Publication Date: Friday, October 28, 2005
ReaderWire
ReaderWire
(October 28, 2005)
Off the ban wagon
Thank you for the article about Foothills Park by Mr. D'Agostino (Weekly, Oct. 21). I hope that the Weekly will come out with an editorial supporting a lift of the ban.
Despite the City Council's recent decision (Weekly, Oct. 26), I strongly support lifting the ban and allowing non-residents to enjoy Foothills Park. How terrible it would be if we and other non-residents could not enjoy Golden Gate Park. We should be generous, as are other cities.
I have been deeply disturbed by our elitist, discriminating position. It is in violation of my commitment to be inclusive and open to all. This has bothered me about Palo Alto ever since I learned of this ban when we moved here in 1979. Palo Alto has so many fine qualities and this is an opportunity to remove this dark blot on our policies.
I give great thanks that this issue has been raised and there are strong voices favoring lifting this ban.
I realize that many oppose lifting this ban for a variety of reasons. If a decision cannot be reached to completely lift the ban, I propose making the park open to all on one or more days each week or each month.
Arlene Schaupp
Greer Road, Palo Alto
East wants in
In regard to the recurring question about opening Foothills Park to others, it seems like there is an obvious answer.
The city could make a unilateral decision to also include the residents of the City of East Palo Alto. The rationale for this is that East Palo Alto (because it didn't exist as a city) never made a decision to not participate in the purchase of the park, unlike Palo Alto's other surrounding neighbor cities.
Geoff Thompson
Paseo Court, Mountain View
All about earth
It's evident that if we lose the earth there will not be any issues to decide.
So in all elections we should vote for the candidates who suggest feasible ways to preserve the earth, and have the conviction and the means to implement their promises.
Christiane Cook
Emerson Street, Palo Alto
Rickey's reality
I am dismayed to hear all of the City Council candidates who emphasize the budget falsely state the circumstances of the closing of the Hyatt Rickey's hotel and its impacts.
The hotel closed because there was a glut of hotel rooms in the area because changes in travel patterns after Sept. 11, 2001, have persisted. This was openly stated by Hyatt.
Managers of other hotels have openly talked about similar problems and at least one is worried that he too may have to close. Yet, all of these candidates have instead (falsely) attributed the hotel's closing to "The Palo Alto Process," subscribing to the "spin" that the developer tried to use to build an associated housing project much larger than allowed.
They have also incorrectly stated that Palo Alto is losing $1 million in revenue (hotel-room tax) from this closing. First, because there is so much spare capacity, Rickey's customers can simply patronize other local hotels.
Second, the glut not only depressed occupancy rates, but also prices, and to such an extent that one hotel manager stated that she was rejecting customers seeking bargains because she lost less money leaving rooms empty.
Consequently, Palo Alto may actually see an increase in revenue: Reducing over-supply traditionally produces an increase in prices, and the tax is a percentage of those room rates.
This is basic economics and an analysis that you hear repeatedly when you talk to hotel managers. So why do the candidates and current council members persist in getting it so wrong?
Douglas B. Moran
Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
