Good call on new mini-park | August 31, 2007 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

Opinion - August 31, 2007

Good call on new mini-park

The City Council had a choice last week: Approve purchase of a badly needed mini-park at the end of West Dana Street north of Shoreline Road, or back out of the deal at the behest of neighbors fearful of badly-behaving teens from the neighborhood.

This story contains 480 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe


Like this comment
Posted by Nick Perry
a resident of Shoreline West
on Sep 5, 2007 at 12:58 am

Matt Pear was talking about Klein Park, which he lives across the street from. It doesn't take a genius to see that Klein Park and the proposed park on West Dana are two different animals in terms of siting and visibility.

Klein Park is on the corner of California and Ortega Street. The West Dana Park is surrounded by the backyards of adjacent homes with a narrow opening on Mariposa and an even narrower opening on West Dana.

At Klein Park, neighbors in apartments adjacent and across the street from the park turned their video cameras on from balconies and windows to record nightly activity and get police (and eventually City Council) attention.

I find it ludicrous that both Pear and the Voice are volunteering neighbors' video cameras as a solution to potential problems on West Dana Street. That is not a solution – rather, it will be a clear sign that the City made a mistake with this purchase and failed with the design of the park.

This editorial also ignores the true reason Mayor Macias, Councilmember Siegal and Councilmember Bryant voted against the resolution. They were all in favor of purchasing the parcel – they simply disliked Vice Mayor Means' amended resolution which closed the door on exploring other options for the site after purchase.

They simply wanted to explore the possibility of keeping some or all of the affordable housing units on the site. They recognized that both affordable housing and parkland are desperately needed in this neighborhood. Unfortunately, the slim majority of the City Council decided it wasn't even worth *looking* at the option of maintaining the current cottages. It was a poor and narrow minded decision.

Nevertheless, the decision has been made and despite their concerns, the neighbors are willing to make the best of the situation. Hopefully by working together with the City and police, neighbors will be able to address safety concerns and make the park as safe as can be via its design. In other words, hopefully no video cameras will be needed.

The Voice's suggestion that the City purchase the parcel that currently makes the park site L-shaped is a solution worth exploring. I would support that, but only if the restored Victorian house on the site is re-used or relocated rather than demolished.

However, I doubt the current owners have any interest in letting go of their beautiful home…

…but who knows....maybe that'll change after they get tired of manning the park-monitoring video cameras on their back and side-yard fences ;)

I kid.

Kind of.