The town, again, is willing to spend $200,000 of taxpayer's money to lower electric poles 10 feet and double the amount. We know this will impact only the neighbors backing up to the tracks. Why not offer $100,000 to the effected residents to share for their inconvenience and same the $100,000. Or ask the neighbors to pony up the $200,000 themselves. Why should the town, taxpayers, pay for this. This is not a town issue.

Some members of the JPB, I believe, are just kind of gloating that they're putting it to us”


Dear Town Council - your Behavior does have consequences.

Former Atherton mayor Jim Janz has such a home, that abuts the railroad, and has been on the various committees dealing with rail issues despite this conflict of interest. That's why our taxpayer money is going to improve the value of his home and other similar homes in Lloyden Park. Like been there said, this is NOT a town issue. Town taxpayer money should not be funding this. These people knew they were buying homes next to a railroad and this was built into the price they paid for these homes.

If the Town had a collaborative relationship with Caltrain and had not been suing them for years then this desirable pole alignment would have been a simple matter of a handshake - no cash, no legal indemnification.

So sad that the Lloyden Park homeowners are being held hostage by the Town.

Maybe Atherton is just sore that Caltrain no longer serves the Atherton station.

"I believe Caltrain has not acted in good faith in dealing with Atherton," Ms. Lewis said. "There's no secret to the fact that Atherton has been a thorn in Caltrain's side for a long time because we've sued several times."

Cause, meet Effect. Funny that in a town as small as Atherton you've not met before!

Mtn Vw Calling Atherton:

Caltrain wants their money (actually ours) because Atherton originally insisted that Caltrain remove or prune as few heritage trees as possible. Fewer poles, aligned away from most of the trees makes sense from that perspective. Seems like maybe the staff report did not stay current with the design?? Just like we should not "all" have to pay for Palo Alto's trench or tunnel, why should we "all" have to pay for Atherton to change your minds about tree preservation??

Stop wasting the town's money on fighting special interest battles. Like Conflicts said, these home owners bought their homes knowing the railroad was a major part of their neighborhood. We should not be paying to fight their battles for them. If they want to fight Caltrain, they should raise the money to pay for it. If the council members approve this $200K waste of money, they'd better understand they are getting voted out in the next election. Wasn't the parcel tax fiasco enough of a wake up call?!? The town has $200K to fight the height of a pole for a few houses, but doesn't have enough money to run services without a special parcel tax??!? Nonsense!!!

I worry that we have begun to normalize the Town Council's behavior in neglecting the affairs of the Town in order to instead spend their time and our tax dollars confronting other agencies like Caltrain, the Library JPA, the Fire District, etc.

A clue to this behavior is perhaps found in the current Mayor's leadership history. Weist served as the President of the Highlands Recreation District which is self described in the LAFCO March 13, 2013 Municipal Services Review by this quote "The District’s March 12, 2013 comments reiterate their perspective that community is isolated and that residents cherish and value this isolation."

The Town of Atherton is not isolated and it cannot afford to be driven by an isolationist mentality. We are part of a broader and vibrant community and we need to strengthen, not weaken, our partnerships with our neighbors and with our partner agencies.

As an outsider, this seems perfectly reasonable. They are willing to give you everything you what you want if you pay for it and stop asking for anything more. I can't see how you could argue with this, and the mere fact that there is eve a discussion means they were right to demand it.