Saratoga News
Letters & Opinions
Speak Out
Grace Church site was
to be for the seniors
It is my understanding that the use of the former Grace Church is coming up for a vote on June 6. In 1967, I visited Grace Church, found the people to be very friendly and started my tenure there, of 35 years. I loved this church and its people. When closing and selling became imminent, most of us wanted our church to become useful for serving people in a good way.
The city of Saratoga offered to buy it for use as a senior center. Even though we would receive less money, this loomed as a bright spot on our horizon. We visualized seniors coming, getting together, having fun and helping each other. Our vote for this was unanimous.
I talked about this with my younger brother back east. He said, "Anything you can do for seniors is good."
Why is it so important to follow through on the use of the former Grace Church? For one thing, the "baby boomer" generation, including many Saratogans, will very soon start becoming seniors. It's very important not to let them down when you can vote to make such a property available to them now, an opportunity which may be the last one for Saratoga. Property like this could very well not be available in the future, including buildings and parking lots that could serve these seniors well.
Please think about this. If you agree, please vote for this use, and urge your neighbors to do so also. If you can accomplish this, you would do a lot for seniors, and for those of us who hoped this would happen.
Ted Brown
Cupertino
Reader offers reasons
to vote against sale
There are two main reasons to vote against the sale of the North Campus property:
* Grace United Methodist Church agreed to sell the property to the city at significantly below-market value because there was a verbal agreement that it would be used for community activities, in keeping with the church's mission. Three members of the current city council are choosing to ignore that agreement, even denying its existence.
Then there's the matter of the city keeping the profit from the sale to fund street and infrastructure repairs. Why aren't they giving the ill-gotten profit to the church? Such behavior is unethical and personally abhorrent. It tells me and anyone else wanting to make agreements with the city its word cannot be trusted.
* The current community and senior community centers are impacted and inadequate. That has resulted in limiting the number of civic and community activities. It also precludes expansion of senior programs, some of which are already needed. Lack of space also prevents the city from offering additional programs for children, youth and families.
There are several other valid reasons to retain the North Campus, many of which have been previously addressed in other letters. For me, the two most compelling reasons are those noted above. Kathleen King, Norman Kline and Nick Streit have yet to satisfactorily justify selling this unique and badly needed property.
Marcia Fariss
Saratoga Glen Place
Property was purchased
to be used for the people
I just received a large postcard in the mail stating, "Here are the facts about Measure J." It pretty much implies that selling the North Campus property is the only solution to all our problems.
I remember when the city sold the property on which Congress Springs School was located. That sale was also implied to be the only answer to Saratoga's financial problems. The money generated by that sale was supposed to have been put away so that the city could use the interest for streets and whatever was needed. What happened to that money?
Selling Congress Springs School was a short-sighted mistake, just as selling the North Campus property would be. A lot of us who moved to Saratoga 20 and 30 years ago for the schools are opting to stay here for our retirement years. What does the city of Saratoga have to offer us?
The postcard states, "Measure J will allow the city to make much-needed road repairs and other infrastructure improvements." How many millions of dollars did the city of Saratoga waste on the infamous pillars that not too long ago were constructed and then destructed to mark the entrance to our city? How much did the city pay to have the trees and shrubs planted to take the place of the pillars? How much is the city paying now to install new pedestrian strips in the very same area?
Selling the North Campus might generate some income--OK, maybe a lot of income. However, I feel that the city will probably have the money spent on some foolish thingamabob before the ink is dry.
The city of Saratoga promised Grace United Methodist Church to use the property for the people of Saratoga. Let's make a responsible, common-sense choice.
Karen Patel
Canyon View Drive
Choosing fiscal approach
to replace the pillars
I read in the letter ("Council members should resign--all five of them," May 10) about the "controversial pillars" in the Gateway on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that the Saratoga City Council voted 3-2 to remove them and replace them with trees.
I will agree that, as a council member, I should have reviewed drawings of the design more closely, and I am sorry I didn't. I looked at a top view of the plans and I never asked for a side view. My interest was in the more functional part of the road--the $2.847 million being spent on storm drains, sidewalks, mediums and landscaping (paid for by grants from Caltrans and VTA).
The pillars cost $33,000 to put in and required an additional $5,000 to finish with caps. Adding lattice work would have cost an additional $21,000. Removing them and replacing them with trees cost $3,100. I chose the financially prudent approach: remove them and not spend anymore on them.
Ms. Leasia requested a referendum and our city (contracted) legal department looked into the state's requirements for a referendum and the pillars did not qualify. Also, each referendum requires at least 2,000 Saratoga signatures to put on a ballot, and it costs a city approximately $70,000-$80,000 to put an item on the ballot.
As to our legal support talking to citizens, we have a policy that requests citizens go through staff and not straight to our city lawyer because our lawyer costs four times more than our staff costs. We manage our legal costs very closely.
Kathleen King, councilwoman
City of Saratoga
Council spends money on
soccer, not North Campus
In the Saratoga News, Nick Streit says, "I voted to sell the North Campus because it's the only fiscally responsible choice of action.
"In the four years the city has owned the North Campus, we have had only sufficient excess funds to make one of the four buildings safe, ADA approved and rentable for public functions.
The city of Saratoga priorities should be its existing city hall, theater, senior center and parks and rec buildings and, the very lifeblood of our city, its infrastructure--streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm drains and parks. Not a second campus we cannot afford."
Wow, we don't have money, and it's the only fiscally responsible choice of action? How can our council spend over a million dollars, with a minimum of a half a million of that from city money, on yet another soccer field for special interest groups, but can't fix North Campus, which is for everyone?
And during these last four years, they have spent in excess of a million dollars of city money (not grant money) on Congress Springs Sports Complex for soccer.
When is it someone else's turn in this city? Or something for everyone, like North Campus, or fixing the roads?
Sandy Cross
Scully Avenue
Crime is actually on
the rise in Saratoga
[F.L.] Stutzman says ("Open space, parkland raises property values," letters, May 3), "It is evident that crime has not gone up due to lesser police coverage." I regret he is exactly wrong.
Anyone may check the Santa Clara County crime statistics. In 2005, reported crime in Saratoga was up by 36 percent. By comparison, Los Gatos was up 4 percent, Campbell down 5 percent, Cupertino down 6 person, Los Altos down 8 percent. Saratoga used to be as safe as Los Altos--now there are 1.6 times as many crimes in Saratoga. Mr. Stutzman thinks that doesn't affect property values; I disagree.
He does say selling off all the parks in the city would reduce property values; he gives no basis for that opinion, but it is irrelevant as there is nobody suggesting selling the parks.
What is under discussion is selling off a property (not a park) for which in four years the city could find no use, and a property that would be expensive to develop.
Mature decisions are made in context. The Saratoga News keeps reporting there is a "budget crisis" in the city; the council is even now trying to increase property taxes paid to the city.
A person begging for money for necessities should not buy a mink coat, however pretty it is.
A council without the resources to pay for reasonable police coverage and witnessing a big increase in crime, and a city unable to pay for necessary road and bridge maintenance, should not have bought North Campus in the first place. But now that they have, it should be sold and the money used for what it was intended.
Property values are best supported by a safe city, a clean city and a well-maintained city, not by idle city-owned land and buildings in need of repair.
Peter Knight
Glasgow Drive
Radio antenna doesn't
belong in neighborhood
I am one of the nine neighbors who filed a complaint regarding the 60-foot antenna on Mr. Johnson's property. While your newspaper did a fair job of reporting the story ("Any way you slice it, ham antenna is legal, much to neighbor's dismay," May 10), it was disappointing to see a photo was not attached to the article.
Anyone with common sense would see that this antenna is grotesquely incompatible with the look and feel of the neighborhood.
The antenna is clearly visible from two surface streets in both Saratoga and Los Gatos. It is so imposing it looks as if a radio station is planted in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
While it was stated in the newspaper that the antenna is allowed by federal and state laws, I would still support my longtime neighbor, Mr. Williams, in his decision to exhaust all avenues in an effort to have the antenna removed.
There are neighbors who have lived on this street for years that have their ham radio antennas discreetly mounted. They're able to enjoy their hobby without forcing it down their neighbors' throats.
We are asking for the same courtesy from Mr. Johnson, who recently moved into our neighborhood.
Phan Ngo
Montpere Way
