 |
|
|
|
|
Speak Out
Lights and sidewalks make streets safer
We agree with the letters in your Nov. 17 issue; that preserving the rural character of some of the neighborhoods in Campbell at the expense of sidewalks and street lights is utter foolishness. The rain collects on the street without sidewalks; I can vouch for this, as for nine years I have used a bus stop on one of these types of streets, sometimes having to avoid puddles.
Sidewalks will also curtail sharp turns by cars and buses; most important, children would have a safer path to parks and schools.
I walk frequently in the areas with no sidewalks and I marvel at the fact that there are few tract homes; as a consequence, the block is more interesting. However, the individual style of the houses will remain and the street will be safer with lights and sidewalks.
Mr. and Mrs. Ken Schieck
Campbell
Know neighborhood before you purchase
Why is it that so often the influence of new members of a community claims to be justified in enforcing a new set of standards within that community? Unfortunately, I missed the article in the November 10th issue of The Campbell Reporter ("Silicon Valley 'Okies' want to keep their neighborhood intact"), but I did see the rebuttal in the November 17th issue ("San Tomas' streets must evolve with rest of community").
I cannot, for the life of me, understand the philosophy that if I don't like progress, I should leave. Isn't that the same question that the Spaniards and Europeans brought to the Indians? What's next?
My family has lived in my Emory Avenue house since 1948. Sure, I plan to remodel, thereby improving the value of my parcel of land and those surrounding it, but I would never attack my neighbors because I don't approve of their home's appearance or their lifestyles. If I am correct, many of the supporters of the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan were residents before the mass growth of the Silicon Valley. Many of us grew up in this neighborhood and have invested significant amounts of our lives in one of the last communities to allow the frantic mayhem of this valley to be left at work.
I certainly don't fit the description of an Okie, but I do have a rotary phone and pride myself on the ability to keep reality in check. For anyone who has recently moved into this area, I welcome you as a neighbor and hopefully a friend, but please do not try to make changes to what you must see as a community below your standards after buying your home. If you didn't like the area, you should have made that consideration prior to making your purchase.
I promise that I will lend my support to the San Tomas Area plan, so long as it maintains its current theme. If you have not read it, please take the time before pledging your opinions. If you have and still hold that it is unreasonable in its guidelines, I respect your opinion, but do not agree with you.
Like many in this neighborhood, I work in a high-tech career, but I have not yet achieved a six-figure salary. The estimates I have seen forecast a steep price for sidewalks to be put along the streets. I have never counted more than 100 cars passing my house on any given day, but I have often noted neighborhood children playing football or baseball in the street. I am not willing to write the city a $20,000 check so that sidewalks can be added to provide "safety" for children on the street, when they will be in the street anyway; having a good time, growing up ... just like I did.
All I ask is that in the future, please consider what you want from a neighborhood before your purchase, rather than trying to change the history of an area to suit your personal needs. I wouldn't do that to you.
Erik Hansen
Emory Avenue
The cold hard facts of street improvement
Before we bought a house on Walnut Drive in Campbell last year, we carefully examined the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP), the legal document that governs building codes and development in the San Tomas area. We accepted the comparatively strict building codes, and we accepted that our street has no sidewalks. The STANP demands that new developments match the predominant features of a street--sidewalks where they dominate, no sidewalks elsewhere. This seemed fair enough.
Too bad that things are never that easy. Many Campbell residents apparently believe that all streets in their city should be "improved," whether the people living there want it or not. Others believe that sidewalks cause irreparable damage to the character of their neighborhood, and are opposed to them wherever they do not already exist. Neither view, I submit, shows much of a sense of community. I am particularly upset by the view of some sidewalk fanciers that anyone who dislikes sidewalks does not belong in Campbell--their Campbell, that is. This kind of discriminatory talk is not likely to improve Campbell as a community, no matter who "wins" this screaming match.
There is, however, one aspect to street improvements that goes beyond "rural feel" versus "modern city," and that is Cold Hard Cash. When the city of Campbell decides to improve the street in front of a house, they encourage the owner to "dedicate" part of the property to the city--typically some five to 15 feet of it. "Dedication" is a nice word for "give-away"--you get no money for it. If the owner refuses to "dedicate" the land, the city will invoke "eminent domain," pay money for it and then bill the owner for exactly that amount in "processing fees." Yes, that means the homeowner gets no money either, and probably has additional legal bills to pay.
On top of that, it is the owner who gets to pay for the street improvement, between $70 and $200 per linear foot of the street frontage. The city will put a "notice of improvement obligation" on the land, which is so close to a lien that the county recorder's office can't tell the difference. You may not have to pay immediately, but you have to pay when you add to or reconstruct your house. Needless to say, anyone you try to sell your home to may deduct this obligation from their offer price.
Finally, the land you so graciously "dedicated" to the city no longer counts in the various building code calculations. That means that the maximum size of your house just went down, and any future addition must be further from the street than before. All these are real costs that a homeowner incurs as the result of the street improvement.
Still, this may be worth many people's while. If a strong majority of a street's inhabitants want sidewalks in front of their houses, and are willing to pay for the privilege, they should certainly be entitled to them. On the other hand, anyone tempted to argue for sidewalks in front of other people's homes should take a deep breath. You are proposing to spend other people's money, and to take away other people's land, for your own benefit. Whether you do so in the hope of higher property values for your own house, or just because you enjoy Campbell better with sidewalks everywhere, you are proposing to benefit from other people's expenses. Is that the kind of community you had in mind?
We live in this town together, and if we are serious about preserving and promoting our communities, we must learn to compromise and cooperate. Taking each other's concerns seriously might be a good first step.
Peter Kiehtreiber
Walnut Drive
|
|
|
|
Campbell, California
