Saratoga NewsLettersCouncil did the right thing with resolution The Saratoga City Council displayed thoughtful and laudable leadership in passing the resolution supporting the realignment of school district boundaries this week. The resolution's goal to "incorporate the entire community to the extent that any such realignment will not diminish the quality of education for any Saratoga child" was the key phrase in the resolution which fully won my support. I commend the council for addressing the frustration and divided feelings which have been growing in the community over this issue. Unification and inclusion are positive themes. Uniting the people resources of Saratoga to contribute to an excellent school system and build community consensus on youth and infrastructure issues is a goal toward which the community should, I believe, strive. Many veteran Saratogans have long argued that the originally arbitrary boundaries should have been aligned years ago. I look forward to working with a council which takes its leadership role to heart. And I look forward to living in a Saratoga where all Saratoga children can learn and grow together in schools that reflect the common values of our great community.
Carolyn Drozdiak Miller Avenue not meant for traffic Evidently, John Allport of Candy Court, who wrote "Miller Avenue was meant for traffic" in the Speak Out! section in the Oct. 1 issue of the Saratoga News, does not know the difference between a collector street and a thoroughfare. A collector street, such as Miller Avenue, is meant to provide access for the residents of a subdivision to the main thoroughfares, but not to provide a shortcut between thoroughfares for trucks and buses or residents of other parts of the city or neighboring cities. Contrary to what Mr. Allport states, Miller Avenue has not always been the connector between Prospect Road and Cox Avenue. In 1963 and 1964, when residents of Miller Avenue purchased their property in Unit 3 of Prides Crossing, the only way to get to Cox Avenue from Miller at Prospect was to turn left on Miller onto Eric Way, then right at Candy Avenue, then left at Miller, then right at Dorchester, then left at Cambridge, then left at Brockton, then right onto Darien Way, which exited to Cox Avenue. This was far from being a direct route between Prospect and Cox and had very little traffic. It was not until 1968, when the orchard at the south end of Miller Avenue was approved for subdividing, that Saratoga's general plan was adopted and called for two "collector" streets extending from Prospect to Cox. One of those was Miller, and the other was Brookglen Drive. A petition was presented to the City Council by the residents of the Brookview area asking that Brookglen Drive not be extended to Cox. This petition was granted. The Prides Crossing Homeowners board of directors wrote to the City Council about their concerns for increased traffic that this would cause on Miller Avenue, but they received no response. It appears that Miller Avenue similarly should have not been completed between Brockton and Cox, and that Darien Way should not have been closed as an outlet to Cox. With the completion of Units 4, 5 and 6 of Prides Crossing, Miller Avenue became complete between Cox and Prospect without any stop signs. The excessive speeds (measured as high as 45 mph on Miller at Northampton) and numerous accidents at Miller and Northampton required the City Council to take action. That is why the numerous stop signs were placed along Miller Avenue. It is better to have the unintended through traffic slowed down somewhat by the use of stop signs than to endanger the lives of the residents of this area. The residents of Prides Crossing should be thankful for the stop signs rather than complain about their presence.
Norman J. Martin School boundary issue needs more thought I have been following the school boundary issue and attended the Oct. 23 joint City Council/school board meeting and the subsequent Saratoga Union School Distict board meeting. For the Saratoga City Council to support the "one city, one school district" idea at this point is irresponsible. It is premature to take a position on this subject without being educated on the current facts, issues and future data that will be presented. This is a complicated issue that affects many cities and many school districts. Although the current boundary may have its faults, it has been in place for many years. All the school districts and schools have adapted to this system. Supporting or making changes should be done with careful study, consideration and planning. Furthermore, there is no data or poll that indicates the position of Saratoga residents. There are 33 school districts in the county of Santa Clara, and I am not aware of any school district boundaries that conform to city boundaries. Perhaps in the long run, having a unified K-12 school district per city throughout Santa Clara County would bring better curriculum continuity and more efficient work flow between cities and school districts. But this should be considered with careful study at the county level and with all the school districts involved. The list of issues with changing boundaries can go on for pages. Elementary schools like Blue Hills and Marshall Lane have students from three cities and two school districts. Redwood Middle School is already overcrowded. One or more school districts may be negatively impacted in many ways. Supporting a strong sense of community is important, but we must not do it at the expense of the children--not just my children or your children, but all our children. A sense of community should not start or stop at city boundaries or school district boundaries. We can and should be able to strengthen our community based on our similarities and to appreciate our differences, whether that difference is city boundary, school district boundary, cultural background or whatever. Regardless of cities or school districts, schools are financially struggling to provide anything other than the very basics. Some schools have old and unsafe playgrounds. Some schools don't have music or art programs, or those they do have are funded through donations. Our time, resources, energy and money should be focused on how to strengthen all our schools to benefit all our children, not on school boundaries.
Sharon Lam Bike paths in need of some attention I wanted to commend the teaching staff at Argonaut School in Saratoga for teaching me a valuable lesson today. I learned that despite their proclaimed concern for the students' safety, any attempt to bring unsafe conditions to their attention will be ignored, and any further attempts will only cause the messenger to be labeled a witch. There is a pathway along the north edge of the parking lot which bicyclists are required to use to enter the school in order to prevent them from having to mix with automobile traffic. Unfortunately, the pathway is so overgrown with thistles, weeds and branches that it is practically impassable. My son has been scratched many times, and I am truly afraid that someone could have their eye injured. I and other Argonaut parents have mentioned this problem on several occasions to various members of the Argonaut staff, yet nothing has been done to correct it. I find this seeming lack of concern about hazardous conditions incongruent with the district's publicly stated desire to encourage more students to walk or bicycle to school. How difficult can it be to get rid of some weeds? Students attempting to walk to Argonaut and Redwood are almost run over by cars even in the crosswalk with their parents, and the closer it gets to the beginning of class, the more thrilling it gets. Would it be too much to ask for some crossing guards? If the district teachers truly want parents to believe that they hold our children's safety to be important, then I have a lesson for them to learn: Actions speak louder than words.
Karen B. Walter When the Saratoga News called Argonaut School, officials said a work order had already been processed for cleanup on the bicycle paths. They have since been cleared. --Editor Miller Avenue issue not quite so simple Mr. John Allport's letter Oct. 1 needs a response to correct several inaccurate statements so the readers know the facts and understand Miller Avenue's predicament. First, Mr. Allport stated, "Miller Avenue has always been the connector between Cox Avenue and Prospect Road." Fact: Darien Way was the access to Cox before Miller was extended to Cox. Second, Mr. Allport stated that Miller Avenue was intended for heavy traffic , and that should have been apparent to anyone who bought houses on Miller. Facts: Saratoga's general plan designated Miller and Brookglen Drive as collector streets to enable residents of Prides Crossing to access Cox and Prospect. The general plan also forecast that of the combined traffic volume on these two streets, Miller would carry 52 percent and Brookglen 48 percent. The plan further stipulates the city's intention "to protect Saratoga's residential character." More facts: Saratoga's last traffic survey, taken shortly after Highway 85 opened, showed Miller's traffic volume at 3,867. The opening of Highway 85 increased traffic by 41 percent, undoubtedly mostly speeding cut-through traffic. This is not in keeping with the intent of the general plan. The biggest impact of the high volume can be attributed to Saratoga reneging on its pledge and unjustly permitting the closure of Brookglen onto Cox. This action diverted 1,856 of Brookglen's traffic count onto Miller, which should only be 2,011. So, Miller was not intended to have heavy volume, and Miller residents did not have reason to believe otherwise when they bought their homes. Mr. Allport next stated, "Nothing that has been done has limited or slowed traffic." Fact: The implication here is that efforts have been made to correct the problems. The fact is, nothing has been done. Mr. Allport appears to be more upset because he and his children were ticketed for not stopping at stop signs. This is probably more upsetting when he observes motorists not being cited for the same violations. As a solution, he proposes replacing stop signs with yield signs. If motorists are now violating stop signs, the conditions will only deteriorate with yield signs. We would not expect to reduce the number of speeders by increasing the speed limit. The solution is not to retrograde our existing traffic laws. Under Mr. Allport's proposal, the 10 percent he estimates "ignore the stop signs entirely" would result in untold numbers of instances every year that a child biker would be confronted by unyielding motorists. Some children might not be as fortunate as Mr. Allport's children, who came away with only a traffic citation. Instead of retrograding our traffic laws, we should implement proven traffic-calming devices. The objective is to decrease vehicular dominance and to protect the residential characteristics of our streets. What will benefit Miller will also benefit the Prides Crossing residents.
Elmer Szanto Council should keep out of school affairs Because of recent actions by the Saratoga City Council, I must suggest that the members tend to their own affairs. City Council members are elected officials with governance over the city of Saratoga. Although there are schools in the city, the council does not have governance over them. There are elected officials who do, however. The Saratoga Elementary School District has a board of trustees who represent their constituency exceedingly well. The high school district also has an elected board of trustees. Just as school trustees do not presume to vote on issues before the council, the council also has no business voting on school issues. School district realignment is an issue for the school boards. At an Oct. 7 meeting, the council voted on a resolution in support of "one city, one school district." Although council members claimed to want public input, they ignored the majority of the audience. Although they wanted public input, the meeting was held without notice in the Saratoga News. Furthermore, the board of the SUSD requested that the council postpone its vote on the resolution. After months of involvement in hearings and fact-finding, this board will remain neutral until the independent consultant's findings are presented in December. Yet, the City Council, which could not answer even one question about realignment, voted for "one city, one school district." This is a complicated issue that will not be easily resolved. The City Council was not only premature in ratifying its resolution, it was completely out of line. The elementary board members are dedicated to the students and the district. They are elected to make the decisions concerning the schools. City Council members are elected to handle issues related to governance of the city. Kindly take care of your own business.
Cassandra Huston Council needs to consider everyone in district issue We disagree with Don Wolfe's "one city, one district" comment and the general impression it may leave with readers of the Saratoga News. In conversations within our community of Monte Sereno and Saratoga, we have found that most folks do not want change in the school district boundaries. It is our belief that the Saratoga schools would be negatively impacted and its current students would bear the brunt of an unnecessary influx of new students. Those of us who chose to pay extra money for our properties within the Saratoga Union School District, who have for years donated many dollars and many hours to SUSD, do not feel we would benefit in any way by changing the boundaries. We have witnessed the strain that the already growing student population has put on the school district, and we do not want to see the problem exacerbated. We want the school board and the City Council to hear our opinion and not be led to believe that everyone stands to gain from a boundary change. Please also consider those of us who stand to lose.
Charlotte Sparacino The council should be thanked for support On Oct. 7, the Saratoga City Council heard from community members and deliberated for more than 2 1/2 hours about the school-boundary change question. I thank the City Council for its patience and concern and for providing a forum on this important communitywide issue. There were two very important questions that the City Council could have considered, and some people may not understand which question was in front of the council last Tuesday night. One question is: Should school district boundaries in Saratoga be changed so that they are contiguous with the city boundaries, so that all Saratogans are in the same school district? The answer to that question absolutely must be based on a consideration of factual information concerning facilities, funding, educational programs, enrollment predictions and a host of other practical matters. It is also important to note that the City Council could not answer that question if they wanted to because they did not have the facts in front of them and they have no legal jurisdiction in the matter. However, the second question is quite different. It is: Does the Saratoga City Council, philosophically and in concept, support changing school boundaries so that all Saratogans are in the same school district, if, and only if, the questions of facilities, funding, other resources, educational programs, etc., could be managed in a way that would maintain or improve educational quality and services for all Saratoga children? It was this latter question that was in front of the City Council last Tuesday, not the former. A number of people who spoke at the City Council meeting asked the council to wait to take any position until the completion of a consultant study funded by the Santa Clara County Office of Education to analyze school district boundary issues in our area. However, it was not necessary to wait for completion of the study to answer the second question, especially since the consultant has requested that the agencies and cities involved tell him their views, which is exactly what the council did by approving its resolution as written. Additionally, during the council's deliberations, it was clear that they welcomed the forthcoming factual data, as this will help determine the feasibility of an all-inclusive school district. Don Wolfe also pointed out that areas outside the city limits but currently within the school district, such as areas of Monte Sereno and unincorporated areas, should continue to be included as well.
Monique Drumm Redistricting is much more complex issue We take exception to your front page article of Oct. 1 and the letter from Ms. Fariss concerning redistricting. This is indeed a very complex issue, and important aspects have not been addressed. We do not want any changes in the current district boundaries. As major contributors to the education and well-being of all the children in the Saratoga Union School District through our volunteer work, fundraising and leadership roles, we, too, are members of this community and do not deserve to be arbitrarily displaced. Suggesting that only Saratogans be polled to find out which scenario of reorganization is preferred is ludicrous. Some residents of Monte Sereno and unincorporated Santa Clara County have historically been in the Saratoga school district, and we need to be retained as current members of our school community. Allowing large numbers of new students to enter our district without adequate resources and facilities will reduce the quality of education for everyone. Evicting children who have grown up in this district will significantly disrupt their lives and sense of community.
Cathy Burns The Saratoga News did not suggest that only Saratogans should be polled. It is the state Board of Education that decides who will be permitted to vote--everyone in the affected area or just those whose district would change.--Editor
[ Back to Contents Page | Saratoga News Home Page | Archives ]
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, October 15, 1997. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||