Letters | March 4, 2011 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - March 4, 2011

Letters

Caltrain cuts

This story contains 688 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Posted by Wrong secret, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Van Duesen's snarky letter is deceptive. The writer pretends that it is about "having options" but it really is preparation for the 10 acre park takeover ("repurposing").
Manipulative use of language is what is dirty.
Some conservationists are like other one-issue political groups. They can only focus on their narrow point of view. Their leader is their guru.
The real secret is why they cant find a location that doesn't take over park land or why they wont cooperate with other cities.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 5, 2011 at 1:01 pm

Wrong secret ... if you have a point can you state it instead of merely attacking the tactics and motives of other groups with innuendo? I have not really been following much of this issue, so I'd like to hear some reasoned factual comments.

At least the letter by Van Duesen snarky or not has some facts and a stated goal.

But right in my opinion there is not much informative value from either of your comments.


Posted by Wrong secrret, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 5, 2011 at 3:17 pm

OK Anon, I'll bow to your self described unfamiliarity with the issue. I just know what I read in the papers and I know whom I trust. I trust the people who have no ulterior motives except for their long standing, unimpeachable, devotion to the community.
The leading advocates for the 10 acre "repurposing" of park land (haha) are longtime development advocates. Yes, you know that if you follow anything in Palo Alto. They often see parks and undeveloped areas as wasteful, when you could be making money off of it.
Mr. Drekmeier, for example, has always advocated more housing in Palo Alto, and voted for it time and again when he was on the city council. Mr Hays also speaks in favor of most developers/development. Now the schools are trying to figure out how to cope with the huge increase in enrollment.
The intricacies of this project are more than I can follow, but I know whom I trust.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 7, 2011 at 9:35 am

We are talking about a recycling center, correct? Not an apartment building. Not an office complex.


Posted by Wrong secret, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 7, 2011 at 10:37 am

No Dad, not correct. A recycling center is what we have now. What is being discussed is a 10 acre industrial plant to process waste. On a park. Big difference.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 7, 2011 at 11:07 am

Yes - you are correct, my bad. But it still isn't "development" and evil developers.

And let's be realistic here --- it would be right next to the existing sewage plant, across the street from the airport, 1-block from the golf course, 1-block from office buildings.

Giving 10 acres of what will probably be less than 10% of total land for a project that will provide huge benefits to the greater good.

My what an awful concept.


Posted by Wrong secret, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 7, 2011 at 11:55 am

So, Dad, when you said We are talking about a recycling center, correct?
You were just pretending you didn't know what it was. Actually you know quite a bit and you are in favor of the industrial plant.
Misreresentation and manipulation of public opinion. The greater good? good propaganda there, Dad.
Now you can understand my lack of trust in your side.


Posted by Wrong secret, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 7, 2011 at 11:55 am

So, Dad, when you said We are talking about a recycling center, correct?
You were just pretending you didn't know what it was. Actually you know quite a bit and you are in favor of the industrial plant.
Misreresentation and manipulation of public opinion. The greater good? good propaganda there, Dad.
Now you can understand my lack of trust in your side.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 8, 2011 at 11:41 am

Yes the greater good. The whatever you want to call it project would benefit all citizens of Palo Alto on a daily basis. 60,000+.

No offense - but I can't see 60,000 people visiting the park in 10 years, let alone in a single day.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

 

The 2016-17 Info Guide is here!

Info Palo Alto, a resource guide for the Midpeninsula, features local information on schools, outdoors and recreation, government and arts & entertainment

View