Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Mar 19, 2008
It is ironic that you cite traffic and parking as negative impacts on your small faculty-only Stanford residential community. The rest of the community suffers negative traffic and parking impacts from Stanford all the time. Maybe that is why the "community at large" is always so negative toward Stanford and fought for more restrictions on their conditional use permit from the County.
disclaimer: I've never hiked at the Dish, but I dislike the look of the chain-link fence, gate and guard.
Hmm,"The rest of the community suffers negative traffic and parking impacts from Stanford all the time."
The 'rest of the community' also benefits far more on balance from the presence of Stanford. Aside from what Jill mentioned in the way of recreation, the businesses that provide so much of Palo Alto's tax base and jobs reside on Stanford land (the Research Park, and the Shopping Center, and SU itself provides a lot of jobs)- which of course means traffic (both employees who are local residents, and shoppers). Palo Alto wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Stanford.
And I agree completely with Jill about the asininity of the situation on Stanford Ave. People act like they're on their own driveway - the U-turns, inane parking, walking on the road, waiting for spaces. Really, the police could make a killing.
Perhaps, bikes2work, you might consider moving to, oh say, Elko (Nevada). Lovely place. No major university to harrass you with lots of cars. Get a good mountain bike. And watch out for ranchers who don't like having their cattle harrassed - they're not nearly all as tolerant as Stanford.
"about the asininity of the situation on Stanford Ave. People act like they're on their own driveway - the U-turns, inane parking, walking on the road, waiting for spaces. "
The area does suffer due to it's popularity. If I have a pool and invite anyone who wants to come at any time, who will my neighbors blame when there is no parking in my neighborhood? Me! That is all I am saying.
Jill is defending Stanford for being the neighbor with the pool in my hypothetical scenario. I never said Stanford was not beneficial, I just pointed out the irony of Jill's letter. She is vilifying the wrong party because she is "related" to them. I am "related" to them too since half of my income depends on Stanford. You are correct; Stanford is incredibly important to this area. But if they want to share their "pool", they need to mitigate the impacts. Complaining about the people who come to enjoy it is useless.
Why don't you move to Elko? It is probably the kind of place where a large landowner is truly the local "godfather". That seems to be the kind of place that you and Jill advocate. I actually prefer a more urban environment with lots of cars and crazy parking is the norm. Sorry that you misunderstood me.
Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,227 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 966 views
This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 5 comments | 494 views
Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 423 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 389 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.