Editorial Approve open space bond Measure AA After public visioning process, MROSD seeks voter funding support
I
t is not an overstatement to say that the creation of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in 1972 is the single biggest reason for the extensive open space and recreational opportunities we enjoy today up and down the Peninsula, and out to the coast. One need only look west to the tree-covered coastal mountains to see the legacy of that voter initiative, passed locally the same historic year as voters statewide established the California Coastal Commission to protect the entire coastline. On the June 3 ballot, voters in the 17 Santa Clara and San Mateo county cities that make up the open-space district will have the chance to ensure these lands are maintained properly and made more accessible for public enjoyment over the next few decades. Measure AA, which requires a two-thirds vote for passage, authorizes the sale of up to $300 million in general obligation bonds over 30 years. It will increase local property taxes by up to $3.18 per $100,000 in assessed valuation, or about $30 a year for a homeowner with a property assessed at $1 million. The district’s current operations are funded primarily through a property tax of $17 per $100,000 in assessed value, which will continue unaffected by the outcome of Measure AA. Over its 41-year history, there has always been a tension between land acquisition, whose aim is to seize opportunities as they arise to convert private land holdings into public open space, and developing trails and other facilities that allow the public to enjoy these acquired lands. The elected governing board has done a good job over the years at this delicate balancing act, and the result is 62,000 acres in 26 different preserves between Los Gatos and San Carlos and from the bay to the ocean open for hiking, biking and horseback riding. Over the last year and a half, the district has undertaken a public process to evaluate its priorities and develop a vision and plan for the next 40 years. After input from many public meetings, the district has created a list of 25 priority projects that will be undertaken if the bond measure passes. These include opening more areas to public access, improving and constructing more trails and facilities, restoring creeks and streams, and strategic acquisition of additional land as it becomes available. A list of the specific projects can be found on the district’s website at openspace.org/MeasureAA. We are strong believers in the work of the Midpeninsula Open Space District and the value it brings to our increasingly urbanized environment. Having such extensive open space so close is a major contributor to our quality of life in this region. We are also heartened by the district’s commitment to focusing on increasing the public use and accessibility of these publicly funded lands rather than simple preservation. Going forward, the district’s success should be measured by how many new trails, trail connections and facilities are added, and the extent that opportunities for all types of users, including hikers, bikers, horseback riders, campers and particularly dog owners are significantly expanded. The public made clear these desires during the public meetings in preparation for the bond measure proposal, and the district needs to move in this direction regardless of the passage of Measure AA. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is made up of the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, Redwood City, San Carlos, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Half Moon Bay. In essence, the taxpayers in these cities have banded together for the last four decades to preserve open space in perpetuity and create opportunities for readily accessible recreational activities. Measure AA provides a way of spreading the costs of significantly improving these opportunities at a very low cost per taxpayer. It is hard to imagine a more important public investment than to maintain and improve the valuable open space that provides us with beautiful views, recreational opportunities and protection against development. We urge a “yes” vote on Measure AA on the June 3 ballot.
Page 20ÊUÊ >ÞÊÓ]ÊÓä£{ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii ÞÊUÊÜÜÜ°*> Ì " i°V
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Shuttle benches please Editor, For 14 years now we have had a free Palo Alto shuttle. However, we still have no shuttle stop benches at the Town and Country Shopping Center, the Library-Art Center and along Embarcadero Road. There are many Palo Alto citizens, especially the elderly or those with an injury or disability, who would love to use the shuttle to visit the above places, but cannot because it is too painful to stand while waiting for a bus. Using the shuttle instead of their cars would also help reduce the traffic problem. Neighboring cities have benches at their bus stops. Why does Palo Alto have no benches? It cannot be because of lack of money, as Palo Alto had a very large surplus. Where did that money go? I have been writing to the city for over two years but my requests for benches have been ignored. Please send an email to the Palo Alto City Council to install badly needed benches at the shuttle stops. The City Council email address is city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. Thank you very much. Werner Wadensweiler Greer Road, Palo Alto
Only now? Editor, Regarding “Palo Alto lawyer takes aim at California’s ‘broken’ education-funding system” (April 25, 2014), I wholeheartedly applaud Nancy Krop’s efforts and largely agree with her sentiments and prescriptions. But it is depressing to read that “an educated, well-read” lawyer who graduated from Gunn High School just two years after passage of Proposition 13, who took advantage of a good, inexpensive public education through the UC system, and who has lived in California during the intervening decades was “stunned to learn” in 2009 that “our schools have dropped from the top five to the bottom five (in per-pupil funding and performance.)” I too graduated from an excellent California public high school around the same time and have watched with utter dismay as our schools and other public services have deteriorated dramatically over the last 35 years. It is a sad commentary on the state of public discourse that longtime, wellintentioned Californians have not been paying close attention to the devastating effects of Proposition 13 and its progeny (e.g., Prop 218, Prop 26). The unfortunate consequence, I believe, is that most newer residents without that historical context take California’s resulting
mediocrity as par for the course and essentially immutable. Deborah Sivas College Avenue, Palo Alto
Sleepy no more Editor, Every time I read in your paper about plans for the “revitalization” of California Avenue, I feel sad. California Avenue is one of the last remnants of the old, interesting Palo Alto, the small, sleepy university town that we moved to 30 years ago. There was a time when downtown was sleepy, too. The Varsity Theater had free live music in the courtyard; there was a funky, inexpensive restaurant arcade nearby, and lots of small, local businesses — like a great music store — to patronize. Alas! The tech boom has flooded our quiet village with expensive shops and restaurants, skyhigh rents, and it has become an area destination. Wonderful places — like the old St. Michael’s Alley coffee house (free live music, seven nights a week), Cafe Verona and the Artifactory artists coop — were long ago driven out. And for what? An overcrowded, traffic-filled downtown with huge parking problems. For whom? Mostly for people who don’t even live here! California Avenue is an area where you can be comfortable in
jeans and T-shirt, ride your bike and hang out at Printer’s Cafe. Why does its laid-back ambiance have to be destroyed by zealous crusaders, to be replaced by some architectural horror? Have the nouveau riche taken over? Dana St. George Campesino Avenue, Palo Alto
Space has a price Editor, The Redwood City council is exhibiting exemplary leadership with its latest plan to increase parking rates in its core downtown. The concept of paying rent for a desk or a bed, otherwise known as office rent and apartment rent, is widely accepted, but for some reason we balk at the notion of paying rent to park a car. This blindness to the cost we all pay for allotting huge space in our urban areas to car storage is just a vestige of last century’s love affair with the automobile. As UCLA Professor Donald Shoup has pointed out in his seminal book, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” our current policy of subsidizing parking has not evolved with the times. Fortunately, forward-looking municipalities like Redwood City are leading the way to the 21st century and demanding that car commuters pay a more realistic price for the space their machines occupy. Kaia Eakin Tadley Court, Redwood City
WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
Do you think school board members should receive health benefits? Submit letters to the editor of up to 300 words to letters@paweekly.com. Submit guest opinions of 1,000 words to editor@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Editorial Assistant Sam Sciolla at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.