Whose safe streets were they?

I drive in and near the streets noted in the article daily and cannot fathom those costs, considering the only visible changes were what was shown on the front page of the newspaper. Two barriers blocking half a lane at each intersection where the “Safe Streets” were in effect. Except for the initial cost of the signs and paying an already employed public works employee to stage the signs, somebody explain to me a $4,000 per month expenditure for maintaining signs that never moved during the closures. And I never saw anything, other than street cleaning, being done to maintain the streets. So where were the cost expenditures? I rarely, if ever, saw anyone walking, jogging or riding a bike on those streets any more than what I saw on adjoining streets.

In addition, it may have forced drivers to reroute themselves, however, that just caused more vehicles to use the other streets. How does that add safety to the overall neighborhoods? It didn’t take any more cars off the road. Drivers still drove their cars, vans and delivery trucks in and around the neighborhood, even down the supposedly closed off streets ignoring the signs all together.

In my opinion, this endeavour is just another publicity, picture-taking event for our elected officials to get their names and quotes into the newspaper so come reelection time they can point to this circus act as one of their commitments to “improving our community.” Even spinning the absolute failure of this “Safe Street” initiative into a positive per Amourence Lee’s quote, “I really think it served an important purpose. It was a very  community driven process (read councilmembers), and at this point in time, I don’t think that the cost justification is there. Ya think Amo?

Bob Wackerman

San Mateo