Letters: Residents sound off on Bayfront plan Letters: Residents sound off on Bayfront plan (December 07, 2005)

City ignoring its own master plan

Editor:

The proposed Bayfront Park golf course and sports fields project is not a case of former politicians stirring up discontent, as has been stated elsewhere. It is, however, a case of a city that is ignoring its own master plan and the legally binding permits that were part of the agreement when Menlo Park acquired the former landfill that is now Bayfront Park.

And while the city council spends a great amount of effort in trying to sell the golf course idea to reluctant residents, they could be focusing more attention on exploring and implementing the results of their recent survey.

Thanks to the Almanac for looking behind the screens to more deeply expose many of the environmental, legal and land use issues that are at stake. Your paper is setting the bar for exemplary investigative reporting that should be copied by larger publications. Elizabeth Lasensky Fremont Street, Menlo Park

Not buying the numbers on soccer players, fields

Editor: ,

Ms. Zaslawsky (Guest Opinion November 30) brings up a good point concerning the 4,000 number being used as the number of youngsters in Menlo Park using city soccer fields.

It would not be difficult to confirm her assertion that 4,000 is really the number of school-age children in public schools in Menlo Park. Her argument, however, falls apart rather easily. Why is she limiting school-age youngsters playing soccer to only those that attend public schools?

I am sure that there are hundreds of Menlo Park school-age youngsters who go to private schools and play soccer. Why hasn't she included the adults in Menlo Park who play organized soccer? Why is she limiting her argument to AYSO? What about all the school-age youngsters who play CYSA? I don't know where she came up with the 20 percent involvement, resulting in her 800 number, but with all the other soccer-playing youngsters and adults, that number goes up rather quickly.

A second point: she claims that 3,200 youngsters from outside Menlo Park play on Menlo Park soccer fields. Taking her 20 percent assumption of participation from the previous argument (for Menlo Park youngsters) this means that the 3,200 "outside" youngsters draw from a group of well over 16,000 school-age children. Seems like a bit of stretch to me, especially when she is talking about AYSO soccer, which is rather regional.

Finally I question her assertion that Menlo Park has 26 soccer fields. I coached soccer in and around Menlo Park for over 25 years and I currently referee soccer. I don't think there are anywhere near 26 City fields. Ms. Zaslawsky states that Menlo Park would be "adding number 27 and 28 to the 26 playing fields we already have." Numbers 27 and 28 would be full size fields (according to the city) which, to me, implies that she means the other 26 are full size also. But, let's give her the benefit of doubt. The city lists nine "soccer" fields. By stretching your imagination, four of these might be considered big enough for older kids or adults to play on; the rest are much smaller. I suppose if you took all the fields and divided them up so the very youngest groups could play then you might come up with 26 fields. But, really, 26 soccer fields in Menlo Park, I don't think so.

It seems that Ms. Zaslawsky and the city staff are using the same PR people. Steve Wallace Sterling Avenue, Menlo Park

Giant garbage dump underneath Bayfront Park

Editor:

It was with much amusement that I read last week's Guest Opinion by Cherie Zaslawsky's, who said, "It is folly to pretend that our children are better served by destroying our only open space preserve -- where they can experience the beauty of nature firsthand -- in favor of adding (playing fields)."

What the heck! We're talking about a gigantic garbage dump that was started before hazardous waste laws were in effect. There's probably 50,000 metric tons of hazardous waste buried there. (Shh ... no one is suppose to know about Joe's solvent disposal services in the early '70's...) The thin cover cap of soil sort of helps prevent anything nasty from showing, but trees with deep root systems will die if they ever reach maturity.

This is not Nature. It is an abomination of what used to be open bay waters. To call it Menlo Park's only open space where children can learn about nature is tantamount to taking our children to the sewage treatment plant and telling them "this is our mountain lake." Better to give classes in Superfund Remediation to our children and use Bayfront as an example.

So - give it up. Bayfront Park will always be the deformed open space child of Menlo Park and will never be a pristine nature area. Better to work on the preservation of true nature areas (even if not in Menlo Park) and take our children there. (Hint: Buy into Palo Alto's "residents only" Foothills Park as a city participant to give Menlo Park a true open space area to feel proud about.)

Dr. James A. Charley

Corona Way, Menlo Park

(Dr. Charley is the former international environmental manager at Raychem. )

Uncouple decision on park, fields

Editor:

Your recent cover story on Bayfront Park states that many of us believe that the park should be uncoupled from the need for athletic fields. The reason is that Bayfront Park is not throwaway land.

It is considered by hundreds of folks in our and surrounding communities to be a place of great value. Bayfront Park is an integral, treasured and important piece of our city. It deserves to be considered as such by our City Council instead of being given away to an outside developer.

If the council were respectful of all members of our community, three of them would not be trying to strategically pit athletic field proponents against open space proponents.

They would be doing the right thing by addressing the needs of the athletic group and separately addressing the need for Bayfront Park to pay for itself within eight years, when the fund is projected to run out. Additionally, if interest rates rise, there will be enough money to cover park costs even longer.

As a community, we should all be insisting that the City Council stop its, so far successful, plan to cause infighting in our community. Council members Lee DuBoc, Mickie Winkler and Nicholas Jellins need to understand that a huge portion of this community want respect for our last open space park.

We also want the athletic fields accounted for and the inadequacies addressed. These two issues have no business being connected.

Christine Pixie Couch

Almanor Avenue, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.