchbox-sized cars from our front door. It's a real shame. Not only did the magnificent-sized trees provide a scenic backdrop for us, but also provided shelter from noise. The wonderful role of helping with pollution—well, no longer there.

It's a real shame and a great loss.

I think the city of Cupertino has lost a part of history when these trees were torn down and Pepper Tree Lane lost the clothes on its back.

All we can do is look forward to the planting of these new saplings, with the hopes that "Miracle Growth" will kick into high gear.

—Sandra Murata, Cupertino


De Anza and Stevens Creek is a reminder to pay attention

A number of years ago, a common complaint was the two-story brick building on the corner of De Anza and Stevens Creek Boulevards. I would venture to say that that building is no longer the main criticism of that very visible area of Cupertino.

Directly kitty-corner from that building is a mass of buildings. Hiding the original high-rise is a hotel, an apartment complex and I do not know what else. It reminds me that I need to pay more attention to what is going on at city hall.

To my thinking, this highly dense eyesore should be an example and reminder to us to keep tabs on what is happening between developers, the planning commissioners and our elected city council.

—Heather Dean, Cupertino


By moving public access TV, city cut many from the loop

Your article (July 23) on the public access television facility previously located at De Anza College in April stated that city officials have no intention of axing public access television service in Cupertino, but they have effectively done so.

Since the city council decided to close down the De Anza location and move Cupertino's public access to a regional facility in Mountain View, production is available to only four Cupertino producers. Weekly broadcast time or airtime has been cut back from 42 to 16 hours.

At the De Anza facility, even with proposed cutbacks, production would have remained open to all Cupertino residents, and broadcast time would have remained at 42 hours per week. For the four Cupertino producers, the city picks up the cost of production and airtime.

With the so-called "cost savings" of the transfer of public access to a regional facility at a cost of $45,000, that amounts to $10,000 per producer. Any other Cupertino resident who wants to produce a show or series will have to pay hourly for production facilities as well as for airtime, although there is no guarantee that the show would even be aired, since the regional facility has limited playback capacity.

Your article also stated that the city wanted to save money by having public access TV producers rely less on studio production and more on computer editing and production. The De Anza facility already had state-of-the-art digital production facilities, whereas this capability is not even currently available at the Mountain View regional facility.

De Anza College was willing to renew its contract with the city for public access television at a reduced cost of $62,000 per year from last year's contract of $103,000. Production time would have been cut to 20 hours a week but still would have accommodated several more producers than the four allowed at the regional facility.

Also, the De Anza College facility would have provided about $150,000 of "in-kind" contribution from the college in terms of facility space, utilities, technical support, and various facility infrastructures.

It is difficult to surmise how any cost/benefit analysis could have justified such a severe demolition of Cupertino's public access TV capacity in order to save less than $20,000.

Public access TV originated as a provision of cable TV franchise agreements with cities for the purpose of providing a voice for the public and to broadcast both educational and government programs. The city receives yearly franchise fees ($350 to $430 thousand) from the local cable company and long ago spent the $1.6 million provided by the cable company at the beginning of the franchise agreement.

All of these funds are deposited into the city's general revenue fund to be used at the discretion of the city council. The bulk of yearly expenditures for public access programming, on average $350 thousand, goes to support the city government channel and Internet broadcasting.

The small amount of putative "cost savings" associated with closing down the De Anza public access facility in no way justified the city's near elimination of public access television.

—Ann Shirkey, Cupertino


Coalition's school board endorsements questioned

Having been a previous active member of the Cupertino Coalition for Education, I was very curious about the statement in the Cupertino Courier on Oct. 29 about the coalition recommending against certain candidates for the school board. I would like to know, since the article made this statement in the name of 200 members, if there was a vote of the membership. Please provide me with the background of this decision on behalf of the coalition, and how it relates to the coalition's mission of seeking equalization of state funding, which both of these candidates support.

—Lisa Carpenter, Cupertino


Trick or treaters, please bring back items taken from house

As many of my fellow Cupertinians, we decorated our home for Halloween, warmly greeted our trick-or-treaters, and gave out tons of candy! However, when the evening came to a close, we went outside to retrieve our decorations. Much to my dismay, two items were missing. Though neither was of any financial value, both had great sentimental value.

The first was a luminary—a brown paper bag, sand, and candle, with a black construction paper Halloween cat glued to the outside. This was made by my mother, who died over three years ago, for my son when he first began to trick-or-treat.

The second was a small, stuffed Snoopy, dressed in a purple cape and black mask with a Halloween pumpkin. This was a gift from some very special friends.

If your children were trick-or-treating in the Bubb Road/Rainbow Drive/Upland Street and Court area, would you please ask them if they saw either item being taken? And, if your child has one (or both) of these items, would you please make arrangements to have him/her return them to me?

This incident certainly dampened the Halloween spirit for our family. Would you please help us to restore the faith we have in the children of our community by helping to have these items returned?

—Harry Bettencourt, Cupertino


It makes no sense to buy SUVs when fossil fuel is diminishing

The average person can produce an amazing amount of waste. A car can spew 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon. You produce an average of three times your weight in carbon dioxide on one full tank.

Many millions of gallons more are produced to power your home. The problem is that fossil fuels are only going to last for another 100 years, and if we waste so much, then we should try to conserve, not go out and buy the most fuel-ineffiecent car on the market.

It makes absolutely no sense buying an SUV when you have three or four people in the family.

An SUV that can seat six people comfortably gets anywhere from 15 to 25 miles per gallon. While a hybrid vehicle, which seats four people comfortably, gets anywhere from 40 to 50 mpg.

In a time of economic uncertainty, don't buy an expensive car, using an expensive amount of gas that extensively pollutes the air and wastes the little fossil fuels we have left.

—Jacob Zelek, Grade 9, Monta Vista High School


Success of Social Security makes big business irrelevant

Social Security is a popular and successful program.

That's a problem for certain people in power and their backers, because it proves that there are economic functions better served by government than by big business.

The success of the government's Social Security provides a foundation for the kind of activist government that well-to-do business conservatives—like President Bush—have dedicated their lives to destroying.

—Robert Thoen, Sunnyvale