Everett / Middlefield Improvements

A post I wrote for the local neighborhood group - 29 July 2014

Jonathan Seder from Fulton Street

A large number of collisions shows that dangerous conditions exist at the Everett Avenue / Middlefield Road intersection in Palo Alto. Several changes have been proposed over the years to improve these conditions. The following list incorporates suggestions from replies below:

1. Four-way stop: This is inexpensive to install but the colossal backups it would cause on Middlefield Road make it a non-starter.
   
   
2. Traffic signal: These are very expensive to install and to maintain, and the City is very reluctant to install them. From a neighborhood point of view, they increase noise and congestion and air pollution, and actually will encourage cut-through traffic. Traffic signal synchronization on two-way streets is generally impossible, and closely spaced signals on two-way streets totally disrupt traffic flow and increase congestion - think of the areas around Ikea, and Redwood City Costco, and indeed Middlefield between Homer and Lytton. We do not want to do that to this stretch of Middlefield Road.
   
   
3. Turn restrictions: Allow only right turns from Everett Avenue onto Middlefield Road. This is inexpensive and would have several benefits: it would smooth traffic flow on Middlefield, reducing noise and air pollution in our neighborhood; it would discourage if not eliminate cut-through traffic. There are a couple of disadvantages: drivers not aware would have to weave through the neighborhood to get back on track; and local residents will have to detour, probably to Lytton Avenue. If this option is implemented only with signage, it will require random police enforcement.
   
   
4. Turn restrictions enforced with tubular reflective channelizing devices installed down the centerline of Middlefield Road. This would also block left turns from Middlefield onto Everett Ave. It would be more effective than III but require more detours by residents.
   
   
5. Completely block Everett Avenue on the southwest (Stanford) side of the intersection with a permanent barrier (possibly located at Byron or Webster). This will greatly reduce cut-through traffic on Everett. Downtown North drivers will have a shorter detour via Hawthorne. This change will have complicated effects, not necessarily improving matters overall. [Thanks Dan]
   
   
6. Completely block Everett Avenue on the northeast (101) side of the intersection. This will require long detours by residents, and would tend to shift traffic onto Palo Alto Avenue. A significant number of motorists will continue to attempt the dangerous left turn from downtown North onto Middlefield. [Thanks Dan]
   
   
7. Middlefield Road currently narrows to one northwest-bound lane near Palo Alto Avenue. If that narrowing was shifted upstream to the Lytton/Everett block, turning traffic would have to negotiate only three lanes of traffic rather than the present four. This might offer minor improvements at Everett, but would exacerbate congestion generally on the Middlefield corridor.
   
   
8. Other traffic calming measures, such as speed tables, speed bumps, islands at Fulton / Everett and Fulton / Guinda, four-way stop at Fulton/Everett, radar speed indicator on Middlefield Road, and calming in Downtown North to reduce Everett cut-through traffic.
   
   

The City Council is most likely to fund an alternative that has broad neighborhood support and is acceptable to the City staff. Can we all get behind one option? Thoughts?

Legal Victories

I got a surprise in the mail today - notice of a settlement in a class action lawsuit about Bank of America's flood insurance policies for the years 2008-2013.

I bought my home in 1997 with a loan from Bank of America. A few years later - around 2000 - FEMA created a "special flood hazard area" (SFHA) which included my property, and because I had a Federally-insured home loan I was required to carry flood insurance. For the first few years, my premiums were very modest. But as they climbed, Bank of America's requirement that I carry the maximum coverage available became quite expensive. Starting in 2005 I argued in complaints to the bank that 12 CFR §339.3(a) required insurance coverage only in the lesser of the loan balance and the maximum amount available. Bank of America, however, asserted that they could require me to carry the maximum coverage amount regardless of the loan balance, and wouldn't budge from that position.

The bank said that this language in my loan papers allowed them require any insurance they wanted:

Borrower shall keep the improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the Property insured against loss by... any other hazards, including floods or flooding, for which Lender requires insurance. ... This insurance shall be maintained in the amounts and for the periods that Lender requires. ...

They backed up that threat by saying that if I didn't buy it (for $335 on the open market), they'd buy it for me and charge me $2,087.50!

I filed a complaint with the Comptroller of the Currency, but they declined to intervene.

In 2010, the underwriter for the insurance company finally noticed that my home was in an SFHA and my premium jumped from $335 to $1,555. I paid that, and paid $1,633 in 2011 and 2012, and $1710 in 2013. Late in 2013 when the premium hit $1,820 I paid off my mortgage (even though the rate was only 2.25%) and canceled my flood insurance.

In today's settlement notice, Bank of America agreed to pay $31 million to settle claims for abuses related to flood insurance. Two-thirds of that amount will be divided among people who had exorbitantly overpriced insurance forced on them, and people who (like me) were compelled to buy more insurance than they wished.

I hope to get something out of this personally. But mostly I am discouraged. Bank of America was once a great company with a real consumer focus. A. P. Giannini made retail banking part of the average consumer's life. By building a large branch network, introducing MICR check automation, and developing the modern credit card Bank of America brought great benefits to many people. But in this area, at least, the company seems to have lost its way.

This was one of just two times in recent decades I was treated poorly in a business dispute. The other incident involved PayPal.

I used PayPal to buy a $58 bicycle trunk bag. That and two other items were left at my front door one day. Two of the three items were stolen. (A spray bottle of raccoon repellent was left behind.) One package was purchased with a credit card and delivered by UPS; that vendor immediately shipped a replacement. The other package was purchased with PayPal funded with a checking account and shipped via the US Postal Service. Because USPS delivered the parcel, the vendor refused to offer any replacement and wouldn't budge. The vendor hadn't offered me the option of buying postal insurance - but in any case postal insurance protects the shipper, who pays for it and makes any claims for loss.

I did a little research and learned that under the Uniform Commercial Code, when a merchant sells to another merchant, title passes when the goods are delivered. But when a merchant sells to a consumer, title passes when the consumer "takes possession." On this basis - and also under PayPal's satisfaction guarantee which promises the same benefits as a credit card purchase, I filed a complaint. PayPal denied it.

I sent my complaint along to the Santa Clara County Consumer Protection Unit, part of the District Attorney's office. A few weeks later I got a telephone call from a staff lawyer there who said that she believed that I was in the right legally. She had argued the case on my behalf with PayPal but they refused to budge. She said that I could try in small claims court, but the dollar amount probably didn't justify the time and effort. Surprised and grateful for her help, I thanked her -- and removed my checking account as a PayPal funding source.

To my great surprise, several years later I received notice of a class action suit for cases where PayPal's protections did not match those of credit cards. I filled out the paperwork and to my greater surprise eventually received a check for $86!

So two times I have been frustrated in pursuing modest claims against big businesses and in both cases my arguments were eventually vindicated through class action lawsuits. Perhaps businesses should take my complaints and arguments more seriously - they'd save a lot of money in legal fees and settlements.

We'll see what happens with my new Whirlpool refrigerator, which after three service calls still doesn't get cold.