May 16, 2008

Letters

School bond measure

Dear Editor: As someone still undecided on the [Palo Alto Unified School District] bond measure, there are things that bother me about it:

_ Placing this on a June ballot with low expected voter turnout makes me question its merit for some of its purposes;

_ Its justification for some items compared to needs of the city right now seems rather lame;

_ The actual amount of taxes paid will be almost double the bond debt;

_ I hear the bond covers replacement or refurbishment of things over and over again during the interest payment period.

Maybe the school board should come up with a smaller list of long-term improvements that most people can agree on and that are needed. I know a city that rejects out of hand school bonds will not have the favorable housing prices we have. However, spending too much using bonds and not considering possible financing alternatives for improvements and recurring operational expenses is not wise and cannot be good for property values. The school district's 2007-08 budget shows more than $8 million in lease income out of a total revenue of $138 million, including such from two "surplus sites," Cubberley and Fremont Hills (a Los Altos Hills' neighborhood). Why not sell the "surplus sites" and use the proceeds and interest earned on such to improve things over time? I hope some financial analysis has been done.

Bob Schulte,

Palo Alto


----------------



Dear Editor: In a guest opinion you printed Friday ["Measure A costly, unwarranted"], Wayne Martin suggests year-round school as a means of avoiding the need to build additional facilities. Let me point out that this rotating quarter system has been used for decades by the Franklin McKinley School District in San Jose, where it has had beneficial effects beyond just more efficient facility use. Among other things, having four short intervals rather than one long summer vacation gives students less time to forget material.

Michael Goldeen,

Palo Alto



The sheriff's Vegas trip

Dear Editor: What happened to the charter amendment change proposed by Supervisor Jerry Hill? San Mateo County voters were promised that Hill and his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors were finally going to address the incident in which our sheriff was caught in a Las Vegas bordello, but nothing has happened. How can Jerry Hill honestly expect women of San Mateo County to support his Assembly candidacy when he refuses to speak out against a sheriff who attempted to patronize a house of prostitution where women were warehoused as sexual slaves?

Barbara Irli,

South San Francisco



Chaining up dogs dangerous

Dear Editor: May 18-24 is Dog Bite Prevention Week. Dogs bite for a variety of reasons, but one of the surest ways to create a dangerous, neurotic, frustrated animal is to chain it to a tree or doghouse and leave it to pace the same patch of dirt for months or years on end. Although California became in 2006 the first state in the nation to pass a law that puts specific time limits on how long "man's best friend" can be chained, the law is not always diligently enforced here in San Mateo County. Often, people have no idea the practice is even illegal. With certain very limited exceptions, a dog may not be chained for more than three hours in any 24-hour period.

If you know of dogs that are kept chained, please notify the Peninsula Humane Society. If you can, talk gently to the owners about the suffering that perpetually chained dogs endure - and the danger these animals often pose to children. When kept chained and isolated from their "pack," dogs become pathologically protective of their sad patch of land. Many become aggressive time bombs - infested with parasites and frustrated into madness from a lack of socialization, kindness and exercise. Too often, children looking just to "pet the doggy" pay the price.

Learn more at www.dogsdeservebetter.org.

Monica Schreiber, volunteer,

Dogs Deserve Better

Belmont