I just read the article by Sandy Sims in the May 12 Cupertino Courier's editorial section about I-chun Che's departure to Alaska. It was quite timely as just a couple of days ago, I was thinking to myself, "I-chun is such a good reporter that it is just a matter of time before she moves up in the reporting world." It is with great sadness that I see her go as I have always felt that she presented both sides of every discussion with fairness to everyone involved. The only time I have ever had a problem with her reporting was when she was given incorrect information by someone who should have known better. I only hope that her talents have been taught to others who might come after her.

Even though I am disappointed that Cupertino will lose another wonderful person, I am happy that I-chun will get this opportunity. I will look forward to seeing her name on some articles sent to us from wherever she goes in the future. Good luck, I-chun.

Penny Whittaker

Cupertino

Lowenthal's criticism is
based on irrelevant facts

The April 28 Cupertino Courier published a letter by Ned Britt that discussed misconceptions about the General Amendments in the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino initiatives. In the May 5 Courier Councilman Lowenthal claimed that the CCC initiatives "would prevent Vallco from having a theater in the original location." (This would be on the current Sears parking lot).

Mr. Lowenthal knows well that the current proposal for the Vallco theater will not be built in this location and therefore his point about conflict with the CCC initiatives is patently irrelevant. The management of Vallco now plans to build a movie theater, which would face Wolfe Road. The plan is to build the new theater on top of the existing Vallco Mall—not on the location of the Sears parking lot. Mr. Lowenthal is aware of this change. He also knows that the initiatives have an exemption for the Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor, which encompasses the currently planned location of the proposed theater.

CCC considered the plans for future development in Vallco. The language of the proposed General Plan Amendments in the CCC initiatives was chosen to avoid impeding future development of retail business in the city.

Councilman Lowenthal's criticism of the CCC initiatives concerning the location of the Vallco theaters is a misleading argument based on irrelevant facts.

Mike Nagel

Cupertino

Definition of minority, majority at council whim

Recent letters in the Cupertino Courier from the "minority" group and Richard Lowenthal have caused me to smile. The General Plan Task Force was established by the city council from a broad cross section of members of the community, from residents to business to outside stakeholders that ensured the city heard from the larger community. The task force's report did not match what they wanted, so they worked with the dissenting members of the task force to create the "Minority Report." It does not represent the views the interests of the larger Cupertino community.

I have participated in city meetings over the past two years. In those meetings citizens have expressed their concerns about the direction of the city. When citizens express our views, we are called the minority as if that lessens the importance of what we have to say. When the majority of the community, through a city council handpicked task force, provides the city with direction, Mr. Lowenthal and others turn to the minority. All of a sudden the minority represents the views of the community. Now that's irony.

City council members are elected to manage and move Cupertino into the future. I would ask that they listen to the voters and create a future that we can support.

Mr. Lowenthal, stop trying to scare us with statements with reference to shops no longer being built in Cupertino. It's simply not true since buildings that follow the General Plan can be built and will be occupied by businesses interested in serving the community.

Tony Holland

Cupertino

Initiative would diminish affordable housing

A recent letter to the editor stated there is no affordable housing in Cupertino. Having served on the city's housing commission, this statement is patently false.

Under the city's Below Market Rate (BMR) program, residential developers are required to set aside 15 percent of their projects for affordable housing. Sales prices are set to enable families in the median-moderate income range to qualify. One recent example of BMR program-established sale prices is TraVigne Villas where the two to four 4-bedroom homes sold from $194,000 to $290,000; market prices range between $450,000 and $625,000.

Affordable rental housing also exists in Cupertino. Approximately 260 affordable apartments, targeted to very low and low-income households are distributed throughout the city. These homes are available to individuals on fixed incomes including seniors, the disabled, young singles, families and folks in the service industry. Rents in these apartments range from $850 to $1,300 per month for two- and three-bedroom apartments, well below current average market rate rents of $1,545 and $1,888 for two- and three-bedroom apartments.

This disparity is typically even greater where due to the downturn in the economy, market rents have declined between 2 and 7.5 percent, depending upon apartment size, since the first quarter of 2002.

As a lifelong Cupertino resident and member of the General Plan Task Force, I am appalled by the devastating effect recommendations in the majority report and the proposed "no growth" initiatives would have on our ability to provide affordable housing. As a result I strongly support the more reasonable alternative report.

Our city has an obligation to keep Cupertino socially and culturally diverse and economically viable. Preserving our ability to produce affordable housing in Cupertino enables us to be an inclusive community providing all of our citizens a great place to live.

Kathy Robinson

Cupertino