Letters | May 13, 2011 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - May 13, 2011


Parking prosperity

This story contains 1680 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe


Like this comment
Posted by Carroll Harrington
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on May 13, 2011 at 10:42 am

Green gigabytes of gratitude to Walt Hays for his excellent letter to the editor.

Carroll Harrington
Melville Avenue
Palo Alto

Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 13, 2011 at 11:01 am

"Palo Alto voters signed petitions for the Palo Alto Green Energy and Compost Initiative because they believe the city should convert its waste streams into valuable products instead of exporting them to Gilroy."
Not necessarily true--they may have signed without really knowing what they were signing, given the methods used by the signature gatherers I saw at Piazzas.
ANyway, why is the initiative named as it is, if it is only to undedicate the parkland. Anyway,, the firefighters had plenty of signatures for their initiative and it was defeated by over 70& of the voters, so gathering signatures is not an indication of voter intent.
I still say we should decide on a method first and then have an election with two initiatives--one to undedicate the parkland and the other for the type of composting facility we will have.
Right now this election is a giant waste of money--but money has never been a concern for the person behind the initiative

Like this comment
Posted by Bryan Long
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 16, 2011 at 2:47 pm


There is not one person behind the initiative. There are many people (about a dozen) who were involved in getting the initiative started, and many more who subsequently got involved as active supporters. Keep to the facts, and argue the merits. This isn't one of those state initiatives backed by some big business who is going to profit by passage. It's a local initiative, put forth by well-meaning local individuals, none of whom are going to make any money on it. We think it will save the City, and hence all of us, a considerable amount of money. Maybe we are wrong, but at least we are involved as citizens seeking to do what is best for the community. Give your personal jealousies a rest.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.