Publication Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Letters
Letters
(February 02, 2005)
Palo Alto 'mission'?
Editor,
I want to publicly thank Assistant City Manger Emily Harrison for taking time to listen and for responding positively to my idea of incorporating two items expressed by citizens at Saturday's City Council retreat.
I suggested that the two items -- public safety plus respect for individuals -- be incorporated into the city's Mission Statement rather than try to shoehorn them into the Top Five Priorities.
Ms. Harrison seemed to agree with the idea almost immediately, and even looked up the current mission statement -- available on the second page of the recently printed 2005 budget documents. It reads as follows:
"The government of the City of Palo Alto exits to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with the community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner."
This statement is a little dull for my liking and does not express what Palo Alto is all about. I think it could be improved considerably by adding more of a "people" emphasis. Below the statement, there are four values: quality, courtesy, efficiency and integrity. But even those focus on the Palo Alto government, not on the community and its people at large.
I think with some work by the staff and maybe a citywide contest or other form of input from citizens we could come up with a better statement of what Palo Alto is in this new century. Most companies and other organizations are successful today not by focusing inward on themselves but with an outward view on the customers/members/residents.
Once a new mission statement is adopted by the council, I think it would be a good idea to display it over the dais for all to see during council meetings and other public hearings. I recently attended a school board meeting in Los Altos, where such a public display of its mission was present, and it was comforting to see it there for the two to three hours of the meeting.
Tom Ashton
Bryant Street
Palo Alto
Pas-de-deux
Editor,
For several weeks I've watched a pas-de-deux, between one letter writer correctly upset about a truck plastered with obscene comments (Weekly, Jan. 19), and a Mr. James on Los Robles, making absurd and entirely unsubstantiated rants about the Palo Alto police being racist and the need to fire the chief (Weekly, Jan. 26).
Having seen the truck on Los Robles it was easy to connect the dots. Now Mr. James has outed himself, claiming his First Amendment right to post anything on his truck and entirely missing the point that although civil society tolerates such behavior it shows such a lack of respect for others that most people would see the message as reflecting directly back on its sender, Mr. James.
I had wondered -- could Mr. James perhaps be an agent provocateur , a right-wing nut aiming to heap scorn on the other side by such distasteful antics? No, Mr. James isn't that subtle.
His over-the-top, anti-police diatribes are consistent with his general disrespect for others, and, in particular, his loathing of the polite and effective police work we are fortunate to have in Palo Alto.
What set Mr. James off most recently was an outstanding police action about a month ago. They had nabbed two theives who had apparently been responsible for a string of home burglaries near Gunn, with the loot still in their pockets.
For Mr. James, the fact that the criminals are black is sufficient to prove police racism. For the rest of us, not blinded by racial filters, Mr. James has again succeeded only in calibrating himself.
Dan Bloomberg
Paradise Way
Palo Alto
Sophia sadness
Editor,
I was glad to read your editorial, "Are local businesses being 'chained out'?" (Weekly, Jan. 26). It is sad for many of us who have enjoyed Cafe Sophia and Sophia Omar's presence these 14 years to have to say goodbye.
It also feels wrong to me that when a local business has built up an appreciative clientele over these years, the next coffee shop will immediately reap the benefits of Sophia's efforts. Sophia, on the other hand, has to start over, possibly in an environment that already has several coffee shops and eateries. And some of us may be torn between going to the conveniently located new shop and traveling further to go to Sophia's new location.
Is there a way that neighborhoods can have some control over the businesses that stay and those that replace the departing ones? Can a neighborhood or the city exert any influence on commercial property owners, such as the owner of the Charleston Center property where Sophia's Cafˇ is located? Is there any precedent for this in other communities?
If so, let's find out about it and see what we can learn so that our neighborhoods will support the businesses that we want to have and work collaboratively with commercial property owners in the interest of all concerned.
Elisabeth Seaman
Nelson Drive
Palo Alto
Diversion vs. recycling
Editor,
Walt Hays is unduly optimistic about the benefits of the garbage/recycling processing plant (ESC) proposed on dedicated parkland and has misleadingly used the terms "diversion" and "recycling" interchangeably.
To the public, recycling means bottles, cans, etc. We currently have a half-acre drop-off center that may continue under the Baylands Master Plan. Citizen drop-off accounts for eight percent of materials brought there. The remaining 92 percent is picked up curbside.
Diversion is a legal term. Under state law cities must "divert" more than 50 percent of its solid waste from landfilling. Every city has an official "Waste Generation Number" from which this diversion is calculated. In reality, only the amount landfilled is actually measured.
The diversion that currently occurs annually in our baylands park site is 34,000 tons, including 14,000 tons of recycling, 4,000 tons of inerts and 16,000 tons of compost. That is only 35 percent of the 95,169 total tons of diversion.
The rest occurs elsewhere, including about 10,000 tons removed from our household garbage at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale.
Mr. Hays incorrectly suggests that the environment will be improved by increased ESC landscaping. The plans indicate removal of approximately two acres of established landscaping currently shielding the Water Quality Control Plant. Proposed access from Embarcadero Way would remove even more.
We'll be lucky to break even on landscaping based on plans to date.
Finally, the $100,000/acre for rent of parkland is a valid cost in comparing refuse alternatives, even if it comes to the General Fund. Years ago Supervisor Liz Kniss said it best in her election flyer: "We can't balance our budget .... at the expense of our environment."
Emily M. Renzel
Coordinator, Baylands Conservation Committee
Forest Avenue
Palo Alto
All about BART
Editor,
Regarding the Palo Alto Weekly story of Jan. 28 ("BART letter"), the Board of Directors of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG) was deeply troubled by the fact that the story makes it appear that SVMG's president and CEO is on a one-man mission when, in fact, he is following the long-standing BART policy position, just unanimously reaffirmed last month, of a 200-company-strong organization whose members employee more than 250,000 workers --one of every four jobs -- in Silicon Valley.
Let me make it perfectly clear that the board of directors and members of SVMG are deeply concerned about the actions of a handful of local elected officials whose anti-BART actions do not reflect the majority opinion of their own constituents, let alone the 378,000 voters and taxpayers who approved Measure A in 2000 -- the measure that the media, proponents, and opponents, dubbed "the BART tax."
As a Los Altos resident and Silicon Valley employer, I recognize the tremendous value that BART will provide our region, not the least of which is the 83,600 trips per day BART will provide by 2025. Today, increasing numbers of workers are traveling from the East Bay and the Central Valley to jobs in Silicon Valley.
Transportation experts say that an increasing number of Santa Clara County residents will be commuting to jobs in the East Bay. That will only increase the value of the BART extension to county residents for decades to come.
Bill Coleman
Board Chair, SVMG
Alta Vista Avenue
Los Altos
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
