Posted by Resident, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2007 at 1:35 am

Marvelous idea. I suggest we call it the e-ruv. If we can get the holy fibers to sequester some carbon, we can put the new $181K environmental coordinator in the charge of the project and we're up to a quartet of birds. This RFP just writes itself...

Posted by Peter, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2007 at 7:24 am

And, since it's unique and involves religion, Palo Alto should be able to get a generous grant from the Office of Faith Based Whatevers in the Bush Administration.

Posted by Jay Thorwaldson, editor emeritus, on Jun 20, 2007 at 8:31 am
Jay Thorwaldson is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Well, here we go again, it seems. By way of some background, here's the Weekly's editorial from 2000 at the close of the last eruv saga. Check the end if you like nutty ideas:

Publication Date: Wednesday Aug 2, 2000

Editorial: Eruv proponents blindsided with painted-line scheme

Subhead: Council committee "approval" amounts to a rejection of eruv, reflecting the city staff's increasing frustration with the time invested in a perceived no-win idea

Just when it appeared that nothing more could possibly be said about a more than year-old proposal to add twine to two dozen locations around Palo Alto, the city staff and a City Council committee have added new fuel to the controversy over creation over the city becoming one of about 100 communities around the country with an eruv.

In an action that startled and angered the Orthodox Jewish community that has been pushing for the eruv, the Council's Policy and Procedures Committee voted 2-1 last week for a so-called compromise involving painting lines on utility poles to "represent" a continuous enclosure.

But what might have seemed like a nice way out of a messy political situation is destined to backfire, since the recommendation doesn't satisfy the requirements of an eruv and therefore accomplishes nothing. Perhaps there is still a way for a further amendment to make the eruv effective, but the staff and committee's refusal to allow any attachments to the utility poles seem to doom the concept.

The community is tiring of this debate, and of the hostility it has created among those believing that permitting some twine to be attached to some utility poles is a harmless action that demonstrates tolerance and diversity and those who believe strongly that it crosses the line between church and state.

When we first editorialized in support of creating the eruv one year ago, we commented on the extraordinary outpouring of opinions, both for and against. We said it was an opportunity for the community to demostrate our diversity without any hardship, burden or obligation on the members of any other religious group.

Now, a year later, it is as much an outrage that this issue remains unresolved as it is that we now offer the Orthodox Jewish community an alternative that accomplishes nothing -- and which the city staff and committee members knew in advance would not work.

The eruv proposal should have been voted up or down months ago. It now symbolizes exactly what new City Manager Frank Benest wants to put an end to: issues that aren't priorities that sap energy and emotion, create wounds and drag on and on.

But the fact that the eruv proposal should have long ago been decided by the City Council doesn't mean that it should now be killed by the proposal of a clever, yet unworkable, alternative. We accept that members of the city staff and City Council would prefer that this issue simply go away, but the community members who have so passionately debated it for so long deserve to see their political leaders vote on the eruv as proposed.

We continue to believe the eruv is a harmless and positive idea and support its creation. But it is far more important to make a decision and move on.

Here's one possible solution: In the late 1960s, when the council was approving a utilities-undergrounding project that would bury telephone and power lines, the late Stan Norton -- on the council at the time -- expressed concern about what would happen to squirrels that use the phone lines to get from tree to tree.

Norton proposed, in a tongue-in-cheek memo to colleagues, that the city create a "Squirrelways" system of ropes between trees so the squirrels could get around without fear of ground-level cars, cats, dogs and kids.

Well, the squirrel-hazard problem still exists, and a line of ropes around the city might just do double duty as an eruv without raising the pesky church/state question.

This plan isn't any nuttier than the "solution that isn't" recommendation of the council committee.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2007 at 9:09 am

Thanks, Jay, for re-printing the editorial from back then. It is to the eternal shame of the City Council at that time that they did not have the guts to actually vote on the issue. Of course not much has change here in PA--the city council still refuses to address controversial issues in a timely manner--either hoping they will just go away or else focusing energy on pipe dreams (i.e. climate change).

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2007 at 9:23 am

Pesky issues never go away - they just get buried in the sand and all of a sudden when you least expect it, raise their heads and the argument starts all over.

sigh

Posted by Equal treatment, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2007 at 8:38 am

If we can have an Eruv then perhaps we need a big statue of the Buddha downtown. How about a giant crucifix towering over University Avenue? A city sponsored mosque perhaps? Why is it that one group always seems to demand special treatment while preventing others the same? How is this fair? I truly wouldn't mind the Eruv if other religions, groups and practices were given equal treatment. Sadly, and this is the source of so much strife, they are not.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2007 at 9:36 am

Strange

In other countries, statues of religious nature, are considered beautiful pieces of art, landmarks and tourist attractions. To many of the residents and visitors they do not even think of them as religious, just beautiful. In Palo Alto, we cannot put up anything with a religious connotation and enjoy it for any reason. Instead, we have ugly pieces of nonsense that are called art e.g. the egg at Lytton Plaza, the ugly whatever outside City Hall, the strange car on legs in the park beside Alma, etc. etc. Come to think of it, what happened to the large people sitting on a bench on Embarcadero that was constantly vandalized? That was at least whimisical.

Posted by Judge Judy, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2007 at 3:24 pm

When is somebody going to compare and contrast the current City Attorney's opinion on the eruv with the opinion of former City Attorney Ariel Calonne on the same subject?

Or is my comment going to be deleted from this forum again?

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2007 at 3:41 pm

judge judy--you original comment was not deleted--there are two eruv threads going--your original post is on the other thread:

Web Link

Posted by Palo Parent, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Another idea: If I understand correctly, the media that is planned to be tacked up to establish the Eruv will be monofilament fishing line(?). Since that is obviously a technological upgrade from the original twine Eruvs, why not bring it up-to-date and establish a wired or wireless Eruv using the internet. It could indeed travel from computer/router locations spanning the roughly the same geographic boundaries as a stringed Eruv. It would even be much, much easier to verify and maintain as you could tell instantly when it was not continuous. Plus, the people who want it up could do so without disrupting other's rights to not be infringed by it, simple?