This letter is to reply to the letter of Rhode Firth in last week's edition of the Los Gatos Weekly-Times.

Long ago, Blossom Hill Manor was the least desirable part of Los Gatos because it was far from town and was of a more rural nature. There were no sidewalks, few streetlights or county sheriff service, fewer layers of governmental oversight. It was much less costly to live in Blossom Hill Manor than in the Almond Grove district. Now, since Proposition 13, all property taxes are uniform, whether in the city or county. So, we all participate in the funding of municipal amenities.

With the passage of time, vanished native prejudices, and development of the larger lots by younger homeowners, the region became desirable and valuable. Now it is sought after for the newer, larger homes and lots and the proximity to a variety of shopping and diversionary destinations few neighborhoods enjoy. Inhabitants enjoy being in the Los Gatos school district, these boundaries having been set down more than six decades ago.

In fact, much of the value in Blossom Hill Manor is due to the fact that property owners are able to improve their properties with fewer strictures than owners of property in the town of Los Gatos. Many people think that by paying for permits in these municipal building departments they will have a "watchdog" ensuring the work will have been done in a workmanlike manner. This is most definitely not the case. I have even had a building inspector tell me that their function is not to ensure the contractor's competence. All building departments use as their basic guide is the uniform building code. Other government entities, such as municipal building departments, augment these codes with their own layers of demands and codes.

Ms. Firth complains that she is not a member of the community. Well, a community is a spirit, not a place. The people in a neighborhood, through their efforts to improve their surroundings, make a community.

With the passage of Propositions 60 and 90, Blossom Hill Manor homeowner Firth may indeed move to the town of Los Gatos, or any other location, taking her low tax base with her. She will also take equity from her home that is there, in large measure, due to the efforts of her neighbors in building bigger, newer homes. Therefore, just as in the story of the little red hen, Ms. Firth will cash in on the labor of others, without getting her own hands very dirty.

One other observation I've made, since I have lived here for the past 11 years: Many of these folks, even though they've paid for the upkeep of public schools by payment of their substantial property taxes and bonds, choose to educate their children in private schools. Without a whimper or a whine. How's that for community spirit!

Lea Ann Hernandez

Los Gatos

Resident opposes
decision to close
historic bridge

I know you cover the town council proceedings, but the decision by the town council to rush to judgment, without hearing the opinions of those most affected by the closing of the Roberts Road bridge, has me and my fellow neighbors very upset.

The town council had put up signs that there was going to be a meeting last night, but none of the people most affected by this on Oak Meadow Drive or Ohlone Court were there. I'm sure they just assumed it wasn't worth their time, thinking they would just discuss fixing it a little. I'm sure no one ever dreamed they would think of closing it, let alone decide that night and pass a motion to close it without anyone knowing what was going on.

This is very unresponsive to the needs of the neighborhood residents on the part of the council. Not only will it be inconvenient for the local residents, but it will divert traffic off Roberts Road onto Oak Meadow for people cutting through to Blossom Hill and create a hangout for kids at night. Can't you just picture the kids on skateboards flying down the Roberts Road hill now and crashing at the bridge! What a traffic mess the council is creating, and for what?

Paul Vieth

Los Gatos

Safety problems on Winchester are 'hypothetical'

This is in response to Phil Levine's letter in the Sept. 22 Los Gatos Weekly-Times regarding problems on Winchester Boulevard.

There are those of us who see hypothetical problems at every turn, and those who can let well enough be.

Like you, I read and listen to all of those discussion points and don't see a solution to any issues except perhaps your hypothetical "aesthetics" desire.

What is the safety problem on Winchester? A study said installing the Daves Avenue light would make it "safer"—a hypothetical term. There was only one accident in the past 15 years. It was the largest single expense item for Monte Sereno in the past 10 years, and we've had more accidents than before. So the hypothetical solution wasn't a solution after all.

What is the speeding problem? Other multilane thoroughfares in Los Gatos have 35 mph limits and no one seems to be bitching about those thoroughfares. Seems like the Los Gatos­Monte Sereno Police Department has that problem under control and writes its fair share of traffic violations on Winchester, but a far lower percentage based on volume than they write when they set a patrol at the intersection of Vineland Court and Vineland.

Then, Mark Brodsky and Marc Jensen can't find another thoroughfare in the Bay Area that has the traffic dynamic of Winchester to point to when you ask where their proposed solution has worked, so again they have proposed a hypothetical solution.

Government is good at solving hypothetical problems. Too bad government doesn't spend as much time on solving real problems.

We need others than Brodsky/Jensen working this issue, or else it will forever be mired in hypothetical ideology.

Bill Ferguson

Monte Sereno

Board trustee favors bond, disputes claims

Aaron Katz's diatribe (Sept. 1) about Lisa Toth's article about the West Valley­Mission bond measure is deceptive and inaccurate. Mr. Katz takes Ms. Toth to task for not "disclosing" various arguments he would like to make. However, it was a news article. It was balanced and fair and Ms. Toth is under no obligation to advocate against the bond issues, as Mr. Katz would have her do.

If Mr. Katz were truly concerned about full disclosure, he would have acknowledged that he is a former attorney who is now a landlord with rental properties throughout the college district. His concern is not about the democratic process or what is good for this community, it is with his own pocketbook.

Mr. Katz says the district "refuses" to use a utility tax rather than a bond measure to raise the needed revenue. The district's attorney, the county counsel and a board member who practiced educational law his entire career all said the law does not allow a school district to use a utility tax. Should our governing board have ignored those three opinions and taken the advice of a former attorney?

Why didn't Ms. Toth write that a majority of our students live outside the district, another Katz complaint? For an excellent reason: it is untrue. A majority of students live within our district.

Will seniors be impacted by this bond measure more than other residents, as Mr. Katz asserts? In a word, no. This bond measure does not differentiate among residents in any way based on age. Does he mean seniors are on fixed incomes and less able to pay? Again, the opposite is true. Seniors have generally owned homes longer and will pay much less because of their low Proposition 13 assessed valuations.

The letter from Mr. Katz asks why the article didn't explain why ongoing maintenance does not appear as a line item in our budget. Again, the answer is simple. Ongoing maintenance and capital improvements are both line items in our budgets and, with ongoing maintenance, our district matches state funds dollar for dollar. We have never failed to match all available state funds for maintenance because it would be financially irresponsible to lose those state monies.

I spent 2 ¹/2 hours over lunch with Mr. Katz discussing the proposed bond measure and the district's financial predicament. He acknowledged that he knows the district does in fact need the money the bond measure will produce and that the bond projects represent our highest priority educational needs. It is cynical, and worse than disingenuous, for Mr. Katz to now attack Ms. Toth's reporting as a pretext for making arguments against our bond measure.

I am a third-term trustee at West Valley­Mission. I am familiar with the district's finances and business operations, and I have been for many years. Two and a half years ago I opposed the district's bond measure, Measure E. Among other problems, it was overly large and poorly planned, in my opinion. The current bond, Measure H, is smaller, well planned and desperately needed.

Importantly, the district has permanently and honorably solved the WVC stadium conflict with Saratoga and its surrounding neighbors. I support Measure H wholeheartedly and I am confident that others will draw their own conclusions about Mr. Katz's arguments.

Jeffrey A. Schwartz

Saratoga