TONIGHT: Council takes up HSR, Cuesta tennis Other Issues, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Jun 9, 2009 at 2:38 pm
The City Council has a packed agenda tonight, including a study session on high speed rail, proposed utility rate increases, home loans for city employees and the selection of a new operator for the city's much-loved Cuesta tennis courts.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 1:53 PM
Posted by Caltrain Rider, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I hope the city of Mountain View will consider joining with the Peninsula cities in the high speed rail coalition. All the cities that will be immediately and intimately and forever impacted by high speed rail need to be able to draw from a position of political strength - not necessarily because one size fits all for the ultimate high speed rail configuration, but rather to ENSURE that "one size fits all" is not imposed by the high speed rail authority. The CHSRA is clearly interested in ~any~ lowest cost implementation, with minimal regard for the econimic health and welfare of the communities, which is not an appropriate criteria. Lowest cost implementation can do some very scary, ugly and distressful things to our communities if we don't fight for what is right. Mountain View will be a host of high speed rail forever after, please ensure that you have the political voice to make sure they do right by Mountain View.
Posted by Bruno, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2009 at 3:24 pm
It is my hope that our residents don't make a hasty decision to join a NIMBY movement. There is a very good reason why those cities don't want HSR, they've built their homes up against the tracks. We in Mtn. View on the other hand do not have that same issue, there's a lot of space. Don't let these other cities try to bully Mtn. View into joining their pity party.
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Bruno, I live nowhere near the tracks, so there is nothing NIMBY-ish about my opposition. I'd like an answer to what transit expert decided that added billions for this route made more sense than the original plan.
Sending this thing up the Peninsula is an expensive boondoggle with a negligable return on investment.
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2009 at 4:34 pm
It would seem to be in Mountain View's best interest to have the HSR end in San Jose, where commuters could then take an electrified version of Caltrain. Why are we trying to get people to SF as fast as possible while denying local communities a chance for their dollars. The time difference would only be 30 minutes. Stopping HSR in San Jose would also save a ton of money on this boondoggle which is destined to have cost over runs and ultimately be tax-payer subsidized for many generations to come.
Posted by curious, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Bruno, have you ever driven on Central?? There are plenty of houses and business areas like Castro St. that would be totally disrupted. We need to join with the other Peninsula cities to fight this poorly thought through boondoggle. Stop it at San Jose and electrify Caltrain on the peninsula is the only idea that remotely makes sense. Like Ben Franklin said, "We must hang together or we will hang separately."
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The areas that will be devastated by HSR are occupied largely by voiceless lower income members of our community. Bruno, Rod Diridon, the City Council and other HSR cheerleaders have shown their level of concern for these people.
Posted by Erin Horbach, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jun 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I'd understand that the council 'must' increase fees for garbage, water and sewer costs, but I'd also like to see the an incentive to use less of all three other than just an additional $1 in fees.
I often do not need to put out my garbage bin weekly because I compost my food waste, and I purchase items with as little packaging as possible to avoid adding waste to our landfills. But what incentive do I have to continue to do these things if I have to pay for a minimum 20gal garbage bin? And on top of my efforts, I even have to pay extra when others are not mindful as I am.
Furthermore, I have chosen to not purchase a home in this area because it financially does not make sense for my family. Why are we providing loans to people (e.g. new firefighters) who also financially cannot afford the abnormally high real estate in this area? Instead, it makes sense to put effective legislation in place which protects renters and ensures that certain standards and rent rate controls are maintained. That would be the financially more sound approach to ensuring we all have a secure and happy home.