Guest Opinion: While pondering big impacts, don't forget important "little" things
Original post made on Nov 28, 2007
Read the full Guest Opinion by Elizabeth Schwerer here:
Web Link posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 12:00 AM
on Nov 28, 2007 at 9:13 am
Maybe or maybe not we cannot afford more car trips in PA. But is it fair to ask only a single private institution to guarantee that there will not be an new net car trips in PA?
We should also approach other private companies with the same request. We should also request this from merchants on University Avenue and California Avenue. We should cancel plans for a new hotel at Stanford Shopping Center and also abandon the push to get more visitors into the city.
The bicycle tour planned for next year in PA should also be cancelled.
If we are serious about cutting traffic in PA, then everyone must take part.
To me it seems that if you say something enough times (in this case our mayor claiming at every opportunity that there is "too much Traffic"), people will actually believe that it is true
on Nov 28, 2007 at 12:22 pm
"I worry that our practice is to evaluate collective decisions according to fairly narrow criteria."
You're exactly right, with the "elephant in the room" being Palo Alto's recent policy trend to deny the fact that *Palo Alto* is focusing too narrowly on the responsibility it has to the entire region to *reduce its own car trips* by bringing more housing on board. What's with that?
Will our policy makers support *that*? :)
I find is almost disarmingly amusing to witness the various minikin arguments *for* gouging Stanford, hidden beneath the subterfuge of various mythical "public good" argument that are more self-serving, than not. We have to start thinking *big*, like the big-time player we claim ourselves to be.
So, this time it's the "little things"; it makes me wonder what the next trumped-up excuse for gouging Stanford will be. We can do better than that.