Letters to the Editor

Fine article

Editor,

Congratulations on your splendid cover story, "Employing hope" (Weekly, Nov. 20). Peter Gauvin's well-researched article and Eva Soos' affecting photographs will surely dispel some misconceptions about poverty and homelessness.

Profound thanks are due to Human Services Administrator David Martin and City Manager June Fleming for carefully planning the jobs program and to City Council for funding it.

In August, the Homelessness Task Force stated its belief that "The true worth of a community shows in the care it gives its most vulnerable, at-risk members." Your fine article reflects some of that care. May it further Palo Alto's continuing efforts to set an example for the nation by its enlightened approaches to complex societal problems.

Yet to unfold

Editor,

Concerning Joan Chambers' remarks on the California Avenue Gateway public art project (Weekly, Dec. 6): the reader has commented on a work of art that has just begun to unfold. Yet to come are the exquisite art banners, the stenciled sidewalk, as well as 100 bricks inscribed with the thoughts about California written by local residents. Moreover, the new landscaping of native California flora will bloom, and be resplendent.

Next April all of Palo Alto will see the completed flowering of public art on California Avenue. A first ever art partnership between the city of Palo Alto and local businesses will produce the aforementioned gateway redesign by artist Susan Leibowitz-Steinman, plus a major work of sculpture by Wang Po Shu.

Community participation, a hallmark of public art, has exceeded expectations. Twenty-one neighborhood businesses contributed to the art endeavor. More than 500 entries were submitted to the three-line brick inscription competition. The works were selected by a panel consisting of six members each of the California Avenue Area Development Association and the Palo Alto Public Art Commission.

While Ms. Chambers may not appreciate the first phase of the Gateway project, one hopes she will reserve final judgment until the entire work is done.

Timing of permits

Editor,

I wish to correct a statement made in the Palo Alto Weekly's Dec. 11 editorial "Pressing the parking balloon." The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce does not oppose "any residential permit system." Our board of directors has never taken this position. Our position has been--which is consistent with the Weekly's editorial--that creating a residential parking permit system at this time, given the severe lack of parking available to downtown employees and others, would be disastrous. There are simply not enough parking spaces to go around.

The Chamber's parking committee, which includes representatives from downtown businesses, the University Park South Neighborhoods Group and city staff, has been working diligently for nearly five years to improve the parking situation in downtown. We are responsible for a number of creative approaches to solving parking problems, some with success (like color zone parking, 30-minute spaces and the first-ever comprehensive, downtown parking brochure) and others that are still being evaluated, such as attendant parking. Because our approach has been collaborative and creative, we will continue to advocate changes that do not worsen the situation but rather improves parking for everyone.

Creating a residential parking permit system may be possible in several years, when the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is no longer in downtown and when new parking structures are built. At that time, it is quite possible that the Chamber could support a residential permit system as long as the consequences of the system's creation are more positive than negative.

Whatever's allowed

Editor,

Regarding the construction at 821 Hamilton (Weekly, Dec. 11): Neighbors are not so much concerned about the size of this house as we are about the disregard of prevailing neighborhood setbacks. In a neighborhood with front setbacks that average 30 feet or more, this setback is 20 feet. Why? Because they can. Also, since fireplaces can extend into the six-foot side yard setback, they do. The fact that this interferes with the neighbor's trees is not a factor to the developer. The daylight plane can be encroached by 15 feet, so of course, it is. The house abuts the driveway with no planting strip, since that is not a requirement. The house to be built next to it at 827 Hamilton will also abut the same driveway. This is allowable, creating a lovely tunnel effect for the people living in the flag lot who also use this driveway. The second floor of the house at 827 Hamilton will have two bay windows, French doors with a balcony, and a window-wall master bedroom, complete with roof deck--and that's just the side of the house facing my property. Why not? It's allowable. And what would a developer's dream house be without the ever popular carport with a garage door--throw in a couple of those.

So yes, some neighbors are upset about what is being built. The city has been no help, except for a sympathetic nod or two. Until the City Council passes measures making issues of prevailing neighborhood patterns and privacy issues mandatory, not voluntary as they are at present, this will continue.

New viewpoints

Editor,

I want to thank you for two recent articles that I felt presented a new viewpoint to our community.

First I enjoyed Heather Rock Woods' feature article "Logging in the Santa Cruz Mountains" (Weekly, Nov. 27) because it presented a thoughtful historical review as well as the current conditions. It made me feel proud to learn that some logging companies in our area have over the years changed their practices to do environmentally responsive logging now.

Secondly I found encouragement in Peter Gauvin's feature "Employing hope." This article certainly will help the public understand that there are homeless who are looking for meaningful activities for their lives. In working at the Food Closet I have observed that the frequent stereotype presented of street people does not apply to many of the homeless.

Thank you for bringing both of these articles to our community.

Attracting more cars

Editor,

Extending Sand Hill Road to El Camino, even if engineered "to maximum traffic flow" (Letters, Nov. 27), may not have the desired effect of reducing pollution and speeding up traffic. If Stanford proceeds with its project as planned, the end result will be a four-lane road regulated by 12 lights between Junipero Serra and El Camino. Sand Hill Road will have to absorb an additional 14,000 car trips daily. This will be generated by the new Stanford West Apartments, the new senior housing and the shopping center expansion. We will give up over 1,000 existing mature trees. Admittedly, 3,000 new trees are to be replanted, but these are no replacement for mature and also heritage trees.

Included in the project is a new road, Stockfarm Road, that will bisect the open field across from the Oak Creek Apartments and connect to Sand Hill Road. That field too is ultimately destined for medium- to high-density development. Also to be considered is the effect of the 229,000-square-foot, four-story Center for Clinical Sciences Research, final review of which was scheduled for this week. Stanford's future plans also include a 400,000-square-foot clinical facility.

If all these plans come to pass, will we not then once again be caught in bumper-to-bumper traffic? Only this time we'll be sitting in our cars, admiring the urban sprawl we have created.

More roads and wider roads serve only to attract more cars and more buildings. Our community will be changed significantly and the qualities that once attracted us to Palo Alto and Menlo Park will swiftly disappear. If retaining the uniqueness of our community is at the expense of a little "inconvenience," then so be it.

Not yet L.A.

Editor,

I am writing to tell you how concerned I am about the Sand Hill Road proposed project.

The expansion of Sand Hill road to four lanes, with 12 stop lights between Alameda and El Camino, and 30,000 extra car trips daily, is extremely alarming. El Camino is already plugged up, and with the addition of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic traffic on El Camino it will be total gridlock. With the opening of Bloomingdale's, the traffic on Sand Hill and El Camino has been much worse. We are lucky that our community is not yet like L.A., but I am concerned that the lack of planning and foresight by our community leader will make us join the likes of our southern neighbor. Building homes for 2,000 new residents on Ohlone Field so they can join in the traffic gridlock seems like a ridiculous plan, and convincing West Menlo Park residents that the roadway will alleviate traffic through their community is crazy. There will be tons more traffic in west Menlo Park, El Camino, and Sand Hill Road.

I am very concerned about this short-sighted development.

Vocal minority

Editor, Heavy lobbying and hours spent at Cable Co-op board meetings by the proponents of retaining QVC succeeded in convincing a majority of the Co-op board to retain QVC on Channel 77 despite overwhelming opinion by over 87 percent of our members that QVC should be dropped. This is unfortunate.

When the channel preference survey was taken last spring there were over 1,460 people who said they had no use for QVC and wanted it gone. After QVC contacted the 100 biggest buyers and asked them to lobby Cable Co-op about 50 QVC supporters called, wrote letters, and attended board meetings in favor of keeping QVC. The result was that QVC is on Channel 77, replacing items of community interest and making it more difficult to present events of general interest such as sports and school board meetings.

Where are the thousands of people who favored dropping QVC? It would be useful if all those who consider QVC to be a waste of channel space would contact Cable Co-op staff and board members to tell us that you find the continued existence of QVC on the Cable Co-op system to be a mistake, and you far prefer that it be dropped. So far the board has heard from the vocal minority. It would be helpful for huge majority to speak out also.

It is most unfortunate that QVC pre-empted the school board meeting Dec. 3 as well as sporting events and other programming of general interest. I certainly hope that no such interference will be allowed in the future.

Please contact Cable Co-op and let us know whether you want QVC to remain or be removed for information and entertainment programs.

More questions

Editor,

A recent decision by the Cable Co-op Board to keep QVC on the air is only temporary. They could reverse the decision at the next meeting. A diverse group of interested persons attended the Cable Co-op board meeting to request them to keep QVC on the air. It has become clear that QVC offers a quality service to a group who value it. (regular shoppers who don't want to fight crowds, shut-ins, seniors, handicapped, working people, etc.).

I came away with more questions than answers.

They signed a 10-year contract to air TV-Land. Why? (It is reruns!) The Governor of California and the President of the U.S. don't have 10 year contracts.

What is the financial arrangement made with TV-Land that Mr. Brad Anderson, C.E.O., says is a secret?

What is the fiduciary duty of Cable Co-op to all the citizens of Palo Alto? What are their aims and goals? What is their responsibility to the City of Palo Alto, Mid-Peninsula Public Access Corporation, (MPAC) and the people?

What does The Cable Co-op Charter say? Should their operational information be public knowledge?

QVC supporters at the meeting disagreed with Cable Co-op's claims about their polls and surveys as having any validity. They used a 6 percent response to make decisions for 94 percent of the people.

We avidly support Palo Alto schools and believe the school board meetings should be aired on Channel 16. We don't want QVC to be in competition with any airing. With 61 channels and a high monthly charge, there should still be a channel for QVC, as there has been in the past. Thirty-four communities serviced by TCI are not dropping QVC.

Secrecy unwarranted

Editor,

Your story "Animal research in the 90's" (Weekly, Nov. 6) quotes toxicologist Robert Phalen of U.C. Irvine: "We protect them (animals in research) beyond what society normally does, more than pets, more than children..." If his statement is true, our society's companion animals and children are in deep trouble.

Just last year, Dr. Sara Vanderlip, then NASA/Ames' chief veterinarian, resigned in disgust because Ames "did not give her authority to ensure the well-being of rats, monkeys and other animals," according to a July 25, 1995 San Jose Mercury News article. Vanderlip told the newspaper she encountered "arrogance and blatant disregard for policies, regulations and animal welfare." Vanderlip complained when animals died because she was unable to prevent experimenters from carrying out invasive surgeries for which they had no training. Nothing was done until she resigned and complained to NASA's director in Washington. Her allegations of animal abuse were later confirmed by a panel of four outside experts and animal experiments were briefly halted at the space agency's main facility.

When research was restored, Vanderlip questioned whether conditions had subsequently improved since "you have the same attitude and cast of characters" who for months had refused to act on her complaints.

Other charges against NASA/Ames involve 14 monkeys who allegedly died or had to be euthanized because of improper medical procedures or poor care. Two died of thirst when their water sippers became clogged and nobody noticed.

If animals must be used in research, surely they deserve at least minimal care and protection from mistakes and neglect. Only when research establishments like Stanford are required to make public all violations will society be assured that the animals are truly being protected.

Wasteful, immoral

Editor,

Since 1986, federal law has reimbursed California for emergency labor and delivery services to undocumented women. Since 1988, California law has also included state funding for prenatal care to undocumented women. This prenatal care funding is now under threat by the Wilson administration's interpretation that the prenatal funding is a program completely state funded and only affecting illegal immigrants, and therefore illegal under Prop 187. Governor Wilson also believes that, under the dictates of the recent Welfare Reform Law, California must immediately stop funding prenatal care to undocumented women, an opinion stayed recently in court and scheduled for hearing soon.

Ending state prenatal funding for undocumented women is fiscally wasteful and socially immoral. An Institute of Medicine study estimates savings of $3.38 for every dollar spent on prenatal care, rising to 100:1 if development through childhood is included. A woman who receives no prenatal care is three times more likely to deliver a low birth weight infant. Though $79 million dollars would be saved in prenatal care, the state would have to fund the estimated $125 million necessary to treat compromised babies, with a net loss of $46 million.

Additionally, failure of the state to fund prenatal care doesn't eliminate the fiscal impact, it just shifts it to counties and cities. Counties and cities will have no choice but to provide care for women and babies on their doorsteps. The money used for this essential service will come from funds earmarked by counties and cities for other uses, such as roads and libraries.

We need to protect state funding for prenatal care to undocumented women. Prenatal care and labor and delivery care to undocumented women is a single concept, both federally and state funded, and affecting not only the undocumented pregnant woman but also the future citizen, the baby.

Under both of these definitions, prenatal care would be exempt from Prop 187 enforcement.

Back up to the Table of Contents Page