http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=21232


Town Square

Please Don't Kick it Away

Original post made by Jerry Underdal, Barron Park, on Jul 3, 2013

The following was written in response to the announcement of results of a survey done by the Barron Park Association on Wednesday, July 3. By a large margin, members approved support by the BPA of a referendum and recommended allocating BPA funds to do so. Jerry Underdal is a member of BPA and a long-time resident of Barron Park.

This story contains 904 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Jerry Underdal raises a number of interesting issues. I don't know if a possible "Plan B" would, in fact, increase the number of units and the amount traffic even more, or not. I live in another neighborhood, and, the increase in traffic, and traffic speed, over the last 15 years has been relentless. It is now very time consuming to get across Alma/Caltrain in either direction every single rush hour, and, it only gets worse. So, please understand that for every development from now on, my number one issue is traffic. The problem with more units is not more people, the problem is more traffic.

At least for those developments that are near El Camino and a Caltrain station, there is some hope that some trips will be made by train or bus. And developments near some kind of grocery and other shopping will see some people shopping on foot. Out in the hinterlands, you know all the trips will be by car.

(Although your helpful post did not mention ABAG, thank goodness, many of the proponents frequently cite ABAG goals for increasing housing. ABAG has no authority to dictate where and when member cities develop. (And, as far as I know, ABAG doesn't seek the power to dictate such city issues, either.) Citing ABAG in these discussions is a negative, because development proponents have frequently cited ABAG goals as some kind of mantra, instead of citing rational arguments regarding a proposal. I've got nothing against ABAG, but, in these discussions, forget ABAG. Let's hear the rational arguments for and against this proposed development.)