Letters to the Editor

Where there's smoke

Editor,

Your article, "Keeping the home fires burning" (Weekly, Feb. 4) unfortunately perpetuates the illusion that EPA-approved stoves are environmentally friendly. Filtered cigarettes produce less tar, nicotine, etc.--so does that make it OK to smoke them and to subject others to their secondhand smoke?

The EPA has taken on the interesting position of promoting wood stoves, and now articles such as yours lull residents into believing that they are doing good by producing more of the No. 1 source of particulate pollution from October to April--residential wood stoves and fireplaces. A health official with the California Air Resources Board states that particulates are truly the worst form of air pollution since they are the only known pollutants that are statistically proven to correlate with higher death rates.

Given the high percentage contribution of wood smoke to pollution, and the fact that we know people are dying from this form of pollution, it is discouraging to hear you, your writer and your sole source (Mr. Opalinsky, who has a vested interest in selling wood stoves) present the side of the story that makes our consciences feel good as we destroy our and our children's health.

A partridge in a pear tree

Editor,

I invite the public to come to the intersection of Pope and Woodland. What used to be a gracious entry into the Willows neighborhood is now a dangerous, confusing and unsightly intersection. Let me tell you what you will see at the intersection and within a radius of 100 feet of the intersection:

One concrete circle, two concrete lines cutting off what had previously been a right turn which allowed traffic to flow smoothly from the bridge to Woodland, two large red diamond reflector signs, six "No Parking Here to Corner" signs, two "Neighborhood Street" signs, two "Neighborhood Watch" signs, two stop signs, one "Speed Limit 25" sign, one sawhorse, four signs with instructions on how to get around circle, four signs with more instructions on how to get around circle, one "Keep Right" sign, several dozen orange reflectors embedded in the pavement and scribbles of paint on the pavement.

The only thing missing at the intersection is a partridge in a pear tree. Luckily the Willows Traffic Committee is unlikely to add this feature since they recently had shrubbery cut down at the intersection. I assume the shrubbery was removed because of the committee is "committed to enhancing the beauty and appeal of the Willows." The intersection now has all the allure of a freeway interchange.

This mess has been brought to the neighborhood by the Willows Traffic Committee. I ask the Menlo Park City Council to come to its senses and cease this needless traffic experimentation in the Willows. I urge it to use public funds in a more responsible manner.

Barriers to neighborliness

Editor,

I would add my comments to those of Jeanne Heise (Letters, Feb. 18) on the traffic barriers that have been installed in various parts of Menlo Park. As a recent resident of the Fair Oaks neighborhood, I am quite unnerved by my experiences of these barriers. Setting aside the arguments that these barriers are 1) a traffic hazard, 2) do not slow anyone down, and 3) look very ugly, I would like to bring up the affect these barriers have had on the attitudes of the residents in this neighborhood.

While driving through San Benito to Fair Oaks, I have been the target of shouted obscenities, arm wavings and had my car blocked. Last week I was spat at by one man who apparently considers himself responsible for making sure all vehicles on San Benito travel at less than 5 mph. When I later confronted this man and asked him why he had spat at me, his first question was if I lived in the neighborhood. I guess it is hard for him to believe that anyone non-white could have the audacity or the means to live in an affluent, white community. My husband (who is white) has seen this man on San Benito but has never had the same experiences as I have.

The San Mateo County sheriff's outreach office on Eighth Street says it has had complaints about drivers being harassed on Fair Oaks by other people. (They would like to hear from people who have been harassed, preferably as soon as the driver sights one of these people on the street.) I hope the authorities who have planted these barriers were not aiming for this sort of an effect in the community.

Time to cooperate

Editor,

Ninety-eight decibels, allowed by the city of Mountain View, should not license Shoreline Amphitheatre to continue the destruction of the peace and quiet of its neighboring homes in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Sunnyvale (Weekly, Feb. 18). Contrary to public statements made this winter by Danny Scher, vice president of Bill Graham Presents, the amplification level was turned up considerably in 1993!

Unfortunately, the decibels at the rim of Shoreline Amphitheatre are not the whole story. The real problem is the amplified noise that impact our homes. This noise pollution of our air calls for responsible action by BGP to turn the sound down, just as the environmental protection agency asks us to limit driving and lighting wood in our fireplaces when our air quality is impacted. We should expect a considerate response from Bill Graham Presents, managers of Shoreline Amphitheatre, when there is a problem. Furthermore, it is time for Mountain View and its City Council to accept their responsibility in this matter and to cooperate in an effort to solve this problem.

There is no proof that lowered sound levels will effect performances or audience response at Shoreline Amphitheatre. Within the city limits of Mountain View, the City Council demands response to amplified noise with an order to turn it down. It is time for some trial tests of this same enforcement of noise impacting neighboring cities during this coming season at Shoreline Amphitheatre.

Back up to the Table of Contents Page