Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, January 19, 2018, 10:40 AM
https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2018/01/19/atherton-council-oks-up-to-175k-to-save-five-heritage-oaks
Town Square
Atherton council OKs up to $175K to save five heritage oaks
Original post made on Jan 19, 2018
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, January 19, 2018, 10:40 AM
Comments
Posted by David B
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Jan 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Jan 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm
Really? REALLY? IT'S JUST A TREE!
Posted by MEMBERONE
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2018 at 1:56 pm
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2018 at 1:56 pm
David B
Unless you live in Atherton, which by your claimed residence you don't, your comments are of no value to Athertonians.
You have no dog in this hunt.
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2018 at 2:11 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2018 at 2:11 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
""We should have been notified long before,"
And this is the Council that wants to run a fire department?
They cannot even manage trees!!!
Posted by Poor Decision
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Jan 19, 2018 at 3:57 pm
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Jan 19, 2018 at 3:57 pm
While I understand the need to preserve trees, the Council must balance this need against their role as stewards of public funds. In authorizing $175,000 dollars, they have failed in this role.
It is important for the Council to set aside their personal biases and make decisions on their perceptions of the typical Atherton resident's values. I speculate the average taxpayer does not value how *green* the building is when it comes at tremendous cost. The battery system for the library seems excessive. The LEEDS certification for the new building is a nice to have, not essential.
Likewise, saving a few trees is not a priority.
There is difference between the private sector developer who passes on the cost of project re-design to a buyer and the public sector taxpayer. For the taxpayer, there is no recovery mechanism. The private sector buyer will pay whatever the market will bear and clearly there are ample incentives to build in Atherton even with the constraints on heritage trees. For the taxpayer, the cost to save the trees comes at the expense of something else that will not be done ... or the real possibility of tax increases.
New trees can be placed at locations consistent with the project's design and they will grow back during the life expectancy of the buildings. Spending $175,000 of Atherton's finite (and increasingly scarce) task dollars to save a few trees is ludicrous.
What else could be done with $175,000? Given the Council's willingness to spend money this way, it certainly calls into question whether they have been good stewards of taxpayer funds in other decisions. Perhaps it is time for Matrix Consulting to review Atherton's expenditures.
