HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2018 Item 15, Pinard
Purrington, Teresa
From:Peg Pinard <pinardmat@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, September 3, 2018 8:07 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:City Council Agenda Item # 15 Anholm Bikeway
Attention City Council:
A person’s home is usually their biggest single investment and
with that purchase comes the expectation that their homes will
remain a stable environment in which to live. People also have the
expectation of living in a neighborhood where they can derive
some sense of camaraderie with others. Studies have also shown
that most people are happiest when they can stay in their homes
for as long as they are physically able.
The idea that current residents could just be dismissed with a
“Well, this is for future generations…” comment as was said to
have been made by Council Member Revoir, is very disturbing.
For one, it basically means that the current residents are of no
concern, yet these are the very same residents that he swore to
serve. “Future generations” by its very nature aren’t here
yet. Deliberately tossing aside a segment of our community is just
really hard to fathom! Is that how council members view their
parents? or grandparents? I truly thought we had come so much
further in our attitudes of understanding towards one another.
Especially in the older areas of town, where there aren’t the
double garages (if there are even garages at all) or wide
driveways, taking away on-street parking is devastating to those
who live there. When people bought into those neighborhoods -
(and give them credit for being the stability for this town over all
these many years) - they did not envision having their livability
being ‘dismissed’. The long-term effect is that those homes will
no longer be able to be places where residents will be able to live
out their days nor will new families be enticed to buy into those
neighborhoods. The living conditions will just be too
difficult…carrying babies, groceries, etc. across a busy street just
to get to one’s home is not a positive selling point. So much for
providing homes for working families that the council claims it
cares so much about! How is the removal of parking in front
of existing homes helping those "future generations"?
I think the underlying hypocrisy of council’s statements is
particularly disturbing. The council seems to only care about
‘future generations’ when it suits them. These very same long-time
residents, who are only asking to be able to have reasonable
access to their homes, have been the very ones who worked long
and hard to protect our natural open spaces and protections of
wildlife for future generations. But, the environmental assets they
1
worked to protect and preserve are being dismantled by this very
same council. As was stated in a letter to the council of what our
city residents clearly said they wanted for future generations:
"Remember what your residents said so forcefully and clearly
when asked what THEIR highest priority was...IT WAS THE
PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL RESERVES/OPEN
SPACES. The city reiterated that when they asked residents to
tax themselves in order to guarantee protection. THIS council will
have the distinction of: “having removed the protection of open
space as a major city goal” and now, being the ONLY Council
to ever weaken an existing wildlife protection in the City’s Open
Space Ordinance.”
Like I said, I think the underlying hypocrisy of council’s statements
is particularly disturbing.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
former Chairperson, SLO County Board of Supervisors
founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association
2