Serving Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside for 44 years.
Editor & Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Richard Hine News Editor Renee Batti Lifestyles Editor Jane Knoerle Senior Correspondents Marion Softky, Marjorie Mader Staff Writers David Boyce, Sandy Brundage Contributors Barbara Wood, Kate Daly, Katie Blankenberg Special Sections Editors Carol Blitzer, Sue Dremann Photographer Michelle Le
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Vice President Sales & Marketing Walter Kupiec Real Estate Manager Neal Fine Real Estate and Advertising Coordinator Diane Martin
Published every Wednesday at 3525 Alameda De Las Pulgas, Menlo Park, Ca 94025 Newsroom: (650) 854-2690 Newsroom Fax: (650) 854-0677 Advertising: (650) 854-2626 Advertising Fax: (650) 854-3650 e-mail news and photos with captions to: Editor@AlmanacNews.com e-mail letters to: letters@AlmanacNews.com The Almanac, established in September, 1965, is delivered each week to residents of Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley and Woodside and adjacent unincorporated areas of southern San Mateo County. The Almanac is qualified by decree of the Superior Court of San Mateo County to publish public notices of a governmental and legal nature, as stated in Decree No. 147530, issued November 9, 1969. Subscriptions are $60 for one year and $100 for two years.
N
WHAT’S YOUR VIEW?
All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.TheAlmanacOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM POST your views on the Town Square forum at www.TheAlmanacOnline.com EMAIL your views to: letters@almanacnews.com and note this it is a letter to the editor in the subject line. MAIL or deliver to: Editor at the Almanac, 3525 Alameda de las Pulgas, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
CALL the Viewpoint desk at 854-2690, ext. 222.
Ideas, thoughts and opinions about
local issues from people in our community. Edited by Tom Gibboney.
High-speed rail off track
W
ith state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, adding his voice to the growing criticism of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, local challenges to the huge project are gaining credibility. Though critics are often referred to as NIMBY (not in my backyard) opponents because the planned route would impact many Peninsula residents who live along the rail corridor, recent glitches in the authorED ITORI AL ity’s ridership claims and overThe opinion of The Almanac sight ability has now caught Mr. Simitian’s attention. He told the Palo Alto Weekly that these and other problems reflect “an unfortunate trend that needs to be turned around.” He and his colleagues have decided to give the authority until Feb. 1 to present a list of ways to remedy the identified problems or risk losing some state funding for the estimated $43 billion rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, he said. Earlier last week the Peninsula Cities Consortium (Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Burlingame and Belmont) issued a statement that said the authority has “an enormous credibility problem” after an independent review uncovered problems in the ridership projections. The statement from the consortium’s chair, Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline, is highly critical of the authority, citing mistakes found by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, a professional group commissioned by the state Legislature. Only with a high number of riders can the authority justify the huge construction costs of the project. And that wasn’t all from Mr. Cline, who also noted recent criti-
cal reports from the Office of the State Auditor and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and he challenged the authority’s assertion that when built, the system would be financially self-sustaining. The consortium also is concerned that the “key problems may not be resolved because of the intense pressure being exerted by the authority’s desire to qualify for federal stimulus funding.” Construction must begin by September 2012 on the San Francisco to San Jose segment to qualify California for a $2.25 billion grant. Overall, the authority hopes to get about $17 billion in federal grants, although only $2.25 billion has been committed so far. “Common sense is absent from the high-speed rail discussion,” Mr. Cline said. “Right now the authority plans to select final alignment and release its draft environmental impact report by December of this year under an extremely rushed project schedule that is dictated solely by the desire for federal funds.” “The project is suffering from an enormous credibility problem, due to its widely criticized business plan, faulty ridership numbers and the absence of funding to carry out the project statewide — let alone offer realistic alternatives for the section planned on the Peninsula,” Mr. Cline said. Looking ahead, Mr. Cline and the consortium are concerned that “there is no stated plan for paying to operate high-speed rail once it is built, and we fear local taxpayers may be left holding the bag.” Given the High-Speed Rail Authority’s lackluster performance so far, the entire state should be worried about the ability of the authority to manage and build this multi-billion-dollar project on time and on budget. Peninsula residents whose homes back up to the rail corridor may have raised the initial red flags about this project, but now their concerns are proving to be far more than just NIMBY criticisms.
L ETT E RS Our readers write
Character of downtown Menlo fine the way it is Editor: I oppose the city’s “visioning” plan for downtown Menlo Park. I am a 24-year resident who enjoys the character of our downtown and do not want to see it changed. The merchants are struggling with the downturn of the economy and this plan appears to be a good idea for someplace other than Menlo Park. We have Stanford Shopping Center down the block. The impact on the businesses that are here will be devastating. Success is based on timing and good planning. The timing is totally wrong and the plan doesn’t fit this community. Bobbie Fakkema O’Conner Street, Menlo Park
Menlo merchants need a stimulus Editor: Whether the Menlo Park City Council chooses to admit it or not, the downtown merchants need some stimulus.
18 N The Almanac N July 14, 2010
Atherton Heritage Association
Our Regional Heritage The Atherton Town Council and staff posed for this photograph in 1952. From left, are: City Clerk Howard Boren, council members George Linsley, Edward E. Eyre, (Mayor) James Howell, Charles Merrill, Harry Mitchell, Henry Keuchler and City Attorney Winston Black. Historians say development in the town accelerated in the early 1950s following the end of World War II.
Instead of wasting $1.2 million on questionable consultants, why didn’t the mayor and the rest of the council sit down with the Planning Commission and the staff of the Planning Department and tell them: “We want commerce in this town. We want our businesses to grow and prosper. Stop doing everything you can to hinder the process.” The council could take city
monies and sponsor a Sunday “wash and wax” for downtown. They could offer some advertising support to merchants and landlords who participated. After we cleaned, painted and generally spruced up the downtown, how about a week-long promotion and sale with all of the merchants? Involve the Chamber of Commerce and maybe the service groups like the Kiwanis and oth-
ers. Generally, we should make some noise about what a great little city Menlo Park is, in spite of the long-standing, anti-business environment put forth by a number of city councils. A promotion like this cannot be a one-time affair, but an ongoing process. We need a city-friendly council and Planning CommisSee LETTERS, next page