Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor (October 01, 2004)

Premature optimism on Hangar One

Editor:

As a community member of the Moffett Field Restoration Advisory Board, I believe the optimism expressed in the article on Hangar One in your most recent edition may be premature.

The Navy has taken the position that it is responsible for cleaning up only the exterior of this historic structure. As a result, the proposed work plan mentioned in your article only calls for sampling and studying clean-up options with respect to the exterior of Hangar One and the surrounding area.

Unless the Navy changes its position or another agency takes responsibility for cleaning up the interior, which currently is not considered safe for humans to enter without special training and equipment, the Navy might waste millions of dollars cleaning up the exterior without truly restoring Hangar One to a condition that would permit any meaningful use.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state and local regulatory bodies have challenged the Navy's position, and the Navy will be meeting with those agencies in the coming months in an effort to resolve the issue. I encourage members of the community to attend the next meeting of the Moffett Field RAB, which will be held on Nov. 18 at 7 p.m., in the Fourth Floor Gallery at City Hall, to show their support for saving Hangar One.

Bill James
Ranchita Drive

Lawsuit would penalize school children

Editor:

If Aaron Katz is maintaining that "only property owners -- regardless if they live in the city or not -- should be allowed to vote" as the Voice reported Sept. 17, perhaps he should also call for a poll tax.

After all, we should be sure none of those riff-raff renters get a say in their own community. Just because the folks living in those 10 condos he owns live here in our community and actually contribute to all of our daily rhythms, doesn't mean they have the right to ensure their children have a free and appropriate education (which the federal government has seen fit to grant every child in the U.S., regardless of economic status). In fact, why don't we penalize hundreds of children living in Mountain View by freezing the funds they were counting on? It's time the city learned that it's all about you, sir.

Wake up, Mr. Katz, and stop whining about the perils of being obscenely wealthy. This is our community, and these are our children. If you want so badly to have a say, then move here and we would be happy to hear your opinion. Otherwise, face the fact that just because you own real estate does not mean you own the people there. Nor can you disenfranchise the "rabble" who can't afford half a million dollars to pay for a vote of their own.

Kristene Wilbur
Hackett Avenue

Hard to fathom reasoning behind Katz lawsuit

Editor:

After reading last week's articles and letters regarding the lawsuit that Aaron Katz has filed against the Mountain View-Whisman School District, I just had to step up and say my piece.

First it comes as no surprise to me that Mr. Katz happens to be an attorney. I think only an attorney would come up with trying to sue a school district that is cash-strapped and is facing school closures and cut-backs on vital programs such as art, music and athletics.

I have to wonder how the tenants of his 10 condos feel about this. My bet is there is someone renting from this guy who has a child or children in this school district. Of course Mr. Katz's children aren't affected by this vote. They probably wouldn't be even if he had school-aged children and lived in Mountain View, because I'm sure his children went to or are attending private schools.

As a parent with children who have attended and are still attending schools in this district, I take offense to this guy and his absolute arrogance. Let's break this down real quickly. He owns 10 condos that will have a total increase of $750 in annual property tax. That comes out to $6.25 per unit per month. I'm sure the next rent increase he gives his tenants will more than account for this $6.25 per month.

Additionally, he's an attorney. This means at a minimum he charges his clients $200 but it could be $400 to $500 per hour. Sorry Aaron, but I just don't feel too bad for you. You want to take away $1.6 million from kids. Are you serious? Unfortunately, it's people like you who give lawyers a bad name.

If you want to have a vote in Mountain View then move here, although I somehow doubt you'd be too welcome, at least not in my neighborhood.

Joe Cree
Morgan Street

E-mail a friend a link to this story.