Editorial: Dish modifications unpleasant and unjustified

The outcome of the new Dish regulations has been a surprise and a disappointment to University affiliates and area residents alike.

In May, The Daily wrote in support of the conservation and use plan, commending Stanford's attempt to preserve the land.

Although the plan appeared desirable at its unveiling, The Daily can no longer support the new regulations due to the manner in which they have been enacted.

As with other open space preserves such as Jasper Ridge, the University claimed that a stricter usage policy was needed to protect the Foothills from environmental degradation. Activities such as picnicking and dog-walking can upset natural ecosystems in irreversible ways.

We applauded the University's recognition of responsibility for the preservation of the Foothills area.

The positive aspects of the plan have been undermined by the paving of the four-mile loop, the implementation of patrolling officers on motorized recreational vehicles, superfluous sign posting and the stationing of armed guards.

The University presented the plan as a means to preserve the environmental integrity of the Foothills. The decision to pave the loop and to use motorized vehicles in the area clearly acts against this intent.

Neither have the regulations contributed to the recreational potential of the land. The 55 signs posted along the "Recreational Route" obstruct the view and disturb the sanctity of the space. Further, with the concrete road now serving as the only permissable route for joggers, there is no soft ground to protect runners from impact-related injuries.

Many residents of the surrounding area feel understandably alienated by the University's actions. Because the Dish is now inaccessible shortly after working hours and dogs are no longer permitted, access to residents is severely restricted. The armed guards also contribute to an uncomfortable and unwelcoming environment for visitors and students.

At a time when a good relationship to area residents is both at risk and necessary, in light of the upcoming review of the land use plan, it seems foolish for the University to sacrifice general peace for a goal - environmental integrity - it obviously cares little about. In short, what once appeared to be a thinly veiled attempt to place distance between Stanford and area residents has become an obvious insult to students and community members alike.

The closing off of the trails in the Foothills is a great disappointment to nature lovers at Stanford. When there is little perceivable gain, environmental or otherwise, the loss of a peaceful and expansive escape for students and residents is unacceptable.

The University has not been accountable for its actions in this matter, which were not disclosed to the public in advance and which clearly contradict its stated aims.

Any further actions in the Foothills must be discussed openly before enactment. The University is responsible for justifying its actions and for demonstrating how these new measures improve conditions for students.

Based on the deviation away from the original, laudable goal of the conservation and use plan, we call for an end to the draconian regulations.

The trails should again be opened to hikers and dogs. The hours should no longer be restricted, and the signs should be removed. While the police patrol route is a postive safety measure, the armed guards are gratuitious and unnecessary.

One would be hard pressed to argue that dogs and hikers do as much environmental damage as University-ordered pavement and motorized vehicles.