School district cell phone policy needs to...

School district cell phone policy needs to be revised

I am a senior at John Burroughs High School. I read your article

about the school district’s cell-phone policy and would like to voice

my thoughts about this matter. I am in favor of a new policy. I

believe that using a cell phone at lunch or nutrition [break] will be

helpful in case you need to call your parents. Not only that, but

taking away cell-phone use is in violation of the 1st Amendment

right to free speech.

I understand that several people do violate the current policy by

using them during class time. But those people should be handled

appropriately. The majority of the people shouldn’t be penalized

because some people feel that they need to talk on their cell phone

during class.

The current policy states that we can carry cell phones on campus,

but we are not allowed to use them. What is the point of even taking

them, then? We need to be more practical than that.

If we adopt a new policy, students will know when they can use

their cell phones and when they cannot. I believe more students would

be willing to abide by new cell phone standards. I have a cell phone,

but I do, in fact, follow the policy.

However, I got nine missed calls one day after school when I

turned my cell phone on. Three of them were from my parents regarding

a family emergency. It would be nice if I could have talked to them

to find out what the problem was.

Last time I checked, cell phones are supposed to be used outside

and to call people in case of an emergency. That is one purpose of a

cell phone. We really do need a reform on the current cell phone

policy.

JONATHAN MATTHEWS

Burbank

Platt is back with

more traffic problems

Five months after being voted down by the Burbank City Council,

Santa Monica-based developer Rick Platt has submitted new plans for

the development of a site in the Media District.

He and his out-of-state financing people have been working for

years to shoehorn a large steel and glass project in the small area

bordered by Alameda and Olive between Lima and the Hollywood Way

offramp of the Ventura (134) Freeway.

One main reason the City Council voted down the Platt Project 5-0

in April was the already massive traffic congestion that would be

further irritated by the 2,400 added cars in the planned seven-story

underground parking facility.

Mr. Platt’s determination to build is confirmed by the very recent

purchase of two more apartment buildings in the 100 block of North

Avon St. He now owns three out of the five apartment buildings and

the small house at the corner of Olive. In addition, he owns the

small two story building next to Dimples on Olive.

Part of the development is a new church to replace the existing

church. In addition to the church building, the Trinity Church owns

the three small houses on that same block of North Avon Street. So

Mr. Platt has ownership or control of well over 50% of the property

within the development area.

He has had two meetings with the neighborhood after ignoring the

neighbors for the past three years. The first official meeting of the

city Planning Department took place last week at Stevenson School

auditorium. There are new traffic studies being done now in the

neighborhood. This potential traffic disaster will affect everyone in

Burbank who wants to get out of the city in the south corner. Have

you driven over Barham to Hollywood lately, or west on Riverside

Drive? This is a citywide problem, not just one for the immediate

area.

ROLF DARBO

Burbank

Authority president taken to task over renaming airport

My sincerest thanks to Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority

President Charlie Lombardo for his response to my letter regarding

the renaming of the airport.

President Lombardo quickly informs us that the need for public

input on renaming the airport was taken care of when the Airport

Authority placed it on its agenda. President Lombardo has mastered

the art of demonstrating just how things never seem to change at the

Burbank Airport.

What Lombardo fails to mention in his response is the process

through which the authority facilitates public input. While an item

regarding the renaming of our airport indeed appeared on an authority

agenda, Mr. Lombardo didn’t mention that the meeting was held on a

Monday morning at 9 a.m., just to make it convenient for public

discussion.

Just to set the record straight, I have never specifically stated

my support or opposition to the renaming of the airport. What I have

stated, and will continue to state, is that it should not be done by

a few without public discussion. I thank President Lombardo for

helping to illustrate just how little the airport has done to

facilitate any thought or debate.

With all due respect to Lombardo, I continue to feel that public

discussion is missing in the mad rush to rename our airport. I fail

to see how a call for greater public discussion and input is seen as

living in a cave. However, Lombardo has been on the authority long

enough now that perhaps he has come to believe that an ad hoc

committee and meetings at impossible times for the public to attend

are the right thing to do.

DAVID PIROLI

Burbank