Publication Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Letters
Letters
(December 24, 2003)
Four lanes perfect
Editor,
For the past three months I have been living in Palo Alto looking after an elderly parent. They live a stones throw from the Charleston Road/Middelfield Road intersection.
As a resident of Atlanta -- which is known for traffic gridlock -- I marvel at how well traffic moves through this area at all times of the day. Now I read that the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission wants to spend $7 million to mess it up.
They want to change Charleston from four lanes to two lanes with a center turn lane. The commission suggests that this change could "shave one to three minutes off the trip from Fabian Way to Foothill Expressway."
I suggest that one fender bender that requires a tow truck could completely shut down all traffic.
What have these commissioners been smoking? It seems that they have way too much money and way too little smarts to realize that they are about to screw up a good thing. I guess that is why we in the South refer to California as the land of fruits and nuts.
These people are truly nuts. And you, the taxpayer of Palo Alto, are nuts for letting them get away with it.
Tom Jenkins
Smyrna
Georgia
Approval appreciation
Editor,
The Acterra community would like to thank the Palo Alto City Council for its final approval of the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility. At its Dec. 15 meeting the council approved the construction contract for this centerpiece of our highly successful public-private stewardship partnership.
For the past seven years Acterra and the city have worked together to enhance native biodiversity, control invasive plants, improve the trail system and engage the community in these activities. The facility will greatly improve our ability to educate students and the public about the need for, and the practice of, caring for public open space.
Community volunteers annually contribute more than 4,000 hours of public service, valued at more than $60,000. These figures will certainly increase when the facility is completed.
The green building will have solar panels and solar hot water, and be largely built with salvaged lumber and hay bales. In addition to public amenities like the meeting space and restrooms, the facility will have workspace for rangers and stewards, and areas to store restoration tools and equipment.
Native landscaping will complete the facility and integrate it into the surrounding landscape. We look forward to the community enjoying the facility, the Preserve, and continuing to enhance our public open spaces. Our sincere thanks to all who have supported the city and Acterra in all aspects of this important work.
David Smernoff
Foxwood Road
Portola Valley
Enormous 'Cheesecake'
Editor,
Kindly spare us your simpering about cheesecake. The City of Palo Alto, whose review process makes it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to renovate their own homes, has seen fit to foist this crummy corporate credenza upon the community.
University Avenue has been served an indigestible building that has utterly destroyed its character. How and why was the The Cheesecake Factory allowed to build such an out-scale monstrosity?
Where was the Architectural Review Board? Where was the Palo Alto Weekly while this Temple of Doom was in the works? Follow the money, folks. Bon appetit.
Janice Berman
Waverley Street
Palo Alto
Understanding 'Unblock'
Editor,
Who is this Unblock group? We are residents of the Downtown North neighborhood and people who are directly impacted by the traffic diversion.
We are homeowners and renters, seniors and families; we are your friends and your neighbors, and there are several hundred of us. What does this Unblock group want? We want the right thing for the Downtown North neighborhood and the right thing for Palo Alto, but we don't believe the current plan, with many barriers and ninety percent traffic diversion, is a good solution.
There are other ways and better ways that need consideration. We want everyone who is affected by these barriers to have a fair say in the process and the pros and cons fairly and evenly presented.
Some have suggested that Unblock has been involved with removing some signs in favor of the barriers. Such actions are against the very nature and grain of our group, which formed in part as a rejection of this type of behavior. In meetings, those who have opposed barriers had been shouted down.
We have endured several hundred of our signs getting ripped down, often within minutes of their posting. We have been subject to verbal abuse and the most outrageous claims and comments in editorials. We do not condone this behavior for we have been subjected to it ceaselessly.
It is because of this behavior we formed, not merely because of roadblocks. Whether roadblocks stay is a part of the issue, but whether the process is fair and democratic is central to who we are, and what we're trying to accomplish.
When the city listens to everyone who is impacted by this project negatively as well as positively, when people recognize that barriers mean diversion and diversion is unfair, when people accept that there are serious safety risks with barriers that cannot be lightly overlooked or simply wished away, when people think of this in the context of whether or not it is good for Palo Alto as a whole, Unblock will have succeeded.
It's not just about unblocking streets, it's about unblocking a process.
Joe Durand
President, Unblock DTNN
Palo Alto
Common courtesy
Editor,
One of many things I dislike about the Downtown North traffic roadblock trial is the radical nature of the project, which polarizes the neighborhood and leads to wild and misleading statements.
An example of this was Wednesday's (Dec. 17) letter condemning Unblock for the temporary removal of the traffic-calming signs. There were many things wrong with this letter.
First, we didn't do it. Unblock's policy has always been to allow free and open speech. In fact, we sent out e-mails to our members telling them not to retaliate when 800-900 of our flyers were not only torn down but destroyed within hours of their postings.
Which meant that routinely only DTNNA (Downtown North Neighborhood Association) flyers would remain.
We also sent e-mails again after the recent signs went up, reminding people to respect others' right to express their views. A copy of that e-mail was sent to the DTNNA secretary and president for further distribution.
If we have any hope of "working together as a neighborhood" again, then we have to be respectful on both sides. It is bad enough to have a divided neighborhood without finger pointing and rhetoric.
Unblock did not accuse DTNNA as a group when our signs came down. It would be appropriate to them to afford us the same courtesy.
Janice Hough
Bryant Street
Palo Alto
Legal finagling
Editor,
There is a practice in the City of Palo Alto of which people should be made aware. It is to change the law in order to make moot litigation the city is losing. This has happened at least once already to my knowledge.
A municipal law was changed to defeat a lawsuit filed by a resident against the city. Now, the city attorney's office is asking that this be done again. What is also shocking is that a judge had advised the city attorneys to change the law, which was then applied retroactively, making that lawsuit moot.
Judges are permitted to do this? Seems so.
It is now being recommended by the city attorney's office that the attorneys be allowed to selectively enforce the nuisance laws. The Planning Commission will receive this matter next year as it was referred by the City Council Dec. 15.
The background is that the city has refused to enforce the nuisance laws against Safeway, leading to the lawsuit against the city. Jack Morton voted yes on the referral, not disclosing that he has stock in Safeway.
Our laws must be fairly enforced. Allowing the city attorney to decide which laws he or she will enforce and which not, depending upon the entities or persons involved, serves the city and its citizens very poorly.
Selective enforcement of our laws is unethical and only serves to further cynicism among the citizenry. Whether legal or not, taking such action is a corruption of our laws.
One cannot ever depend upon what the municipal law states, when it can be changed and applied retroactively, for the purpose of cheating one resident or business for the benefit of another while allowing the city to fail in its responsibility.
Natalie Fisher
Ellsworth Place
Palo Alto
'Patriot for Truth'?
Editor,
I attended my first town hall meeting of Rep. Anna Eshoo on Dec. 13 at the Palo Alto City Hall.
It appeared as if everyone who was in attendance in the SRO Council Chamber submitted at least one written question. I submitted one, and to my surprise it queued up during her responses.
My question was about the fiscal status of the VA hospitals in Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Her response, in part, was that their budgets were "stretched," and would be facing a "net loss."
The question was mostly rhetorical, considering the Bush Administration's empty mantra on "compassionate conservatism." The question was precipitated by the Bush Administration's opulent subsidizing of the military aggression.
Yet, this administration acts miserly when it comes to benefits for service people, their families and veterans. Rep. Eshoo made this shameful distinction clear in her response.
When I approached the Menlo Park City Council in March about adopting a resolution opposing U.S. aggression in Iraq, the council declined. Fortunately, the Palo Alto City Council was astute enough to know that this aggression had a clear and present relevance to its municipality, and formerly stated its opposition.
It is conceivable that veterans, whose medical needs are not met due to severely reduced VA hospital funding, could increase the numbers of displaced veterans on the streets of Palo Alto -- and Menlo Park.
Rep. Eshoo stated that she had recently been appointed to the House Intelligence Committee, for which she was applauded. She assured the audience that, although she is a minority party member on the committee, she would be an "Agitator for Truth" in these closed sessions, to the receipt of greater applause.
I would quarrel with Rep. Eshoo in her choice of one word, however. I think she should rephrase it and say that she is a "Patriot for Truth" in these sessions. There would have been a standing ovation.
Henry Organ
Euclid Avenue
Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
