Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Reader Wire

Now that Palo Alto has a brand new City Council, they should ask themselves this question: Why is it that all buildings downtown of a certain vintage have parking? There's a building across from Double Rainbow Ice Cream on Ramona Street that has one of the most tortuous public parking lots I have ever seen. But there it is, and it was required by a past Palo Alto City Council.

In the meantime, a new building has gone up on the corner of Emerson and Hamilton with absolutely no parking at all -- the one with the Italian food shop and the mattress company. Despite the Downtown Parking Assessment District, I still think the situation could be better handled.

Usually working in secret is not a good thing (see George W. Bush), but sometimes working in secret without constant public overview is the way some developers prefer and the way some amenities get introduced every time. There are new buildings on Cambridge Avenue that have parking, there are several office buildings downtown that have parking. But in this current atmosphere, where every proposal is scrutinized so fiercely, developers just think, "Why bother?"

Fight the system and eventually, when everyone is exhausted from the process, you'll get to build your building without a parking lot. In the old days, without so much scrutiny, someone would have sat the developer down at some point and said, "You need to include parking." And the parking would have been figured out and the building would've been built without parking.

There is no reason the building at the corner of Emerson and Hamilton couldn't have been built with parking except that parking, especially underground parking, is very expensive. And if you can get away without building parking, why not do it?

The new City Council needs to look at the requirements that all major new buildings need to have parking. If past city councils could do it, then the present City Council needs to find out where the requirement lies and reinstate it. Paul Mendelowitz Chestnut Street, Redwood City
Streets need service

I just wanted to air my disappointment on the East Palo Alto City Council members who have given their constituents a deaf ear.

Poplar Avenue, where I live, and the adjacent roads between Bay Road and Bayshore Freeway are in desolate condition and our City Council members are blinded to the situation we are experiencing. These roads are becoming quite unusable by pedestrians due to the water standing on the streets.

There is no drainage and no walkway and, due to being full of potholes, the water stands on the road. We are paying taxes as everybody else and do not quite understand why our roads will not be fixed and looked after.

I would appreciate your assistance in coming to our rescue by disclosing the facts and alert our City Council members of their responsibilities to their constituents as per their promise at the time of their campaign for office. With kindest regards and happy holidays! Hailu W. Semaiat Poplar Avenue, East Palo Alto
Violence or peace?

Some American preachers and politicians foment malice against people they accuse of disrespect for the "one true God." They condemn "sin" in family planning. Names and addresses have been published and the death penalty inflicted.

Osama bin Laden is another preacher who incites violence while claiming to speak for the "one true God." Television has shown him rejoicing about large-scale atrocities.

Long ago, crusaders killed countless Muslims in holy wars. When George W. Bush first announced our crusade on television, his subordinates were already arranging for blameless people to die. Aid officials predicted that resulting deaths of innocent Afghans would far exceed the Sept. 11 murders.

Members of Bush's administration have improvised police powers and coordinated technologies to nullify civil liberties and rights, including rights to privacy. Bush appointees have also contrived loopholes in constitutional guarantees and deprived many people of civil legal protection.

We Americans have caused much worldwide violence. Do we approve of violence? If not, we ought to promote peace by opposing injustice everywhere.

How many world citizens would freely welcome either bin Laden's or Bush's version of justice? Would world domination by either Bush or bin Laden assure that deadly force would serve all people equally?

In their televised appearances, both bin Laden and Bush have exhibited appetites for vengeful gratification. And both have publicly revealed opposition to benevolence, freedom and justice. Gertrude & Daryl Reagan Moreno Avenue, Palo Alto