Viewpoint - September 26, 2012
Letter: Another view on library
"Save our park" is short but not quite right. Maybe too late, I told the leader (an ex-council member) to delete "save" and use the more appropriate "preserve" or, following Webster, "conserve." As Tina Isenberg's letter (9/19) points out, the park will still be there if Olive's house is torn down and a huge building replaces it, so "save" is not accurate.
As with most controversies, there are valid reasons pro and con, but Tina's letter stresses the pro side. The present library could be made earthquake safe using only about 10 percent of funds now in hand. The library never had nor has now the $8,000,000 bandied about by the pro group; that is an optimistic forecast. High-speed rail and e-book impact are future concerns, not present. Increased traffic on Watkins is a present concern if the EIR is correct. The present is "a money-losing structure," to quote Tina, because the council has ruled against its use for profitable events. Olive gave the park to Atherton as a park, not for "lectures and meet-the-author events". This list could go on.
Moulton Drive, Atherton