Publication Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Letters
Letters
(November 23, 2005)
Mayoral memories
Editor,
All three local papers (the Palo Alto Weekly, the Palo Alto Daily News and the San Jose Mercury News) carried articles about the gathering of 16 mayors on Nov. 6. Together, the three articles nicely covered most of the mayors of the past 40 years.
The Weekly's report of the mayors' comments by Don Kazak ("Our Town: The mayors look back," Nov. 9) got me to recollect some on my own.
I was hired as planning director in 1972, when Kirke Comstock was mayor. I met him at a reception (or maybe it was at the council's annual picnic in Foothills Park), and I often think back on our first and pleasant exchange.
The mayor told me: "I want you to do three things. First, rebuild the planning department; they've lost all credibility. Second, get us a comprehensive plan. We've had several false starts. Third, keep Palo Alto the way it is."
"I'll do everything I can," I replied. "Will you go for two out of three?"
All of us -- and most things, including cities -- get older, and most change in the process. Palo Alto has been rebuilding itself house by house, building by building, lot by lot, for as long as I've been here. But it has always had "good bones," and those haven't changed.
That's the secret of the beauty and staying power of Palo Alto.
Naphtali H. Knox
Forest Avenue
Palo Alto
The future of fiber
Editor,
We need fiber.
As I complete a "webinar" from my home office, I wonder what could be a better way of working and teaching. My students are in three countries and I can interactively show them circuit design, fielding questions along the way. Each quarter next year I will teach a similar "webinar."
We have an opportunity to reduce energy consumption, traffic and smog, improve the quality of life and facilitate communication between schools, libraries, individuals and even continents. We will put our city in the forefront of technology and improve property values here.
We already have our own utilities. This is not a major change in direction for the city to own a communications utility. With such a communications infrastructure the city can monitor and control traffic flow, sensing problems and readjusting signals.
We can virtually be wherever we want without leaving our offices or homes. For this to work, we need fiber bandwidth. Let's not build an inadequate utility and then re-build it.
Instead of rebuilding the cities to better enable mass transit, how about improving communications so the masses will have less need of transit? When gas goes to $6 a gallon, people will be in financial stress and an infrastructure investment will be hard to accept. Now is the time to ready for the commute of the future. If one-third of our population telecommuted, much of our road building could stop.
This week's "webinar" has originated from my home office. I had everything I needed, right here.
Are we going to let the Fiber-to-the-Home program die?
Allen Podell
Harker Avenue
Palo Alto
Consistent exclusivity
Editor,
I've read with interest the debate about opening Foothills Park to non-residents. I was not surprised at the result. I grew up in Palo Alto -- graduating from Paly in 1967 -- and lived there until 1972.
During the summers of 1966-70, I worked as a "casual" employee of the City of Palo Alto, in Foothills Park, digging and maintaining the hiking trails.
I remember the yearly bouts of poison oak, yellow-jacket stings, and the camaraderie amongst the labor crews, then comprised of guys from all three Palo Alto high schools. It was a great experience for all of us.
I gradually worked my way up to the position of "Summer Ranger," whereupon I had the responsibility of closing the park at dusk by myself -- a lot of responsibility for a 22-year-old.
The irony is, since I cannot afford to live in Palo Alto, I can't revisit that portion of my youth, nor enjoy the fruits of my literal labors. The policy regarding non-residents then, as well as now, was never about potential ecological harm -- it was about exclusivity.
Some things never change.
Jim Schamber
Sonora, California
An axe to grind
Editor,
I have no idea why Henry Riggs (Spectrum, Nov. 16) chose to grind his axe during Big-Game week, but his letter suggesting the Stanford-Stadium renovation is a "foolish extravagance" is way off base.
First, he doesn't even get the dates right. The renovation will begin, not after Big Game, but a week later, after the conclusion of the game versus Notre Dame. Unfortunately, he also seems to have forgotten his economics and accounting.
Economics 1: Improve quality and reduce supply to raise prices. It is reasonable to believe that building a new stadium will increase the perceived quality/value of the product being delivered and would result in the sale of more tickets.
Accounting 1: $85 million for 55,000 seats is about $1,675 per seat. If the new stadium lasts half as long as the old one, that is $40 per year per seat -- or less than $8 a game.
For those of us who have been sitting in the stands for the last 25 years, even a $20-per-ticket increase would be a small price to pay for a better game-day experience. Riggs also makes a couple of assumptions.
The current stadium is 84 years old and no longer meets either ADA or earthquake guidelines. Any improvements beyond the most superficial would require extensive and expensive retrofitting.
So there are only two ways you can assume the new stadium is a bad investment: either that the existing stadium will prove to be serviceable for the entire 25-year scenario, or that Stanford will drop football entirely.
While Riggs might be comfortable with the latter assumption, I don't think the rest of the Stanford community would support that conclusion.
Keith Ogden, Stanford Class of '81
Edwards Avenue
Sausalito
Stadium no-how
Editor,
I just found out about the "remodeling" of Stanford Stadium. It is a shame that somebody did not stand up and say no.
For years I loved sitting in the south end zone. I had a great view of the stands and the action on the field.
Now all of that will be gone. I am not sure I will ever attend another game at Stanford.
Yes, the money might be coming from donors, but that is so they can have their "private boxes."
There is nothing wrong with the present stadium. It is probably one of the best seismic structures in the area.
I was shown a letter to the editor from Henry Riggs (Nov. 16), former Vice-President at Stanford. I agree with him 100 percent.
It is a shame that somebody did not stand up and say no.
Richard Mathews
Middlefield Road
Palo Alto
Martelle agreement?
Editor,
I was amazed to read in the newspaper that Danielle Martelle received more than 1,000 votes for Palo Alto City Council. This means that more than 1,000 Palo Alto voters agree with her views on the police department.
This result is something to which the City Council, City Manager and the Human Relations Commission should pay attention.
Natalie Fisher
Ellsworth Place
Palo Alto
Power and responsibility
Editor,
The New York Times just exhibited good sense and judgment by firing Judith Miller from its staff.
Miller, ostensibly a journalist, was in reality funneled talking points by the Bush White House, which trusted her to report them, unscrutinized, as "journalism." Indeed, some of her reports were deliberate misinformation.
We need our journalists to investigate the truth, ask relevant and incisive questions and report their answers to us, the American public, whom they -- ultimately -- serve. As a nation we are limited by our media, whereas we should be informed by it.
Sumbul Ali
Waverley Street
Palo Alto
@smallhead;High-rise Sierra
Editor,
Why is it that every time there is an article that mentions the flood of 1998 we hear about the terrible fate suffered by the wealthier people of Crescent Park while there is rarely any mention made of the far worse damage done to those of us in other, less influential neighborhoods?
We live on Sierra Court, the sink of Palo Alto, where the water was two feet deep inside our house and nearly three feet deep outside when we crawled into a boat in the middle of the night to be rowed to safety by our wonderful neighbors.
I've yet to hear of anyone in Crescent Park having to evacuate by boat.
I get weary hearing of carpets ruined by six inches of seeping water and of $50,000 losses. Water gushed into this area, dumped its load of silt and debris and stayed. I wonder if the people in Crescent Park saw mountains of their muddy, ruined furniture and belongings being scooped up by front-loaders and dumped into big trucks.
We had flood insurance on the house but not on the contents. We suffered far more than $50,000 in damage, much more than the insurance covered. We have never recovered from it and never will.
It would indeed be refreshing if the damage scenario that occurred in Crescent Park in 1998 was not always depicted as being worst-case or typical. The invisibility of those of us who had far worse flood experiences continues to add insult to injury.
Carla Talbott and Ross Eversole
Sierra Court
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
