Town Square

Post a New Topic

Support voiced for Stanford Med Center plans

Original post made on Sep 25, 2007

Saving lives is laudable, necessary work and is nearly all that should be expected of a top-notch research hospital and medical school, several Palo Altans told the City Council Monday -- espousing a position that resonates with Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 8:15 AM

Comments (10)

Posted by Howard, a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

The article is somewhat misleading in that there were a number of thoughtful comments expressing concern about the Stanford expansion and laying out specific suggestions for the environmental review. The so-called "support" was in the nature of "I love Stanford and so just forget about the rules and approve it." The "supporters" had no credibility.


Posted by Not so fast, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 26, 2007 at 6:06 am

The Palo Alto Daily News also covered this story:

Web Link

According to Howard the following people who commented had no credibility:

"But many residents were quick to defend Stanford, saying the medical center needs to be able to care for the city's aging population down the road.

One resident described the care given to her at the medical center after a painful cycling accident, while others talked about the comfort of "having Stanford hospital available when I need it," as Menlo Park resident and Stanford faculty member Stanley Peters put it.

"Quite frankly, this is probably the best thing that's ever happened to our community," said Daryl Savage, a member of the city's human rights commission."


In addition the article states:

"Among members of the city council, environmental concerns were balanced with eagerness for the public benefit of an expanded hospital and broadened base of sales tax."


At least Ms Kleinberg seems to get it:

"There are communities that would be drooling to have this opportunity," she said."

Obviously this project needs to undergo review and certain potential problems need to be addressed--however this is not a big "negative" for PA as people like Howard seem to think.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 26, 2007 at 7:00 am

We all love the medical innovations and benefits Stanford's Medical Complex has delivered for years, and want to see that continue.

We are hopeful that Stanford is not raising an 800-pound pet gorilla which it permits to roam free and leave unwelcome deposits on neighbors' properties.

Palo Alto, and virtually every community, has "Good Neighbor" policies every responsible pet owner honors which include cleaning up after your pet.

Should Stanford refuse to provide housing for most of the 3,000-plus new employees its massive expansion will require, and the Palo Alto Council fail to convince it to do so, Stanford will in effect become an irresponsible pet owner permitting its powerful pet to wreak havoc on its neighbors. This will take the form of diminished emergency preparedness, vehicular traffic snarls, greater off-campus housing density with more K-12 students to educate.

That's a massive "clean-up" for its neighbors to deal with for evermore.


Posted by Not so fast, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 26, 2007 at 7:30 am

Helen--let me ask you this--council members and many PA residents continue to say that PA is built out and cannot take any more housing.
So which is it--PA is built out or there is room for housing if Stanford foots the bill?
Also why is there an assumption that all of these new employees should/will want to live in Palo Alto? Does PA really want Stanford to build housing for 3000+ people? If PA is so insistant in wanting Stanford to provide housing will they allow Stanford to use the foothills area to build housing?
I also refer you to Diana Diamond's column in todays PA Weekly.


Posted by Marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 26, 2007 at 8:51 am

Where does this 3000+ number come from? They are talking about 2000 potential new employees a number of years after the remodel of the hospital. The shopping center redo, which is a separate issue, will have about 800 new employees.
The city council desperately wants the shopping center remodel, including the building of a boutique hotel, to help prop up our sinking sales tax base. Of course a new hotel and additional stores will bring additional traffic with it.
So what does PA really want--more hotels and stores and with it more sales tax revenue and more employees and traffic?
It seems that our city (both the council and some residents) want the best of both worlds--increased tax flow, but no traffic or new employees--you cannot have both these days.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Monroe Park
on Sep 26, 2007 at 11:45 am


"But many residents were quick to defend Stanford, saying the medical center needs to be able to care for the city's aging population down the road."

The medical center will not only be caring for the city's aging population. Another medical center is needed to care for the area's population, but we do not need to put it in Stanford or Palo Alto. There are cities near Palo Alto with more space and less traffic congestion able to accommodate a large medical center. Also, new medical centers are being built in our area - Mountain View has just replaced an Emporium store with the Camino Medical Group.

"So which is it--PA is built out or there is room for housing if Stanford foots the bill?"

Stanford has land for housing; Stanford employees can be housed on Stanford land. However, I am in favor of people moving in and out of the area but I am not in favor of massive housing or massive community building projects. Our only question should not be "will this project generate revenue for Palo Alto", we should be asking where will we get the resources - we have to ration water and electricity at our current level of population. We have air that is so dirty that it is degrading the health of those who live here, do we need more traffic? How many parents want their children to go to multi-story schools? Residents pay a high price when a city cares only about generating revenue.




Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 26, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"Stanford employees can be housed on Stanford land"

It's interesting to see how things come full circle. We now see the old 19th century 'company town' concept being propsoed for the 21st century. Although such company towns had some virtues, they also had their limitations, including the desire to be set free by the workers. The automobile, train, buses, telecommuting , etc. now allow poeple to live where they want, and work somewhere else.

It is more rational to provide public mass transit, improved roads, parking garages (at Stanford), pollution free cars, etc., than to force workers to live with their employer.

JMO


Posted by planning takes effort, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2007 at 4:21 pm

time for Stanford to not only build more housing in its campus core area, lowering impact on neighboring communities, but provide a new access road to 280, taking pressure off Alpine and page mill rd.
Sand Hill needs to be widened to 4 lanes from Arboretum to ECR, and, now that North PA has traffic calming, turn restrictions from Alma, open up Alma to all turning movements. Menlo Park is probably going to prohibit u turns at Cambridge so this new Stanford development traffic doesn't further congest the ECR scene in the evening commute hours. Just try to go north on ECR in MP during rush hour, and you know where that traffic originates.


Posted by planning takes effort, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2007 at 7:30 pm

BTW, that would be Campus Drive West extension across the golf course to 280. Horrors that such a pristine area could be defiled by a new road. Just drive up Sand Hill to 280 and look at the new mega hotel/conference center under construction on Stanford land, next to the "World's Most Beautiful Freeway".


Posted by Watched it on TV, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 27, 2007 at 4:05 pm

The article is very misleading, as Howard also points out. There were approximately 14 speakers and half of them were supporters who just sang the I love Stanford song without any content. Actually 4 of the supporters were Stanford employees.
The people who expressed concern were polite but expressed serious questions about housing for the new people and the huge amount of traffic that will be generated.
You misinterpreted politeness for support.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 52 comments | 2,265 views

Custom pizza joint on its way to Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,025 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,250 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,131 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 864 views