Letters Letters (January 14, 2004)

Property rights first

Editor,

My advice for the mayor is to work in favor of Palo Alto's citizens and businesses that want to enjoy their property rights. Remove the draconian review processes for homeowners who want to build on their property. Do away with the Redevelopment Agency, and let the Edgewood property owners decide what makes the most sense.

Squelch any hint of the use of eminent domain. Remove the restrictions on new development along the Charleston-Arastradero corridor. Let's have a new era where Palo Alto is known as the town with a friendly, non-manipulative City Council.

A Palo Alto where development is tied in knots will atrophy. A free Palo Alto where property rights are respected will flourish. Richard Wray Loma Verde Avenue Palo Alto
Barriers valuable

Editor,

Barriers to divert cut-through traffic from neighborhood streets onto arterial thoroughfares are essential if the residential character of Downtown-North is to be preserved.

The neighborhood is unique in being four blocks wide, and potentially serving as a connection between 101 and 280 via the Sand Hill and Willow/University corridors. In the 1970s Downtown-North narrowly escaped being sacrificed to provide a "Willow Freeway."

The character of the neighborhood was again under threat in the 1980s when the city approved high-density development of a block purchased for a park. Residents gathered signatures for a ballot and council reversed itself. The now highly lauded Johnson Park and a reinvigorated residential neighborhood was the result.

Currently we are at a third critical juncture -- by the late 1990s the cross streets of Downtown-North had turned into the lanes of a virtual Willow Freeway. I think people are already forgetting how bad it was, and with the ongoing development, particularly the massive development planned by Stanford over the next decade, the potential cross-traffic gets much worse.

Faced with this prospect, some residents worked diligently with the city over many years, in an open process. The outcome was a traffic-calming scheme centered on barriers as the only effective means to divert cut-through traffic onto arterial roads.

It has been highly successful in restoring residential character to the neighborhood and is in line with city policy. Current indications are that more than two-thirds of Downtown-North residents strongly support it.

Therefore, notwithstanding some noisy and vandalizing opposition, the trial scheme should be made permanent, essentially as is. Walter Sedriks Waverley Street Palo Alto
'Victims' over stated

Editor,

It was with great concern that I read the headline "Silent victims, Palo Alto neighborhoods lead county in elder abuse cases" (Weekly, Jan. 7).

I visualized great hardships behind the scenes for the many smart, educated, energetic older people that I see daily in Palo Alto. I visualized other abused elders behind locked doors in their Palo Alto neighborhoods. It seemed to refute the fact that there are great support services and facilities for seniors in Palo Alto.

Then as I read the article, I felt that the headline was inappropriate and misleading for the article. It refers to East Palo Alto, Milpitas, Los Altos victims, number of confirmed cases in two zip codes in Palo Alto for 2001 with parenthesis that parts of Los Altos, San Jose, Santa Clara had similar rates, wandering criminals offering to trim trees, housekeeper at Webster House, etc.

The headline "Silent victims" brings an important awareness to all of us, but please refrain from leading the reader to believe that elder abuse is rampant in Palo Alto neighborhoods. Thank you. Susan Beall Cowper Street Palo Alto
Not democratic

Editor,

I wish to comment on Mrs. Ward-Dolkas statement (Weekly, Dec. 31) that the DTNNA leadership (Downtown North Neighborhood Association) is a democratic group.

I know from experience that the DTNNA leadership is not a democratic group. They have singularly attempted to exclude me from the organization because my views on "traffic calming" are at loggerheads with their views. I live on the west side of Middlefield Road and have been adversely affected by the project.

But just because I have opposing views on traffic calming does not mean that I should be excluded from the DTNNA organization.

To quote Mrs. Ward-Dolkas, an "officer of DTNNA made a rash suggestion that the boundaries of the neighborhood may exclude Middlefield Road." I agree. This rash statement was made by the DTNNA president.

To make matters worse, this "rash statement" was followed up by weeks of e-mails by the president denying my membership in the DTNNA, an offer to refund our membership dues and an agreement eventually to allow it up for vote.

The vice president even went so far as to make sure I understood that in the interim before the vote, we were not members.

I can understand and appreciate their point of view, even if I disagree. However, I struggle to understand how gerrymandering by the leadership of the DTNNA can ever be seen as somehow democratic. Vanessa Davies Middlefield Road Palo Alto

E-mail a friend a link to this story.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]