A couple clarifications:

- The Streetaries Program is independent of Street Closures. The Streetaries can use parking spaces and do not require a closed road. I personally love the Streetaries and support that program.

- I was not speaking for the Design District. But I am concerned for the businesses generally. There was a survey done showing that over 80% of the businesses along Santa Cruz Ave. want the road fully opened. The Design District as a group does not have a stated opinion on this, but their opinions as individual businesses tend to match the survey results.

Fortunately, I think we are in a win/win situation. If the 600 block is permanently closed, I’m sure it will be put to good use. If it is opened, then we will benefit from better traffic flow.

(Although I’d love to see a compromise where the parking spaces from Walgreens through Starbucks are converted to a permanent community parklet, and where the roadblocks are replaced with removable bollards so that the street can be open most of the time, but easily closed on weekends and for events like the weekly market or block parties.)

As a frequent downtown shopper, cyclist and driver who parks, I am in agreement with Alex Beltramo. For most hours on most days, the closed lane in front of Walgreens and Bistro Vida sits empty. This doesn't serve anyone's interests and is confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the one block closure. Remove the parking spots, but open the lane.

Menlo Park's High street should be for people not cars.

Robert:

There is no High street in MP that I'm aware of. If you are referring to Santa Cruz Ave. downtown, I wholeheartedly agree. I've been saying for years we should close Santa Cruz and turn it into a pedestrian mall like the Pearl St. Mall in Boulder.

Two points:

First, ditto on the excellent comment above:
"As a frequent downtown shopper, cyclist and driver who parks, I am in agreement with Alex Beltramo. For most hours on most days, the closed lane in front of Walgreens and Bistro Vida sits empty. This doesn't serve anyone's interests and is confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the one block closure. Remove the parking spots, but open the lane."

Second, how many of us agree downtown Los Altos is an example of integrating vibrant and varied retail, personal/professional services and dining, both indoor and outdoor, within a walkable, safe shopping district without closing even a single travel lane to bikes or cars? Compare their and our downtown storefront vacancy rates, then explain to our local businesses, residents and shoppers why closing any portion of an important downtown street makes sense here.

As Mr. Beltramo says, reopening all Santa Cruz Ave. to vehicles does not preclude partial closure from time to time for special events.

Menlo Voter: High street is Britspeak for shopping district. Sant Cruz is Menlo Park's high street.

Robert:

Got it

I agree with MP Resident, the community spaces sit empty for most of the day while those of us actually downtown to do business are inconvenienced. Why is this an all or nothing proposition. I find it hard to believe the city planners et al can’t come up with a creative solution that supports the needs of more than just Left Bank and Bistro Vida. That’s truly who’s benefiting from this closure, and no one else. I appreciate the vitality of that one block and what those two establishments have done to foster community, but others deserve the chance too. It feels like the city is taking the lazy way out, let’s push our planners to put some more thought in to the right longterm solution for our city.

Do these restaurants pay rent to the city for their use of public outdoor space?

MP_Resident:

No one but Bistro Vida and Left Bank benefit? How about all of the additional people that can go to those restaurants on any given day or evening. How about the middle schoolers I see using the open area every day during the school year? Your post reeks of entitlement. "I'm being inconvenienced". Well boo hoo. So you can't park right next to wherever it is you want to go? Is it going to kill you to walk a little more?

They should close the entire street and make it a walking mall. Build a parking garage like they should have 30 years ago and get some vitality into the downtown. Pearl St. Mall in Boulder is a perfect example of what it could be like. Of course, council will have to ignore the usual no birds, like you, that object to every change in town.

@MP_Resident "No one but Bistro Vida and Left Bank benefit? How about all of the additional people that can go to those restaurants on any given day or evening. ..."

Just to clarify. There is "public" and "private" benefit. The distinction matters. I see the conflation often in many cost benefit arguments. The usual PR goal of private profit maximizers is to make private benefit appear to be public benefit.

How does the public benefit generally by taking away use of public land previously used for parking?

As a parking benefit, it was available to anyone in the public to use to that end. If more public parking is considered a (public) benefit then slightly less of it would be a public detriment.

As a private table space, it is available only to those who pay money to the private entity controlling the (formerly) public space. In this case, the "public" benefit might be increases in private revenue that results in increased (public) tax money available to be spent on public goods.

But the privatized use of formerly public space is not a PUBLIC benefit. It is a private benefit and a public loss, except for possible incremental taxes collected.

I have always wanted and supported a "vibrant", "walkable" downtown. You know the drill. But it's not clear to me that privatizing access to public spaces accomplishes that.

It is unlawful to make a "gift" of public monies to private individuals. Making a gift of the use of public land is lawful, but ....... I wring my hands thinking about it.

PH:

I suggest you go to Boulder, CO and take a walk around the Pearl St. Mall to see the benefit, both public and private.

Menlo Voter:

France, Italy, etc ... There's no question that the use of outdoor plazas as public gathering spaces, in many contexts, enhances or literally creates community. There's a nice little spot down the block where a coffee house seats customers on a public sidewalk that servers as a local gathering spot in my neighborhood.

There's some question as to whether city governments can recreate those contexts by design and by fiat, retro-fitting locations not so originally designed.

But my point is that the "cui bono" ledger balance needs to be accurate. There is a transfer of a public asset to a quasi private asset at no price. Council members and citizens can still decide that it yields net public benefit.

PH:

There's not a true transfer. The city still owns the land, they are simply allowing it to be used. In this case, at no cost. Again, there is both public and private benefit to it. I think the overall potential public benefit of a vibrant downtown outweighs the "cost" of the private benefit.

Menlo Voter:

You're right. "Conversion" is a better word. In this case, you're also right in pointing out that the situation can be easily reversed. (It can, can't it? Is there a time frame for the decision?) I think most people probably agree with you that the additional vibrancy is worth the temporary loss of parking.

PH:

The loss of parking could be remedied if the council would do what councils have been asked to do for the last 30 years, build a parking garage.