LETTERS LETTERS (November 09, 2005)

Wondering about park motivations

Editor:

Recently there has been much talk about the opening of Foothills Park to non-residents of Palo Alto. A large majority of Palo Alto residents seem to want to retain the status quo, to keep it for residents of Palo Alto.

On a personal basis it makes no difference. I am not a resident of Palo Alto, but probably wouldn't use the park if I were. But I often wonder how many of those who make the loudest outcry of keeping it private are also the same people who make the loudest objections to Stanford wanting to have the privilege of defining the public use of their land.

Dan Goodman

Trinity Drive, Menlo Park

Disappointed in Valley newsletter

Editor:

I welcome the creation of an ad-hoc Outreach Committee to disseminate information about the new Portola Valley Town Center project and encourage public involvement. However, I am disappointed that the first newsletter published by this committee contains a biased explanation of the project's history.

First of all, we should not stress the so-called "open process used to design the new Town Center Master Plan." As one of the residents involved, I must say that, for me, the process was more like a charade. I have complained in the past that several advisory committee conclusions were conveniently made up and some outcome of the charrette exercise was simply ignored.

Despite the goal of a "more unified Town Center," the whole process was controlled by the proponents of a new Town Hall. Last year, when residents were asked to prioritize the desirable facilities and features of a new Town Center, the Town Hall was a given. And now, only the funding for the new Town Hall appears to be secured, even though there is no urgency to build a new Town Hall (the current portable offices are earthquake-safe and will be owned by the town once the 3-year lease expires). For the residents, the message is clear: if you want more than a new Town Hall, you have to open your wallet.

Finally, why create a false sense of urgency? Stating that the temporary library can only stay at Corte Madera School through 2007 reflects only an arrangement chosen by the town. The school board would never risk alienating the whole community by refusing to extend this deadline if the town asks for it.

Please, let's focus on how we can move forward to a new Town Center and forget the spin about how we got where we are.

Pierre Fischer

Valley Oak, Portola Valley

Where is funding for the library?

Editor:

We, the Friends of the Portola Valley Library, were rather surprised to read in the October 5 Portola Valley Town Center Newsletter that "no donations are sought for the Town Hall and maintenance buildings which will be funded out of the town's capital reserves" but no such reserves are earmarked for the library. Where is the funding for the library?

To further cite from the newsletter, the cost breakdown amounts show $ 1.7 million for Town Hall and $488,000 for the maintenance building. And, $2.4 million as an assigned cost for the library. The town reserve is about $4 million. Where is the funding for the library?

In 2003, a town-sponsored survey resulted in a 98 percent vote in favor of a physical library as well as the library being the number one priority in terms of community needs. The town is obligated, not only to the citizens, but also by the joint powers agreement with San Mateo County, to assist in both funding and providing a library. Where is the funding for the library?

Further, in May 2005, the town's financial subcommittee, likewise, omitted the library from funding. We are extremely concerned about this oversight. How is this to be resolved?

Sue Chaput (on behalf of the

Friends of the Library)

Alamos Road, Portola Valley

E-mail a friend a link to this story.