LETTERS LETTERS (June 01, 2005)

Count on high-speed rail to fund crossings

Editor:

The City Council of Menlo Park has already spent $180,000 "studying" grade crossings. Now it wants to spend $20,000 more for continued "studies."

On May 4, Rod Diridon, statewide chairman of the proposed California High Speed Rail System, appeared at a Redwood City meeting and announced that if high-speed rail passes, it will pay for all the grade crossings from Los Angles to San Francisco. So, why is Menlo Park spending anything?

Furthermore, Diridon stated that all grade crossings must be uniform and that virtually everything that has been built in San Mateo County (including the huge berm from San Carlos to Belmont) will have to be torn down because it is not "HSR compatible." The money Menlo Park has spent (almost $200,000) comes from Measure A, our taxpayer money. This is a waste of public funds and should be stopped.

Michael J. Brady

Forest Lane, Menlo Park

Former classmate admires Perry's projects

Editor:

I was thrilled to see that my fellow classmate from a sculpture class at Stanford is doing so well as an artist and as a good citizen.

It's refreshing to see that Noel Perry has channeled his creativity into designing unique projects that build community and an understanding of our state's budget challenges. I applaud his efforts as he shares his artistic, creative and financial wealth with the rest of us.

Kudos to Noel.

Elizabeth Lasensky

Fremont Street, Menlo Park

Second thoughts about Atherton tax

Editor:

I was for Proposition W. However Atherton's Town Council has given me reason to rethink throwing Proposition W money at a noble but a poorly thought-out means to a cause, and the probable numerous lawsuits likely to result from passage of Ordinance 557.

Last week's City Council meeting showed that this ordinance is ill-conceived, arbitrary, and dangerous. Ill-conceived because it has no basis in a prior, publicly-vetted and careful study; and arbitrary because the council passed a law for only one section of our town.

And it is dangerous because its Exhibit A lists artifacts both in citizens' yards and interiors, many outside the ordinance's stated area of jurisdiction - suggesting a far greater agenda.

In short, Ordinance 557 requires you to obtain a fee-based permit and undergo visits by Atherton town (and perhaps state) officials should you want to move a flower pot in your yard that has been designated (without your knowledge) an historical artifact.

With much sadness I urge my fellow Athertonians to keep their Proposition W monies in their pockets. Either you will spend it on compulsory bureaucracy if your doorknob is designated an historic artifact, or your town will spend it on the lawsuits that will result from their insistence to maintain and extend Ordinance 557.

William Grindley

Laurel Avenue, Atherton

Best wishes for new hardware store

Editor:

The Ryan and Lorist family applaud Mr. Oros for opening the new Ace Hardware in downtown Menlo Park.

As former Ace dealers, we were always supportive of fellow Ace stores. We do wish Mr. Oros success in his future Ace endeavor. Certainly, the community is anxious for his services.

Susie Lorist

Menlo Park

No reason to change Linfield Oaks zoning

Editor:

In 1950, Linfield Oaks planners had a vision.

Hemmed in by a railroad, a creek, and two intercity streets, Middlefield Road and Ravenswood Avenue, the plan for Linfield Oaks was to integrate its homes with its businesses.

What social or economic issues have changed to obsolete that dream? Absolutely nothing. What have changed are the interests of the developers and the city.

The developers, trying to parlay a recent slump in the commercial real estate market into a profit opportunity, are seeking to tear down good, currently undervalued commercial properties and replace them with currently overvalued residential property. That scenario fits the council's ubiquitous need to increase the city's property tax base.

So the two factions are willing to sacrifice what has made Linfield Oaks' "other-side-of-the-tracks" location such a viable, desirable and vital part of Menlo Park.

The area's core of family dwellings, surrounded with a circle of multifamily dwellings, is further insulated by a semi-circle of light commercial buildings. For the most part, these businesses are closed on weekends so they are innocent of any weekend traffic. Further, their presence requires minimal fire and police protection and requires no school investments, which makes Linfield Oaks economically more self-sufficient than most neighborhoods.

While Linfield Oaks' streets handle a fair amount of traffic during rush hours, on average the area is relatively quiet. To narrow an entry access street and add 20 percent to 30 percent more people to the mix will create congestion where none has existed and will exacerbate congestion at nearby entry points to the Bayshore Freeway and the Dumbarton Bridge.

There is no compelling incentive for Linfield Oaks homeowners to modify established zoning goals to mollify those whose visions don't stretch far enough. Commercial buildings may be temporarily over-priced for the zoning market. By not changing zoning, we make it the owner's responsibility to find buyers on the city's terms. And there are buyers. For once, let neighborhood stability, not profit maximization, be the rule of the day.

It is up to the Linfield Oaks homeowners to convince the council members to preserve their unique, desirable, integrated planning. Edna and Al Montgomery Linfield Place, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.