Original post made
on Nov 19, 2007
This is in response to Ed Taub's thoughts on spending money at locally owned businesses vs. stores like Walmart. I agree with his idea and would rather support a locally owned store vs. a national chain. However, I have a question... if national chains like Walmart reap the benefits of the Mountain View consumers at whatever state happens to be their headquarters; then what about other chains like Safeway, Whole Foods, Target, etc. We are surrounded by national chain stores... where else would we be able to purchase toilet paper and basic household supplies? I can understand if there was a local butcher shop or mom & pop owned pet supply store or restaurant... but I don't see any locally owned places that can sell me toilet paper.
Godfry should stop whining about traffic. It's not that bad in the morning and I have no idea what these supposed "hours" are in the evening. I'd rather have efficient infill than have everyone priced out of the MV area and have businesses leave due to the unsustainable unaffordability of the area.
Godfrey wrote: "Traveling north on Highway 101 is now stop and go ... for several hours in the evening from Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto to Ellis Street in Mountain View."
"Traveling north on Highway 101 is now stop and go ... "
Thanks to infill housing, I am not one of those cars anymore. High density housing promotes sustainability. Suburban sprawl is the source of the traffic congestion. The Sierra Club is intelligently promoting "smart growth" that keeps housing away from undeveloped open space, farms, and forests. I can walk to three grocery stores, 3 large department stores, and numerous small shops and restaurants. I regularly bike to work too. For the same price I paid here, I could have bought a McMansion in Gilroy. But then my carbon footprint would be HUGE, and my free time would be wasted behind a steering wheel.
I don't know if the Hawthorne Park project is a good one, but it is wrong to vilify "smart growth" as a means of opposing it. I really fail to see how "Infill housing destroys the efforts of other Sierra Club chapters to save the Sierras and the Central Valley from development." High density housing needs far less water per person than a huge suburban subdivision in the Central Valley with acres and acres of irrigated lawns. Mr. Baumgartner's argument equates to "No Growth" at all. That is probably not viable, and it surely isn't good for the economy. I'm not opposed to "No Growth", but I support the reality of "Smart Growth". For reference, the Crossings is used as a good example of "smart growth" by the US EPA: Web Link