January 21, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Letters

Editor,

As I read the news about the various contentious issues around town -- Downtown North, San Francisquito Creek, the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor, to mention a few -- I become more and more convinced that our troubles stem from ignorance about the principles of effective process. Two big errors seem to be repeated over and over.

1) Lack of engagement of all stakeholders as partners in the solution-discovery process from the very beginning and throughout.

2) Lack of agreement, before addressing the problem, regarding the process that will elicit stakeholder interests, convert stakeholder interests into a description of success in terms of the qualities of the outcome, and then search for and evaluate various solutions, finally selecting the one that best delivers success to the satisfaction of the stakeholders.

This is not rocket science (actually it is -- this is how we got to the moon). It is not hard for people to grasp. It amazes and dismays me that we, in a town like Palo Alto that is so full of brilliant people, still continue to stumble, muddle, fumble, bumble and wrangle when a better way is so obvious. William H. Cutler Park Boulevard Palo Alto
Corridor dangers

Editor,

Twenty years ago, I went to Gunn High School. I still drive past it almost every day. Now, I live off a three-lane corridor nearby. Even though I'm not a Palo Alto resident, I've been one, and I'm still affected by whatever happens.

What happens, based on my experience, is that more traffic will move through. What you haven't been told is that it will move through much faster. Think current traffic speeds are bad? Add another 5-10 mph.

The three-lane corridor I live on is the Alameda. For the last five years I've been telling my wife that the only way anyone would pay attention to what a stupid idea this is was if someone was killed. Last week, we had our fatality, albeit right up the street.

If you think that something similar won't happen along Charleston/Arastradero, you're wrong. What the engineering studies won't tell you is that the only way to move more cars through fewer lanes is to move them faster. Past four schools, full of kids.

This is great engineering. Just like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Don't do it. I'd hate to have someone in Palo Alto have to die, too, to demonstrate how bad an idea this is. Charles Prael Monterey Avenue Menlo Park
Urging expressways

Editor,

Palo Alto residents need expressways, such as Charleston/Arastradero, to rapidly go from one side of Palo Alto to the other. I use that corridor frequently to go to 101 and to 280, as well as places in between.

As a wide four-lane road (even after having added bike and parking lanes), the speed limit should be closer to 35 or 40 mph, not the present 25 mph, which is more appropriate for two-lane residential streets.

The original city planners obviously recognized the need to expeditiously move traffic across town. That's why Charleston was designed to be four lanes wide, and not a two-lane residential street. We need to use the Charleston/Arastradero corridor as it was intended.

The mayor has said that we need to make Palo Alto more business-friendly. Making it more difficult for workers to get to their jobs is not making Palo Alto business-friendly.

Palo Alto has seen that where streets have been narrowed, or bumps added to what should be a thoroughfare, drivers drive to residential streets to avoid the traffic buildup. This causes people who live on those streets to complain and ask for "traffic calming."

If child safety is a problem, that issue needs to be addressed by means other than by trying to make an expressway into a residential street.

The real solution is for our traffic engineers to time the stoplights, to use the maximum number of lanes possible per road, and use whatever other tools they have to expedite traffic flow across our city. That will minimize traffic through the neighborhoods.

We need more cross-town expressways. Rich Stiebel Talisman Drive Palo Alto
Put Earth first

Editor,

Your cover story (Weekly, Jan. 14) on former Co-op Market clerk Willie Branch's struggle with homelessness appeared during the same week that George W. Bush announced plans to send humans to Mars.

The juxtaposition is instructive. At the same time that millions of Americans such as Mr. Branch confront economic devastation, Bush and his minions cynically pursue policies that are increasing the growing gap between the haves and have-nots in our society.

The manned exploration of space by the United States will be a massively expensive boondoggle guaranteed to impoverish future generations while shifting critical resources away from programs that truly benefit our society.

There's a huge amount of crucial work demanding attention here at home -- for example, restoring our imperiled natural environment and building a sustainable energy and transportation infrastructure for the 21st century.

Shifting our national priorities to address these mounting domestic problems will not only start to solve them but also generate millions of new jobs, including jobs for people such as Mr. Branch.

There is an urgent need to install new national leadership that will concentrate upon creating a healthy and just society right here on planet Earth. Michael Closson Poe Street Palo Alto
Good 'human relations'?

Editor,

If the purpose of one of your board of contributors, Jeff Blum, was to elicit a reaction, then his article, "Shining the light on Christian conservatives" (Weekly, Jan. 14) did just that.

Lest anyone fail to understand Mr. Blum's animus he uses the phrase on eight occasions. In doing so he points an accusing finger at conservative Christians on a range of issues -- court-mandated death to a disabled person in Florida, court-mandated redefinition of marriage in Massachusetts, reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools, display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings and in relation to federal sentencing guidelines not being upheld.

Mr. Blum's dislike of Christian conservatives ignores large numbers of people opposing court decisions on those issues who do not identify themselves as either Christian or conservative. Mr. Blum seems particularly uncomfortable with the notion that in a representative democracy some popular positions will win out, especially those whose backers include Christian conservatives.

Are we to assume that Mr. Blum is in favor of all judicial decisions and happily remains silent no matter the verdict or that his activism is only appropriate if it is ineffective?

The term "hate speech" gets thrown around too much for my comfort and I would be very reluctant to say that Mr. Blum is engaging in that. However, it might prove instructive to test the following proposition: Write an article where the object of scorn would be described as "liberal Jews."

Any problem? Mr. Blum is a member of Palo Alto's Human Relations Commission. Is it asking too much for one of its members to be a bit more refined in their human relations? Robert Holmgren Central Avenue Menlo Park
Responding to Sedriks

Editor,

In response to Mr. Sedrik's recent letter (Weekly, Jan. 14), I understand the desire of Downtown North residents to maintain the character of their area. However, they have to accept that the world, and that includes Palo Alto, is constantly changing.

I grew up in an England where people did not lock their doors when they went out. However, it was also an England of inefficient heating systems and where the VCR was a luxury item, and drinking sweet German wine was considered cultured -- understand my point?

Like the residents of Downtown North, I would love it if people drove less and drove smaller, less powerful cars -- and not just in order to preserve the nature of Palo Alto Downtown North.

However, in at least the short term, Americans love their cars and will continue to try to get from A to B in as short a time as possible, in as much comfort as possible. For want of a better word, this is called progress.

Unfortunately, in their efforts to succeed where King Canute failed, the residents of Downtown North are exacerbating the effects of this progress on the residents of neighboring streets -- those same residents that have been disenfranchised by the gerrymandering of the Downtown North Residents Association.

If I were to be completely cynical, I could also argue that they are seeking to protect, or even enhance, their property values at the expense of those residents of neighboring streets.

Finally, Mr. Sedriks does his argument a massive disservice by comparing pre-closure traffic with a freeway. Living on Waverley Street in Palo is hardly like living on the 101.

On a freeway, cars travel at 65 mph or above, as freeways are designed for this purpose. The fastest speed in the traffic survey taken before the barriers were added was 8 mph over the 25mph speed limit. Hardly treating the streets as a freeway.

The existence of so many cross streets, let alone stop signs and cars parked on either sides of the street, are natural speed restrictors in the Downtown North area. I have no objections over enhancing these -- use speed bumps, traffic circles (we call them roundabouts in the UK, and they are actually quite effective).

Whatever, just accept that street closures are a blinkered, over-the-top response that is actually quite offensive to those who have to accept the adverse consequences of the measure.

The closures must be removed. Cathy Fisher University Avenue Palo Alto

E-mail a friend a link to this story.