HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2018 Item 15, Small (2)
From:Camille Small <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Fw: Compreme·ge·giousise for Bicyling on Chorro and Broad
Anholm spelling corrected. Please file corrected.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Camille Small <notetocamille@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 11:59:00 AM PDT
Subject: Compreme·ge·giousise for Bicyling on Chorro and Broad
Dear Mayor and Council,
I suppose there is room for levity (but very little as I am distraught again
as many often are with the decisions from Council.) What the subject line
reads is a complete mistake....I don't know how it got there but it makes me
laugh through my tears.
It doesn't really matter to most of you what caring permanent residents think
or feel. You "say" the Anholm neighborhood is "divided" and you are going to
use those words multiple times throughout your meeting tonight! Right?
You have proof that the devision is weigted on the side of residents objecting.
(Please, I am not saying you have not talked to a few who live there who want it.
I'm sure you have and you will use it as 'proof", won't you?) After all, all but
Councilwoman Pease is dismissive of the majority who have fought for this city for so long.
YOUR PROOF (you will neglect to use) is THE ENTIRE ROOM FULL OF ANHOLM
RESIDENTS AGAINST INTRUSION INTO A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD (along with
many of us who continue to try to protect all neighborhoods). You will remember that
seeing that roomfull of people and hearing from dozens who testified, didn't prevent Mayor
Harmon from saying this would be done "because so many people want it". A sham. Yes,
sorry.
Truthfully a sham.
In closing,
*This vote is not about whether more people will/might/should bike!!
*This vote is not about keeping bicyclists safe, for heaven's sake!!
Of course these are desirable goals--and they can be accomplished without the maximum
harm to a neighborhood. If we had a Council who represented all, instead of a minority,
you would be able to acknowledge healthy thinking.
Unless you cannot be anything but an idealogue, you could support what is best for the
neighborhood involved. Neighborhoods are (in ANY healthy town) the fabric which
supports the health and welfare of a town.
1
Anholm neighbors have put forth a plan that is workable. Adopt it as the most favorable for those most
immediately affected which includes bicyclists.
You know (if you take in all information) that cycle tracks are controversial.
Why stay with something that is controversial?
It does not signal good leadership.
It supports your way of favoring 'the few'
who have not been subjected to "social injustice".
SOCIAL INJUSTICE has truly
been experienced
by so many residents remaining here
and SO MANY forced to move
because of neighborhood disruption
and lack of intervention by those who could help.
Several on Council
have no recent experience with a once-intact neighborhood
protecting itself from further decline.
If you don't understand this, then you don't understand many of our
neighborhoods.
This is not democratic;
this is not diplomatic.
This is wrong.
I'm sorry there are some on Council
who simply don't understand the challege
for neighborhoods
because they have limited time
and limited experience with
these impacted areas of our city.
We all must look for this in
future candidates.
I couldn't feel more sorry for people trying to hold on in our neighborhoods,
It has been a heartfelt passion (not for my own neighborhood) for others for
many years and it is becoming more difficult to experience.
Camille Small
May I please ask no response from Mayor or Council except A. Pease
2