The Cupertino Courier
Letters & Opinions
Speak Out
Referendum supporters not misguided, misinformed
Current and former city council members, along with their usual cohorts are again resorting to insults and insensitive comments regarding Cupertino citizens. The 5,000 who exercised their democratic right to referendum are labeled as a minority of fearful, unreasoned, strident, aggressive, misinformed and misguided citizens--even though their number represents nearly 50 percent of the number of votes cast in our local elections.
This is a blatant insult to our citizenry.
We are told Vallco needs renovation, which all of us support. But developers can renovate Vallco without building more high-density housing and achieve the same result of a revitalized center. Teachers, policeman and firemen, who are among the highest percentage of homeowners in the area, are used as the pawns to justify "affordable housing," which is actually subsidized housing with many strings attached.
Now we are told we need senior housing, but who are these seniors? Seniors in Cupertino are already living in million dollar homes with large equity.
So-called "affordable housing" is nothing more than a subterfuge used by developers, political officials and their paid consultants to justify building our city higher and denser with all the associated negative consequences.
In the past, citizens who have opposed more high-density, high-rise development have been subjected to all manner of abuse by city officials and developers including lawsuits or threats of lawsuits. In a recent lawsuit to keep Measures D and E off the ballot, the court recognized the rights of our citizens to have a voice in housing decisions that impact the character of the city.
As we move toward the election we can expect more of the same from those who consider us unreasoned, misinformed, etc.
Robert L. Garten
Cupertino
School board lacks
vision on teacher
Mr. Krieger is not just "popular" but is one of the most respected and effective teachers at Monta Vista.
Here's what we know:
Mr. Krieger led the MV biology AP program to world top rank;--yes, even with our school's limited resources;
He inspired countless students--who were indifferent to science--to become biology majors, essential for our economy to remain competitive;
He was elected every year by the student body as one of three top teachers to lead in the graduation ceremony.
He tirelessly participated in outside classroom events for Monta Vista, such as registration, open house, sports, and so on.
Every leader should know that the most important asset of an organization is its people. At my work at Hewlett-Packard, management is mandated to look out for exceptional people and to train and promote them on to higher positions, even if they initially lack all the necessary qualifications.
This is what should have been done for Mr. Krieger at Monta Vista.
To say that Mr. Krieger is not fit to be a resource counselor is like saying Bill Gates is not fit to teach computer science because he lacks a college degree.
To continue to hide behind the argument of qualification in this matter shows that our school board members are either 1) mere bureaucrats lacking the vision to retain and develop exceptional talent for FUSHD or, worse, that 2) they bring along their personal baggage in their decisions for the whole district.
It sadly demonstrates that the board members indeed are the ones lacking in qualification to lead our district.
Nora Chuang
Monta Vista parent
Referendum opponents
wrong; 'No' on D and E
Don Burnett is confused about the two measures that will be on the November ballot. These are not anti-housing measures; they simply seek to overturn two ill-conceived, developer-backed, rezoning ordinances. Residents collected more than 10,000 signatures to put these measures on the ballot. The developers hired goons to disrupt the signature gathering, and then filed a spurious lawsuit in a failed attempt to keep the measures off the ballot.
The facts are that developers want to build condominium projects on the last large parcels of commercial and industrial land in Cupertino. Residents want to retain the existing zoning, preserving this land for future retail, commercial and industrial development. There is no opposition to building housing on land that is zoned for residential.
The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors and Apple Computer have opposed the conversion of industrial and commercial land to housing. San Jose's planning director spoke out against this type of rezoning because of the devastating effect it has on revenue and city services. The Sierra Club spoke out against suburban sprawl because it causes environmental degradation and hurts schools.
Condominiums must not displace vital retail and industrial development. The success of Vallco as a retail center depends on keeping Vallco's land zoned for retail. The success of Cupertino's high-tech employers, current and future, hinges on keeping the HP land zoned for industrial. It's about balancing land use and looking at the big picture, instead of simply allowing windfall profits for developers and the politicians they control.
Burnett is also confused about Apple's new campus. Apple's spokesman stated the new campus will consolidate existing leased buildings; there will not be 3,500 new employees. Apple is on record as opposing the conversion of industrial land to residential, so developers and their allies should look elsewhere for justification of their plans to destroy Cupertino's tax base, industry, schools and quality of life.
These rezoning ordinances, if enacted, will devastate the tax base, cause school overcrowding, create suburban sprawl and hurt retail and high-technology companies. The only beneficiaries are the developers.
Vote no on D & E.
Steven Scharf
Cupertino
Grassroots citizens are
behind the referendums
In your Aug. 16 issue (COURIER, Aug. 16), you have published the letter from former city politician Don Burnett. In Aug. 23 issue (COURIER, Aug. 23), you have printed all the letters supporting Mr. Don Burnett. I don't believe that those letters have expressed the majority Cupertino residents' views. I actually found Burnett's opinions are misleading.
First, this year's two ballot initiatives are not to block housing in Cupertino. They are against overcrowding and unbalanced development. In Burnett's letter, he said Cupertino needs jobs, services and housing. With the rezoning from commercial/industrial land to residential use, Cupertino might get some new houses. However, it will lose jobs since companies like Apple will not have land to expand. Cupertino students will and are losing playgrounds, lockers and the number of elective options due to too many new students having moved to the school district.
Second, Mr. Burnett claimed that rezoning opponents are not the grassroot citizens of Cupertino. This is not true. The two active opponents who were sued by the developers are ordinary citizens. My neighbors, my friends and myself are all ordinary residents of this city. We are all against rezoning and over crowding. Contrarily, the rezoning supporters are either backed by developers, politicians or other special interest organizations.
Third, Mr. Burnett thinks that we need more houses for new workers from Apple to move to the city. Oppositely, many of us would like to know how we could find a job locally. In Cupertino, most of the residents do not work in the city because we do not have enough jobs here. Many of us have to travel to San Francisco or Pleasanton to work. In fact, there is no correlation between job/office and residence. People nowadays change jobs frequently in the Valley. No one will move their residences just because they change their jobs to another city in the Valley.
I urge voters to not just listen to a few politicians' misleading viewpoints. Ask your kids or friends about their schools to find out how crowded Cupertino schools are. Look at thousands of condos along Stevens Creek Boulevard and think what you would like your city to become. Compare Vallco's shops with those in Santana Row/Valley Fair to find out the real issues with Vallco. Listen to your fellow citizens who have expressed concerns on the lack of planning of all these projects. You will know who tells the truth and what you should vote.
Sherry Ren
Cupertino resident
Name calling is not
needed in the debate
The tactics used by Rich Robinson in his letter concerning the ballot measures on the large developments are disturbing. He repeatedly resorts to name calling, describing those with views different from his own as a fearful, unreasoned and strident minority; aggressive misinformed people; group of miscreants; and an angry uniformed mob.
More subtly he claims to speak for the majority based upon unnamed surveys.
But survey questions are often slanted to get the desired results; and if surveys show a majority wants well-planned, well-managed, affordable housing, I expect there is a wide range of views of what that means and if the projects in question fit that description.
He ends his letter by calling his opponents NIMBYs. But who are the NIMBYs?
Just those people living near the projects? Anyone living in Cupertino? Would those from Sunnyvale or San Jose be NIMBYs for opposing these projects, or would they become meddlers? Where exactly can one live and not be attacked for opposing these projects?
Mr. Robinson claims those opposing the projects are trying "to impose their will over common sense, ... ." However, they followed the existing process to have these measures placed on the ballot, and they cannot impose their will unless a majority of voters agree with them.
I am sure the pro-development forces have plenty of resources to argue their case. But if the choice is as obvious as Mr. Robinson claims, why does he resort to name calling and implying that it is everyone's civic duty to agree with him?
David Radtke
Cupertino
