By Bruce Barton

Anger at Packard Foundation misdirected

As you’ve been reading in these pages, everyone, it seems, has an opinion on what belongs at the .78-acre city-owned site at First and Main streets.

For awhile, debate centered on hotel vs. theater. Recently, a women’s exercise facility has entered the equation.

Seems the owners of The Spa of Los Altos, Bruce Cunningham and Rosie Ruiz, would like the city to consider their women’s health facility as part of the First and Main development.

That’s fine and probably good news to Spa and Reach Fitness users who want nearby facilities. Many of these users are bemoaning the fact that the Spa and Reach facilities along San Antonio Road have been sold to the Packard Foundation, which has been looking to expand its Los Altos headquarters. While owners of both facilities said they sold to Packard because they needed more space to accommodate their membership, both pledged to relocate as close as possible.

But this didn’t sit well with some members, who don’t like the prospect of having to travel to Palo Alto or Mountain View to work out. Letters poured into our paper, reporting that thousands of users will be inconvenienced.

What is puzzling to me, however, is the indignation and blame aimed at the Packard Foundation. The inference from some was that the Packard Foundation forced these businesses to sell.

Both Reach and Spa owners have said they approached the Packard Foundation about selling their properties.

Another puzzling point is that Spa owners said in a letter that the council has “ignored” them about the possibility of moving to First and Main. But we never heard about their interest until their users were allegedly signing a petition to keep an exercise facility here. One would presume they, like the other developers, had months, even years, to get their plans into shape.

What am I getting at? It’s reasonable that Spa and Reach owners are selling because they need more space. It’s great that Spa owners want to be considered for First-Main. But it’s not OK for Packard or the city to be portrayed as villains. It’s so easy - and safe - to point fingers at these bureaucracies, because the public sees them as faceless and they generally don’t respond to such criticisms. And nine times out of 10, I am going to stand up for David against Goliath. But the criticisms in this case are unfounded and are inconsistent with the facts.

Now it’s time for me to own up to my own unfair criticism. In the March 29 issue, I wrote an editorial about demanding neighbors who wanted windows sealed shut for a two-story addition on Colleen Drive. Now I should know better about commenting without first talking to the neighbors myself. So I heard from Bev Lozoff, who didn’t consider herself a demanding neighbor. After talking to her, I’m inclined to agree. Her side of the story was that she and other neighbors were reasonable with the applicant. So again, I am reminded to pay closer attention to the full story and avoid painting with a broad brush. To those who I “inadvertently maligned,” as Lozoff stated, I apologize.

Bruce Barton is editor of the Town Crier.