ReaderWire ReaderWire (February 27, 2004)

Responding to critiques

In his remarks (Weekly, Feb. 11) on my Guest Opinion about the traffic-diversion barriers in Downtown North, John Guislin has either misunderstood what I was saying, or taking my comments out of context has chosen to misrepresent them.

My point about congestion on the arterials was that it relates primarily to regional traffic management. Allowing commuter traffic to cut-through unimpeded on Everett and Hawthorne avenues will provide some short-term relief for Lytton Avenue, but with ever-increasing commuter traffic it won't be long before those local streets become jammed-up to their (quite limited) capacity.

Then all we have succeeded in doing is jamming up both the neighborhood and the arterials. Traffic relief on the arterials over the longer term requires regional planning such as putting light rail over the old Dumbarton Bridge, and prevention of excessive development. Making those points is neither callous nor elitist.

There is also a disconnect between Mr. Guislin's implication of large traffic increases on the arterials and the data from the city's survey. In traffic counts carried out before and after the diversion barriers were put in place (February/March 2003 and September/October 2003) traffic on the most impacted block of Middlefield Road (Mr. Guslin's street), went up by less than 5 percent; on Alma Street it actually dropped by about a third.

In the other discourse on my Guest Opinion, Nancy Adler builds her arguments on false premises: She conveniently misquotes me by dropping the word "Stanford" from my observation regarding the primary cause of our traffic problems -- namely, that Downtown North streets provide the most convenient connection from 101 to Stanford and I-280 via the Sand Hill Road and Willow Road/University Avenue corridors.

Come to think of it, I should have originally added emphasis to the Stanford factor and noted that the problem is compounded by traffic streaming over the new Dumbarton Bridge to and from Stanford and beyond, along the same corridor. Ms. Adler says look at a map -- indeed, please do. Walter Sedriks Waverley Street, Palo Alto
Counting the votes

Today I received a letter from someone opposed to Downtown North traffic calming that claimed that only 16 percent of residents approved of the traffic-calming measures.

This is a misleading statistic.

Using the same method of calculation used to generate the 16 percent figure, one finds that George W. Bush, our current president, received only 24 percent of the popular vote (Al Gore got 24 percent as well). What's the key to this? Of course, it's voter turnout.

In the 2000 general election, only 50.4 percent of the U.S. voting-age population actually voted. In the Downtown North traffic-calming survey, most of those who received the survey did not vote. Of those who did vote, the majority voted for the traffic-calming trial.

So there's nothing anti-democratic going on here -- it's just that votes count and people need to vote if they want to have their say when decisions are being made. Jan Leeman Waverley Street, Palo Alto
Non-partisan clarity

Because I know that in election campaigns mistakes can happen, I want to make sure that it is understood that officers of the League of Women Voters do not endorse or publicly support candidates or parties.

I have not endorsed any candidates while president of the Palo Alto League. Non-partisanship is a core principle of the League and I firmly support that principle. While my name appears on a list of the supporters of Joe Simitian's candidacy in the State Senate race, I did not agree to the use of my name.

I have requested that my name not be used and that it be removed from the campaign Web site. Sandy Eakins President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto
Foie gras faux pas

How nice to read of food critic Dale F. Bentson's delirious enjoyment of foie gras at a local bistro (Eating Out, Feb. 20). As he was voluntarily stuffing himself on ducks' livers, far-from-sight ducks were forcibly stuffed via extremely inhumane means to produce this dubious delicacy.

Is our society really so depraved to place a brief culinary frisson above the needless torture of hapless animals? Stephanie Ferneyhough Allardice Way, Stanford

E-mail a friend a link to this story.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]