Publication Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Letters
Letters
(December 14, 2005)
Local alert
Editor,
The Weekly’s excellent editorial (Dec. 7) calls for increased local government preparedness but overlooks the far more important role of businesses, schools, neighborhood groups and individuals and their families.
As Katrina has shown us, all levels of government have been so depleted of excess capacity and so bound up in bureaucratic procedures that we cannot reasonably expect government to be the answer when it comes to any widespread disaster. Just as all politics are ultimately local, so are all disasters. And the preparation and response for disasters is also ultimately a local and an individual responsibility.
If we as a community of citizens want to be well-prepared for a big earthquake or a massive flu pandemic, then those preparations must begin at home. Each family, business and school needs to have disaster-preparedness training and an extensive supply of emergency equipment including medical supplies, food, water and sanitary facilities.
Before Katrina, the concept was to be self-sufficient for 72 hours. After Katrina we should all realize than in the event of a widespread disaster we will be on our own for weeks, if not months. If the entire country is hit by a flu pandemic there will be no Federal or State assistance to individual communities and all of our local health-care facilities will be totally overwhelmed.
If we have a big earthquake we will be without water for at least 60 days and outside assistance will flow first to the larger-population cities such as San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.
Yes, government at all levels should be better prepared, but the biggest failure and the biggest opportunity in disaster preparedness is at the level of the individual citizens and their families.
Peter Carpenter
Larch Drive
Atherton
A time to smile
Editor,
As follow-up to a terrific article in the Weekly some months ago, I wanted to let readers know that the unhoused ex-Marine whom Don Kazak wrote about will be getting his two front (and other) teeth -- if not quite in time for Christmas, then shortly thereafter -- thanks to a lovely Menlo Park dentist, Dr. ChauLong Nguyen.
For the first time since I've known him he has been talking about when, not if, he gets back to work, and smiling. She (Nguyen) is truly a local hero.
For other clients, dental has continued to be an unfillable need. One woman, who is now a Catholic Charities Navigator program client, spent several expensive, taxpayer-paid days in Stanford Hospital's emergency room due to a life-threatening jaw infection that could have been prevented if appropriate dental treatment had been available in this county (non-residents, including unhoused non-residents, are not allowed to make use of dental vans in other counties).
Despite work on the terrific Downtown StreetsTeam, the Palo Alto's Seasonal Workers program, other part-time jobs and in a couple of cases even VA status, several clients still haven't been able to get the dental help they sorely need.
Or the regular employment.
Is there anyone who can tell me that having noticeably missing teeth or bad breath isn't going to reduce one's employment chances?
In San Diego local dentists and labs started a non-profit program called HomelessnotToothless to address the needs of those who are trying to get back to work. I'd be glad to help coordinate such an effort here.
Any more local dentist heroes out there?
Chana Pederson
Alma Street
Palo Alto
Film fan
Editor,
I hope Palo Alto school officials read letters to the editor -- there have been many protesting the closure of the Spangenberg movie program.
In the 1960s I was pleased when I heard that Gunn High School would have a large theater that could serve as a community meeting room. I attended meetings and events at Spangenberg -- and found the place dismal.
Dim lights and concrete floors made the entrance hall unfriendly and dangerous. Then several years ago, I heard the place would have movie days.
All of a sudden there were old-fashioned, efficient lights, a rug, movie posters on the drab walls, and a concession with popcorn and freshly brewed coffee. I started attending the movie programs and saw movies that were striking ("Postman in China," for example).
The quality of the sound and image was excellent. I also noticed a sort of camaraderie among the habitues and wished the manager would put bistro-style tables and chairs in the hall.
A lady told me once that she would not leave her room if she didn't know that at Spangenberg she would meet other habitues and be immersed in the friendly atmosphere of the place.
So I expected the film program to become more homey and couldn't believe it would have to stop. There is no reason why Spangenberg cannot be both a school facility and a community theater. It is a rational use of space and a source of revenue for the school.
Christiane Cook
Emerson Street
Palo Alto
The trouble with trails
Editor,
Recently Bob Rosenzweig, a former vice-president at Stanford, characterized the disagreement over Stanford trails as a simple matter of keeping promises: “When a government body makes a deal, it ought to keep that deal.”
The “deal” to which Rosenzweig refers includes a critical meeting in December 2002, at which the Santa Clara supervisors caved-in to the bully-boys from Stanford. At that meeting the supervisors discreetly voted to remove from further study the two trails recommended by their county parks and recreation staff.
The trails left for consideration were inferior roadside pathways that do not even begin to approach the good and safe connectivity to the Arastradero Preserve that is implicit in Stanford’s General Use Permit.
So much for mitigation of Stanford’s massive development.
The process leading to the supervisors’ vote started with intimidation described by the Palo Alto Weekly (Sept. 18, 2002) as a "full-court press" by Stanford management. The Weekly noted that "no one can recall any precedent for such high-level lobbying behind closed doors." That was followed by a barrage of litigation threats from Stanford management’s army of lawyers.
Because there was minimal notice related to this vote, it took place, with no debate, in an eerily deserted auditorium -- a marked contrast with the previous crowded meetings on the issue.
Overriding the concerns of the Palo Alto and Stanford communities in this way has very serious implications for the longer term, particularly when we have Stanford management whose values appear to mirror closely the current corporate ethic.
Walter Sedriks
Waverley Street
Palo Alto
Document disagreement
Editor,
I disagree with a recent document saying the failure to select Bernie Valencia (then “Nevin”) as mayor in 1997 was a violation of Menlo Park’s mayoral selection policy.
The anonymous-looking document was prepared by the city clerk at the request of a council member, apparently based on the clerk’s interpretation of the policy with no historical context. The current city clerk was not present when Valencia was passed over, or in 1993 when the policy was passed.
Menlo Park’s mayoral selection policy has five sentences. The first four are clear; the fifth is ambiguous. Though the fifth line doesn’t say so directly, it could imply that “seniority” should be used to prioritize among those members eligible to be mayor. That interpretation was used by the clerk to create the erroneous document.
In 1997, Chuck Kinney and I spoke separately with city attorney Bill McClure to clarify this. McClure was present when the policy was enacted. We both remember being told that the policy did not prioritize seniority, the opposite of what the clerk assumed. Hence, we were both eligible to be mayor along with Valencia. Selecting Kinney was consistent with the policy.
I don’t mean to criticize the clerk, or to say I like the policy, or to imply that the city attorney has the power to resolve ambiguous policies. Policy is discretionary and council members can disregard it. I’m simply saying that Kinney and I acted responsibly to clarify the policy and followed the policy in good faith as we understood it, even when it was difficult to do so.
Mayoral selections in 2002 and 2005 didn’t follow the policy. It’s a simple fact. The flawed document shows the influence of a council that cannot acknowledge inconvenient facts on a staff that seems reluctant to document them.
Paul Collacchi, Former council member
Lake Court
Redwood City
Council stronghold
Editor,
As Nancy Barnby points out in her Readerwire letter (Dec. 9), the Menlo Park City Council is run by a block of three people: Mickie Winkler, Lee Duboc and Nicholas Jellins. The other two councilmembers, Andrew Cohen and Kelly Fergusson, are blocked and sidelined.
Why do we allow three people to run the city? Is there a solution?
We have five elected people on the council, but take a look at the council chambers and you will see there are seven chairs for the council and seven spots on the electronic voting board.
Perhaps it is time to have seven people on our council? Perhaps citizens need to put an initiative expanding the council to seven members on the June ballot?
John Beverley Butcher
Hedge Road
Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
