HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2018 Item 15, Czech
Christian, Kevin
From:Genevieve Czech <agczech@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:51 AM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Sept. 4th City Council meeting/ Anholm Bikeway
Honorable Lady Mayoress and Members of the City Council,
The final vote on the Anholm bikeway gives you an opportunity to come to a solution that is serving both sides of the
debate.
The voice of residents who appeal for a more modified plan (i.e., not protected bikeways), who promote decision
making within budget constraints, who counsel taking time to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan both for adult
cyclists and school children, is the voice of reason.
The initial proposals were fully discussed in that light. There appeared to be an outcome satisfying opposing views.
Subsequent discussion has introduced an element of impatience to rush forward with a pre-determined plan
encouraged by the cycling coalition. Those residents who have been variously described as a "highly vocal minority"
have cycled most of their lives, and some still do. They do not need instruction on the merits of cycling. Nor do they
need instruction on sustainability. Sustainability does indeed need sacrifice of personal comfort, but not at the cost of
the safety and stability of neighborhoods and the freedom to use one's own property.
It is an impertinence to call those who resist change "divisive:. To resist change is no more divisive than to promulgate
it. It depends on whether the change is beneficial or harmful. In this case, the divisiveness issues from the City
introducing radical changes that ride roughshod over the interests of longtime residents who have been financing the
City. It is furthermore only natural that concern arise primarily from those most directly affected. Further opposition to
"protected bikeways" has from the outset included voices from the Foothill/Ferrini neighborhoods who use Chorro by
bicycle on a daily basis. It misrepresents current bicycle commuter traffic to exclude those cyclists in your so-called
"matrix" who have repeatedly objected to the "protected bikeways" plan, while City and Council refer chiefly to
commuter cyclists from across town.
Anholm neighbors United represents a MAJORITY vote from that neighborhood, hence its name. It is precisely in the
Anholm neighborhood that some residents were among the first in SLO to install solar panels, purchase electric cars,
support local organic farmers, hang their laundry on a clothesline, install drought friendly landscaping, give their time
unceasingly to Citizens Climate Lobby , both locally and nationally. They have taught city planning at Cal Poly and
published books on environmental concerns, one entitled "Physics and Societal Issues". To repeat: they do not need
instruction on sustainability, nor on the merits of cycling. It is the height of arrogance to dismiss their arguments as
much as to dismiss your very own Planning Commission's objections to the "protected bikeways" and recommendations
for a reasonable alternative. The City staff and City Council must needs respect professional judgment as it deserves.
I repeat again, this is not a debate on the merits of cycling and sustainability, but rather on the suitability, safety,
urgency, and financial feasibility of the "protected bikeways" plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Genevieve Czech, Stanford Drive, San Luis Obispo
1