January 28, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Letters

Editor,

What are we as a community doing differently today than a year ago to provide for safe routes to school for all children?

Certainly last weekís unanimous approval by the City Council of the new plan for the Charleston/Arastradero corridor gives reason for hope on one of Palo Altoís major school commute corridors. While funds must still be sought for the trial and some details and phasing still need to be worked out, outside funding is much more likely now that the design is approved.

To some, itís heresy to suggest any deviation from the post-WWII traffic engineering gospel of ìwider and faster is better.î But the approved plan is backed by good data, conservative assumptions, and success in other communities -- only hinted at in your otherwise solid coverage (Weekly, January 23). This time it looks like we really can have it all: increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists, reductions in the top vehicle speeds, and no increases in travel times for drivers.

In the wake of last Januaryís tragedy, many parents, residents and cyclists came together for the first time, determined to reverse the decline of walking and biking to school. But we know that active partnerships with both the city and the school district are necessary to make significant and sustainable shifts in how many families regularly choose to walk and bike to school. Projects like the redesign of the Charleston/Arastradero corridor show the value of working together toward win/win solutions for traffic issues in our community. Kathy Durham Traffic Safety Committee chair, Palo Alto Council of PTAs Dartmouth Street Palo Alto
Environmental education

Editor,

What a pleasure it was to read about the exciting project underway at Ohlone Elementary School ("Seeds of Learning," Jan. 21).

Through our own contacts with Ohlone School, we have witnessed first-hand the creativity and educational excellence the school brings to its students. Particularly impressive is the sense of community fostered by the school and the value of caring about the world around us.

Ohlone Elementary School students are uniquely fortunate to have a working farm on site, as well as a Farm Council made up of volunteers who help teach the interconnections between humankind and the natural world.

We are thrilled to support Ohlone School through our program that assists teachers in incorporating environmental education into their state curriculum. We have seen the enthusiastic dedication of this school's administration, teachers and parents.

We commend them for making education a living experience within the classroom walls as well as outdoors. Allan Berkowitz Executive Director, Environmental Volunteers Bayshore Road Palo Alto
Drastic 'calming' steps

We write to express our concern about the drastic traffic-calming measures in Downtown North and to urge members of the City Council to select appropriate and representative decision-making methods that represent all constituents, not simply those of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association.

We live on Kipling Street, across from Johnson Park, between Everett and Hawthorne. We chose to make our home and raise our family here because it is a peaceful, safe neighborhood where children can play freely. Sadly, this is no longer the case. On our block of Kipling, the traffic (since the barriers) has risen 138 percent, or approximately 800 additional cars each day. No statistics on increased levels of speed have been produced.

We can attest that angry, frustrated drivers now race around the park. The Planning Commission chose not to publicize these statistics in its recent report to all residents. The report alluded to increased traffic on secondary streets but did not state the affected streets or quantify the increases.

Is routing an additional 800 drivers around Johnson Park at a significantly higher rate of speed a sensible alternative ...?

We hope the council will see beyond the desires of one neighborhood and make sensible choices that set reasonable traffic-calming precedents for the entire community. It is undemocratic for a small, self-appointed group to impose unwelcome change upon an entire neighborhood, even moreso when that change -- sold to the neighborhood as a trial -- becomes, effectively, law without community endorsement and without recourse for modification.

The traffic-calming measures implemented in Downtown North have divided our community, jeopardized our right to fair representation and due process, compromised the safety of our families and set an alarming precedent for long-term (community-wide) planning.

The proposed measures (neighborhood surveys) that promised equal, fair representation have been canceled. We ask the council to reinstate the neighborhood survey in order to gather complete information and to put the traffic-calming measures to a citywide vote, given the implications for future planning. Jennifer Huber, Francois Laugier Kipling Street
Restore barrier survey

I became involved in the Unblock movement shortly after I found myself standing in the middle of Emerson with a handmade sign that read "Slow Down." Needless to say my efforts were futile and resulted mostly in some unflattering hand gestures from passing motorists.

Since that day I have watched Emerson Street become a fast moving, angry artery for frustrated commuters and residents as well. Huge construction vehicles, pickup trucks, delivery trucks, FedEx trucks, airport shuttles, SUVs all vie for space on the narrow road that also houses parked cars on both sides of the street.

My concern, however, is not traffic. The walk down Palo Alto Avenue now feels like walking in a park. Mine and several other cross streets sometimes feel like strolling down Embarcadero Road.

Mostly I feel like I had no real voice in the decision and that I have no real voice in it now. I've written letters; I've posted signs (some of which were torn down in front of me); I've spoken. I was eager for the follow-up survey.

I walked the neighborhood to poll our neighbors. We had petitions thrown at our feet and we were accused of being "vigilantes." However, to my amazement more than 650 citizens were willing to sign a petition asking the city to reconsider the blocking of the streets.

So I wasn't alone in my frustration and feelings of powerlessness. I can live with traffic -- as long as it doesn't drown out my voice and my right to be heard. Jane Stern Emerson Street Palo Alto
Show me the money

Editor,

Never have I seen such biased reporting as Bill D'Agostino presents in the cover story, "Passing the Buck" (Weekly, Jan. 21). Implied throughout is that state money exists and is being withheld from these social services.

The money is not there. To obtain it the state would have to take it from other programs such as education and highways or increase the state income, sales, property and corporate taxes.

These taxes are already much higher than those in many other states. They are pulling down the economy and causing the loss of thousands of jobs. Combined federal and state taxes approach or exceed 50 percent of the incomes of many Californians.

How about some sob stories on senior citizens forced to give up their homes because they cannot pay the property taxes? Or business owners who forego their own paychecks to meet payroll? They must also pay state payroll taxes and workman's compensation insurance and the $800 minimum corporation tax that is levied even on businesses that are losing money.

Document the plight of the unemployed who would have jobs if the state would stop taxing and regulating businesses to death. Many of these people have elderly parents and children with special needs just like those in your cover story.

If the people in your story had been able to send less of their own money to Sacramento and Washington they might not be so dependent on social services.

Furthermore, they would have had 100 percent of each dollar to spend on their needs, rather than having a big chunk of the money go into tax collection and distribution expenses. Jacky Hood Fife Avenue Palo Alto
Public art is pointless

Editor,

As concrete and steel satisfy the greed of corporate and civic elites, rich and fertile land is turned into dreary cityscape. Cemented earth repels the rain, suffocating heat demands more and more air conditioning, and dirty air fails to sustain us. Of course developers should be required to modulate their projects and surround them with something that cools and encourages us. But challenging and controversial public art -- apparently "ours to love, hate, ruminate over, curse or ignore" -- is pointless (Guest Opinion, Nov. 4, 2003).

Why replace living trees with concrete trees? Why not simply replace trees with trees? Or allow grass to grow freely? We need more relaxed, local open spaces with lots of trees and grass. Places where kids can kick a soccer ball around, or people can pass a lazy afternoon picnicking in the shade.

Oh, and by the way, my first choice for removal of hideous public art is that ghastly stomach-faced skipping doll on California Avenue. Go Away Mama! Margaret Allen Cornell Street Palo Alto
Great 'Born Yesterday'

I just read Ben Marks' critique of Garson Kanin's "Born Yesterday" performed by Palo Alto Players (Weekly, Jan. . We're not talking Broadway here!!

If I had read the review before seeing the play I wouldn't have bothered to attend, but I didn't, and we did see the play -- which was well-performed; it was funny, it moved, and although somewhat dated it was very thought-provoking, and so timely.

Since when does honesty in government age poorly? Further, getting paid was obviously not Paul Verrall's motivation -- one of his lines in the play was that he would have taken the job of educating Billie for nothing!

This was most enjoyable, one of Players' better performances. It's a "don't miss" for a fun, lighthearted evening! Barbara Cleveland Kipling Street Palo Alto

A community that cares?

I am writing to tell Francie Allen, recently moved to the Palo Alto area (ReaderWire, Jan. 23) and to remind those of us who have been here longer that Palo Alto IS a community that cares.

Four or five years ago many residents became concerned about homelessness in Palo Alto. They worked together through Peninsula Interfaith Action to call attention of community leaders and the City Council to work toward meeting this need.

The result is the Community Working Group's plan for the establishment of the Opportunity Center. The group is currently working on a capital campaign to fund the Center. Contributions are gratefully appreciated and should be sent to Community Working Group, 555 Bryant Street, PMB #321, Palo Alto, CA 94301. (More information is available at their Web site: www.opportunitycenter.org.)

The unfortunate thing in my friend Willie Branch's case is that the Opportunity Center is still on the drawing boards and not yet a reality. Willie's need is exactly what the Opportunity Center is designed to fill. Norma Grench South Court Palo Alto
A view on 'Light'

Editor,

I have a few comments on Board of Contributor Jeff Blum's opinion piece entitled "Shining the light on Christian conservatives" (Jan. 14).

First of all, Terri Schiavo is not in a "vegetative state." She is brain-damaged; there is a difference. Florida law defines "persistent vegetative state" as "a permanent and irreversible state of unconsciousness in which there is an absence of voluntary or cognitive behavior of any kind and an inability to interact purposefully with one's environment."

In a now-famous video (that the Florida legislature viewed before enacting "Terri's Law") she is seen responding when her mother enters her room. Her eyes light up, she attempts to sit up in bed and she tries to say "Mom."

In any case, Mr. Blum is disturbed by the fact that, in this instance, "Christian conservatives" succeeded in convincing a state executive and legislature to overrule the judiciary and reverse a court order to, in effect, starve Terri to death.

Blum is concerned that if this catches on, elected representatives, not un-elected judges, may actually be the ones making law on social issues. Mr. Blum thinks it's good that judges decide social issues "because judges often nudge a reluctant society in the right direction."

Well, what the "right direction" is depends on your point of view. As long as liberal judges dominate the bench, I would expect this to be Mr. Blum's opinion. I wonder if he would continue to hold this opinion if and when socially conservative judges come to be in the majority.

By the way, would the Weekly ever publish an opinion piece with the title "Shining the light on Jewish liberals" that repeatedly and critically referred to "Jewish liberals" as a group? I doubt it. Anthony E. Wynne McKendry Drive Menlo Park
'Corridor' claims

Editor,

The proposal for changes to the streets in the Charleston-Arastradero "corridor" that was presented formally to the Palo Alto City Council on Jan. 20 is an $8 million mish-mash of several disjointed parts: street beautification, convenience turning lanes (right or left), safety measures, computer-controlled traffic lights, crosswalks and bicycle lanes, as well as the main feature, which is narrowing these main streets.

Some of the public comments favored the plan for safety reasons because it would slow traffic, but the proposal itself makes the remarkable (and to me, incredible) claim that traffic on these narrowed streets would flow just as fast. If the real goal is to slow traffic, then they should say so.

I live in this area and use these streets often. They are wide, main arteries serving cars in very important ways -- hence the term "corridor." The cars do exceed the 25-mph speed limit (which sensibly is rarely enforced), but the street width makes these higher speeds safe. There are almost no pedestrians and there are (lightly used) bicycle lanes.

School-area safety is always a major concern for all and should be dealt with in other ways than choking this corridor. That problem is localized and very time-limited. Constricting the streets is too undiscriminating a measure, and I believe it would congest traffic.

All together, this proposal is a fashionable solution in search of a problem. David Redfield Villa Vera Palo Alto
Colin Powell's admission

Editor,

Now that more than 500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and thousands more have been wounded in Iraq, Colin Powell admits the obvious: The U.S. invaded Iraq with little if any idea what Saddam Hussein had in the way of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Powell now tells reporters that Hussein's possession of WMDs is an "open question."

This certainly a stark contrast to his grim presentation of "facts" in front of the U.N. on February 5th, 2003. After claiming that, by "a conservative estimate," Hussein had a stockpile of between one-hundred and five-hundred tons of chemical weapons agents, Powell said the following: "These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Stating something as an indisputable "fact" when you really have no idea is not far from outright lying as far as I am concerned.

But now since no WMDs have been uncovered, the war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people, right? Not according to Powell, who told Tim Russert the following on "Meet the Press" on October 20th, 2002: "All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction."

We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime, but the principal offense here are weapons of mass destruction, and that's what this resolution is working on."

Sure, it is good that Saddam Hussein is out of power, but the Bush administration sold the war on the basis that Iraq was a direct threat to the American people. Going to war is the most serious course of action a president can take, and an administration that twists the "facts' to suit its own agenda does not deserve the trust of the American people. Bill Burman Byron Street Palo Alto

E-mail a friend a link to this story.