Mayor McAlister seemed to anticipate that a large number of people would want to speak when the time came for Oral Communications from the Public on Non-Agendized items, because he said that speaking time would be limited to 2 minutes before he got a count of how many people would be speaking, even though the public usually has 3 minutes to speak.
THe Mayor also seemed to anticipate that a large number of people would be unhappy with the Council because he warned the public beforehand that they needed to be "professional" and not engage in personal attacks against the Council or staff. I am not sure why he thought it was necessary. I can't remember a time where members of the public have resorted to personal attacks during a Council meeting.
The overwhelming majority of people expressed their dipleasure with the fact that the Council had reversed itself, and in particular that Council Members Rosenberg and Showalter had reversed their positions from their campaign pledges without adequate explanation as to why.
Many of the speakers in oppositon raised points about the increased traffic, diversion of traffic into the neighborhoods, the negative effect on small businesses, the fact that the VTA has not responded to City's letter requesting additional information, and the removal of hundreds of trees. As far as I know, none of these questions has been adequately answered.
Gary Wesley referred to the Council's decision as a "Coup" for the VTA bus only lanes because they could say the cities affected by the BRT are split. He said that he was tking input from the community for a possible recall for Council Members Rosenberg and Showalter after noting that Council Member Rosenberg did not specify what new information led to his change of heart, and that Council Member Showalter did not specify the people that she spoke with who changed her mind.
Only 4 people spoke in favor of the BRT lanes, one of which was a VTA Community Outreach Specialist ( Someone responsible for promoting VTA projects) who only acknowledged that fact after John Inks asked her directly. It is these type of tactics where people represent themselves as part of the community, but really are speaking on issues that directly benefit the companies they work for, that I find disengenuous. Let me be clear on this, I don't care if people want to speak on behalf of their companies/agencies or whatever, but they should identify themselves as employees when they are speaking so that people have a clear idea of what may be motivating them. This type of tactic just reinforces my distrust of the project overall.
I have made no secret of the fact that I have been opposed to the idea of BRT from the beginning, even though I have relied on public transportation almost exclusively for the last 3 years, because that has been more than enough time for me to see just how inadequate and flawed the plan is.
Some people say "We're just trying to give you more options". That is not true. The intention is to create enough gridlock and make driving so inconvenient that we don't have a choice. Steps are already being taken to restrict the privilege of driving to the the priveleged who can afford it (toll lanes anyone?).
The bottom line is the very people who are telling all of us to get out of our cars, are unwilliing to get out of theirs. I would b willing to wager a signoficant amount of money, that when the VTA representatives came to Mountain View last week, they didn't take the bus to get there! If they can drive, why can't we?
Jim Neal
Resident
Old Mountain View
(Not employed by any company affected by BRT lanes)
