More questions on Car Dwelling Ban Palo Alto Issues, posted by pavoter, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm
The headline reads "Ban on car dwelling loses support in Palo Alto" -- raises some questions for me. Does this mean that anyone who wants to live in their car/rv can park in front of my house and the city will do nothing to prevent this? Are you kidding?
The headline makes is sound like the majority of Palo Altans feel strongly that people living in their cars can park in front of our houses, but when you read closely -- it was only three city council committee members who feel this way. Really, they should offer their street parking in front of their houses to see how well this works out.
The article calls this a "deeply divisive proposal" but also mentions that all our surrounding cities have such a ban. How could it be so deeply divisive here but not in Menlo Park or Mountain View, etc.? Sounds more like a few people have an agenda and are pushing it through by trying to make Palo Altans feel guilty if they object to someone living in their car in front of their residence.
Figuring out some alternative area where car dwellers can park is OK. But it is not ok that someone can just start living right in front of your residence.
Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm
The title should really be "City Council does not support car dwelling in Palo Alto". It is obvious that most Palo Alto residents want a resolution on not only Car Dwelling but parking issues in general. We would like neighborhood parking to be used by neighborhood residents and their guests, business parking to be provided by businesses, and RV's parked in RV parks.
Posted by little egypt, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2012 at 8:13 pm
That can't be right. When we refinished our hardwood floors last year, we parked our usually stored RV in front of our house for ONE DAY and the cops paid us a visit. They told us it was illegal to park an RV on the street, period, no matter the reason, no matter who owns it. We had to check into ahotel for four days as a result.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 1:49 am
> They told us it was illegal to park an RV on the street, period,
Thats interesting ... why?
Is that any street, because I do see RVs around the city. Does that mean it is illegal to drive an RV in Palo Alto at all, or just to stop? What if they want to go to the grocery store? I think I have seen them on El Camino. Seems like a good place for them.
I wonder was that law sponsored by the hotel industry? And why is not one thinking about all the excess cars that are parked in Palo Alto, all the time?
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 7:20 am
I have had car campers park in front of my house. I have asked them to move it on, but they ignored me. I had small children in one case, and called the cops, and an officer came over. He said he understood my concerns, but could do nothing.
It not only is a real problem, but it is also potentially a bigger problem. No residence or business is safe. If someone buys a $1.2M home in Palo Alto, and then a car camper sets up house outside their home, or even in the neighborhood, the value of that home will immediately be decreased. The effect of vehicle dwelling on property values must be considered.
If Santa Barbara can ban car camping (and even Venice is headed in that direction), then Palo Alto can do it, too.
To stand back and tell others that they should not be bothered, because I am not being bothered in Crescent Park or on Seale Ave., is a very selfish view of the situation.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 9:24 am
Do these vehicles stay beyond 72 hours? If they do then it is illegal already. Do these vehicles move every day? Then why not put one of your own vehicles in the space outside your house so that they cannot come back to that spot each evening. Do these vehicles have current tax, insurance and are the drivers licensed? If not, then surely it is illegal already.
There must be other ways of getting around this problem. Fortunately I do not have them outside my home, but I can understand the distaste for someone who does. However, I would look for other means to get rid of them than just expecting this ban at some stage in the future. I would want them gone today.
Posted by Fed-up, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 10:15 am
How about all the vehicle dwellers at the Cubberley Community Center parking lot. Are they permitted to stay there forever? Come on, each day there are more and more and the City doesn't do anything about it.
Why are there no similar parking lots for homeless vehicle dwellers in North Palo Alto?
Larry Klein says he doesn't see a problem, that's because Larry Klein lives in North Palo Alto and doesn't go to College Terrace and see the street car campers; let alone come down to South Palo Alto to see them at the Cubberley's parking lot, throwing their trash onto the parking lot. These people are messy, so much for self-policing.
Posted by pavoter, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 10:25 am
What's wrong with it:
The parking spaces in front of most peoples’ homes is limited, we have only two. Of course it is public and other people can use those spaces. As a courtesy, neighbors park in front of their own homes unless they cannot for whatever reason. But that is temporary. We need those spaces for friends, relatives, and others to be available when needed. A car dweller parked overnight would make it inconvenient, but there are far more serious concerns than that:
Safety and health issues matter. Is this car dweller a threat? Are they checking out the neighborhood to see who is home and who is not? Even if they do not commit a crime, they could convey such information to someone else. What are they using for restrooms? That alone is enough to make it a very uncomfortable situation for surrounding neighbors. Or, maybe they are just trying to avoid hotel bills. Or, maybe stake out some of the more famous people residing here.
Neighbors have a right to privacy, and a car dweller invades that sense of privacy. A car dweller is watching neighbors coming and going all day and all night. While the street is a public place, the parking spaces in residential neighborhoods were never intended to serve as mini-residences. Home owners have to abide by numerous codes, and that is to insure the safety and health conditions for the residence as well as for the neighborhood. Car dwellers are not so restricted, don’t pay the taxes, are not invested in the neighborhood, and that is why it should be banned on residential streets.
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 11:46 am
Thanks to wide Bay Area print media and TV coverage of this, the 'word is out'. "Ya'all come- make yerself at home". How about printing the city mgr's. address as well as the entire council. Maybe they'd make breakfast too. Called "Bed and Breakfast"
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm
> How about printing the city mgr's. address as well as the entire council. Maybe they'd make breakfast too. Called "Bed and Breakfast"
Kate, I have thought about doing just that. Their addresses are public record. I have resisted from doing it, in order to allow them to wake up to the problem. If they do not, I will try to get people of all stripes to park their junk vehicles in front of their homes. Note: Remember to move your car every three days! Such a political theatre act could be called "Occupy Seale", in honor of Larry Klein, where he lives. Since Larry claims that he doesn't bother to read public blogs, it should be a big surprise to come home and see his neighborhood congested with legally parked junkers.
Posted by Paly Alum, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Nov 25, 2012 at 9:25 pm
What may happen is that the situation gets so bad that even the bleeding heart liberals will beg for an ordinance. Then, the City Council will feel the support. A shame that we will have to wait for that situation, but doesn't government always wait until there is a crisis before they look into a solution?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm
> The effect of vehicle dwelling on property values must be considered
What do you suppose that is ... I think it is nothing. I think you should go down to the Police station and ask someone to do something. I believe the officer who told you there is nothing he can do is kicking the can, of course there is even if it to go over the car with a fine tooth comb to find an excuse to write ticket.
What would happen if someone let the air out of all the tires?
I sympathize with you actually, I can imagine it is a pain, but that does not mean it is a big issue for everyone else or even should be. I did not tell you you should not be bothered, but lots of things bother me and you are letting it get to you way too much.
I don't say it is not a problem, but a lot of things are problems on the level of not being enough of a problem or the solution is to complex to try to turn into a citywide protest again poor unfortunates. If you could look past your ... seemingly in the past issue ... and maybe think about what your story would look like when viewed in a Bibilical perspective ... and no I am not religious, but I am just trying to get you see this is something you can easily bear and ignore for the most part.
Let's compare this with my constant complaints about the airport and airplanes flying over Palo Alto. We know there is danger, we know it is annoying, in fact when you look at it healthwise its more than annoying. Again, we all have a lot invested in our homes, so which is a bigger annoyance to more people, the random annoying car camper who might appear and stay a week, or the constant flight over our community of airplanes. When planes fly over at night researchers say our blood pressure goes up, people wake up from a deep sleep, but by the time they do the plane is gone and they go back to sleep never realizing they have been ripped off of a really good night's sleep. Palo Alto back in the 70's used to be dead quiet at night. You could walk around at night and hear nothing but birds and crickets.
Just curious if you have any complaints about airplane noise and how it compares in your opinion to the car camper issue?
Posted by Edgarpoet, a resident of Mountain View, on Nov 26, 2012 at 10:35 am Edgarpoet is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The litter that you are refering to is the result of the people using the soccerfields, NOT the car dwellers, who actually clean up trash left behind by those using the soccer fields. Please get your facts straight. The people staying at Cubberly are working at jobs in Palo Alto area. Many are on waiting lists for low income apartments. The are not criminals, they are working people holding down jobs that YOU would probably not do. Why not come over and say hello?
Posted by Palo Parent, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2012 at 11:19 am
Edgarpoet: Perhaps somehow you didn't notice the expanding mess that is spreading from that yellow van that's parked next to the new soccer field 24X7? It now looks like a dump around there. There is cardboard, shopping carts, loose paper and the ubiquitous sea of blue tarps there to raise our property values. Go take a peek.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Nov 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm
It sounds like even though this issue doesn't effect all of the PA voters 24/7 it's important enough to see where future politicians stand on the issue. It's a hot potato issue so it'd be interesting to hear their answers.
Posted by Fed-up, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Palo Parent and Edgarpost: the vehicle dweller in the old yellow van who throws cardboard and other trash onto the parking lot has been around for a long time. He has been removed from the Cubberley parking lot on previous occasions by the Police who are well aware he is there.
Unfortunately, the City's Manager at Cubberley asked the Police not to come back after a recent vehicle removal. He has basically been allowed to remain indefinitely along with several other vehicle dwellers who violated the 72 hour parking ban. This is unfair to the Cubberley tenants and neighbors who want Cubberley cleaned up and upgraded.
Posted by pavoter, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2012 at 1:09 pm
There are very good reasons to ban car dwellers in front of residences. The city seems to think that it is more important to “not criminalize the poor” and to pass such a ban would do so.
That’s a straw argument.
To pass such a ban is not criminalizing the poor any more than it is “criminalizing homeowners” by restricting homeowners from cementing their entire front lawn area and making it into a mini-parking lot. Homeowners are bound by numerous restrictions/laws/codes . Even our public county parks don’t allow overnight parking and this is where car dwellers would not be disturbing/crowding/worrying neighbors, and the parks often have toilet facilities. No one has said this policy is “criminalizing the poor” because there are good reasons why the parks have such restrictions.
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2012 at 1:22 pm
>What do you suppose that is ... I think it is nothing (re property devaluations)
Larry Klein has stated that he has spoken to local realtors, who have told him that parking restrictions heavily increase property values. I have a couple of realtor friends in PA, and they tell me that car campers are a real drag, when it comes to selling a house...many people simply move on to another neighborhood that is currently free of car campers.
So no, is is NOT nothing. It is money taken from the homeowners, and it is significant.
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Here is my solution:
1. Criminalize car campers, like so many other CA cities already do. Without criminalization, there is no enforcement.
2. Take the ten acres in Baylands, recently undedicated, and divide into two 5 acre parts:
a. A car camper park, based on the Santa Barbara model.
b. Five acres for a plasma arc plant, in lieu of the anaerobic digestion (AD) fiasco that has been proposed.
This solution not only solves the environmental problem of solid wastes, but it also cleans up our streets from car campers, and the car campers will have a safe place to camp. We will also save a bunch of money, because we will not waste it on AD.
Posted by Ducatigirl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm
If car camping is not currently criminalized, then why is simply temporarily parking an RV on the street you live on punishable by a fine?
A few years ago, a neighbor of ours parked a large RV infront of our house. I had no problem with it, but another neighbor came across the street and informed me that it was muy "duty" to report this vehicle to the police because it was parked in front of my house. I told this lady I had no problem with the vehicle being there, let it be.
Well, she or another neighbor, I never found out who, complained to the police about the RV parked in front of my house, and the next day there was a ticket attached to the windshield. The police never knocked on my door to ask me if it bothered me, they just ticketed it.
Well, of course the owner was enraged and assumed that because her RV was in front of my house, I must have been the snitch. Took me years to convince her otherwise, still not sure she believes it. In the meantime, I endured stolen mail, and then a vandalized mailbox, and then a vandalized car (which she eventually paid for). All because the fine was quite high, and a threat of being towed and impounded included. The RV was there less than 48 hours.
So why was that criminal, andhow is it that car camping is not???
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30 am
> Larry Klein has stated that he has spoken to local realtors, who have told him that parking restrictions heavily increase property values.
Parking restrictions do not overlap with car camping or whatever you want to call it hardly at all. Most cars parked on the streets are because there are too many people living in too small a property. Go drive through East Palo Alto, East Menlo Park, etc and see how the streets are so lined with cars that neighborhood security and life is affected very negatively, but that is very much not car camping at all. That is what is associated with and affects property values.
> I have a couple of realtor friends in PA, and they tell me that car campers are a real drag,
Of course a car camper in sight of an open house is not going to be a good thing. No offense to our realtor community, but realtors are all about being people persons, and they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. Also, what realtors think and what is statistically true are not necessarily the same, even if it has to do with real estate.
A good example is how realtors will tell people some funny things when it is time to sell their house, like what superficial improvements they should make, right down to what color of flowers to avoid, staging your house, etc. Healthy skepticism in the face of some of these costly useless ideas is very helpful. In hundreds or thousands of houses the risk that someone will car camp in from of your house for a day or two is not going to dissuade many who want to buy a house, nearly as much as driving to an open house and having a hard time to find a parking space because cars line the streets.
Craig you really seem to overstate your case. I get your points and I even agree with you about much of it when there is a specific problem, but your previous solutions only take into account getting the car out of the way with no concern about solving the problem for homeless people. Taking people with a car as their home and making them homeless and adding to their problems just does not seem right to me. It's not that I agree that we should have large numbers of homeless people in Palo Alto streets in cars or not, but that the problem is a small one.
For example there is an old homeless lady that seems to have colonized a nook of a building's front door on University that I find annoying to walk by. It seriously makes me gasp every time I walk by this area. This is the lady I mentioned before that hangs out in the Apple Store sometimes. She is in obvious need of help, and she is a nuisance, but criminalizing her when there is no way to help her is not a good solution. Something should be done. I don't know that there is a good solution, but until it becomes a significant problem either in magnitude or numbers I am for just living with it, albeit uneasily. Same with the panhandlers outside Whole Foods. I find them annoying but trying to find the right size legal solution to the problem is more trouble than its world compared to live and live ... assuming that it is the occasional one or two people.
I don't expect you to agree or define the magnitude of the current problem the same as I, but I really wonder if you see my point. I like the idea of setting aside a place for this out at the Baylands somewhere. There is inadequate parking in the Baylands as well as facilities anyway. Put some facilities for RVs as well. I do think there should be places for RVs to park in the city, maybe in the industrial section if that is not already the case.
Parking laws should be posted or easy to determine as well for people who are just looking for a place to stop. What are people in RVs visiting the area supposed to do if they want to go to the grocery store or shopping? I have to wonder about the reasons for these laws and if it has something to do with the motel industry?
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Anon, There are some possible partial solutions, but none of them will work, until car camping is criminalized. The criminalization must occur first. Look at Santa Barbara.
Regarding the homeless, that should also be criminalized, ala Giuliani in NYC. It is inhumane to allow the homeless to sleep on the streets of our cities. There is a truly pathetic woman who sleeps on California Ave. I ask myself, "How can liberal Palo Alto condone this?" As far as I can tell, it is a combination of buying into the 'don't criminalize the homeless' nonsense, as well as the 'as long as she doesn't sleep in my neighborhood'. Sound familiar, Anon.?
Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Sorry, but I'm not buying the "criminalizing the poor" defense. Speaking only for myself, I find those type of extreme and baseless reactive statements as pandering at best. I'm not making a personal comment on those in this thread who have used the term - just stating that the term is over-used and has become hollow for me.
We're talking about car camping on city streets; for the most part in residential neighborhoods. The act of camping in front of someone's home is the concern, not necessarily who is doing the camping.
I for one, value a Realtor's take on a neighborhood or street. I want to know if the street is a known car/van campground. I also want to know if the street is besieged by downtown workers who choose to park on the street rather than pay for parking. I would want to know if commuters cut through the street to avoid University Avenue in the evenings or the Dumbarton back up. Also would want to know about HSR and it how it may affect the neighborhood.
All of these things affect the saleability of a multi-million dollar home.
Even the 3 most ultra-liberal cities in the Bay Area prohibit car camping --- SF, Santa Cruz, Berkeley. Should they be considered non-caring, homeless hating cities? I don't think so.
Posted by pavoter, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Crescent Park Dad -- well put. I agree and don't want to "criminalize the homeless" but allowing them to park in front of residences is not a solution. This catchy phrase is an emotional appeal designed to make proponents for the ban feel guilty. The ordinance to ban car dwelling is seen as "criminalizing the homeless", so therefore Palo Alto is on higher moral ground to go without the banning ordinance. The argument is a straw argument -- our streets may start to serve as temporary lodging for those who don't want to pay a hotel bill or just prefer camping in their car. They may not be poor or homeless or it may be a choice lifestyle. Are the police going to check to make sure only the homeless can be car dwellers?
Might as well call most of our ordinances as "criminalizing our citizens" or "criminalizing homeowners".
How come our city leaders don't object to county parks forbidding car dwellers in the parks overnight?
Posted by disguste, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Abhor criminal behavior of course. Ditto parking on residential streets.
There are many decent people forced to live in their cars. They aren't drug addicts, alcoholics, car camping is their sole option. last resort.
As a third generation local, I remember back in the day, citizens reached out to assist those in need due to no fault of their own.
Many have disabilities - cancer survivors, people hit by cars etc - total SSI income of $800 +/- leaves no options. Many volunteer daily for local outreach programs, respect the area where parked. Palo Alto ignores maintenance in certain areas - these people clean up after other 'non-car campers mess. Sweep sidewalks and streets city ignores.
There are no alternatives for this group. Shelters are full of unsavory folks - not an option
for people with character and integrity. Reality is affordable housing has 2 year waiting lists - alternatives don't exist - NIMBYism prevails.
Many would love to get out of Palo Alto but can't afford fuel to do so.
There is an abundance of top-notch university and private research supporting my statements. Read Roy Baumeister's 'The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as Fundamental Motivation; MIT's Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy - free downloads online.
For an intellectual community like Palo Alto, failure to recognize. take action is incomprehensible. Presumption others are throwaways is callous and cold. Unavoidable
disasters happen daily. Palo Alto residents are not immune.
Doubt if anyone needing a transplant would refuse a car-campers organ donation.
Create innovative solutions lending a helping hand as a community.
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 10:48 pm
>Abhor criminal behavior of course. Ditto parking on residential streets.
Oh, now that is a little movement! Used to be that the cops said they could do nothing about car campers in residential neighborhoods. Since I live in College Terrace, and we now have the RPPP, things have improved a lot. Additional parking restrictions have been promised to get rid of that absurd situation around JJ&F. Are you saying that neighborhoods not protected by their own RPPP should just take it on the chin?
I am not interested in your 'cry me a river' baloney. I want to know how Palo Alto will protect its property owners, including residential and business owners.
Those who insist that the car campers should be tolerated should open up their own homes to them. Note: Don't hold your breath...so many hypocrites out there.
It is long past time for the city council to put this issue to a vote of the Palo Alto citizens.
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 7:34 am
>Of the time you have lived in Palo Alto, how much of it have you had to bother with homeless people, car campers, or whatever ... lump it all together and I wager it is not even close to 1%.
I live in College Terrace and shop at JJ&F every day. The streets there are packed with car campers and/or vans all the time. Therefore, I am impacted by it 100% of the days that I live here. Of course, in Crescent Park you don't have the problem, do you? Perhaps that is why you so easily dismiss the problem, eh?
Posted by Gary lughton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
Here we go again, more gross exaggerations in this forum. Note it is ” streets are packed with car campers” and ” my life is impacted all the time”. You realize that people do not take you seriously when you utter these Wild claims.
Posted by anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 9:19 am
Craig, I don't dismiss the problem. I just want information. I do dismiss much of your particular rhetoric, even if I do see a bit of a point there. I think it is hard and expensive and time consuming to create a law that does what should be done here.
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 9:47 am
If Santa is good to me (and much of College Terrace)he will require the City to put up restricted parking times around JJ&F. He will also require the city to provide information to the van owners about streets that do not have restricted parking times...then all those junker vans may move over into those neighborhoods...and this may cause those neighborhoods to develop their own parking restrictions. Note: I suggest Crescent Park and Seale Ave.
At that point, we can discuss what is truth and facts vs. rhetoric.
Posted by Gary lughton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 10:21 am
re Craig Laughton's comments--they can not be taken seriously because
1) his constant insistence that if you do not take homeless people into your home you are a "hypocrite" if you express concern for them. No need to expand on the ridiculous nature of that kind of stance on the issue (and to be sure--he will argue again and agin this point)
2) claims that car campers are everywhere in College Terrace, day and night,all the time. No need to expand on that either
3) claims that these car campers (that seem to be only in College Terrace in Craig's mind) need to move to other parts of the city that he has designated
4) claims that other parts of the city are not concerned about the issue and therefore should have car campers moved to their area.
While this issue needs to be addressed, Craig should be left out of the debate
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I will take the naysayers comments seriously, when they volunteer their own driveways for the car campers, or when they get the problem in their own neighborhoods. Until then, they are just hypocrites.
Car campers (or at least their junk vans) are everywhere, near JJ&F (Oxford, to be specific), every day/night, without exception, 100% of the time. There used to be a problem throughout CT, until we got our RPPP. Facts are a hard thing to refute.
College Terrace is not the only neighbohood impacted, and I fully support the efforts of other impacted neighborhoods to insist on parking restrictions. The hypocrites could care less, apparently.They will wake up, when their nighborhoods start to feel the impact.
Perhaps we could have some non-impacted neighborhood leaders invite the car campers over to their 'hood. Larry Klein would be a good one to lead the effort, since he claims that it is not a problem. It would also be good to see Crescent Park volunter, too.
Posted by gary lughton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 1:11 pm
"I will take the naysayers comments seriously, when they volunteer their own driveways for the car campers, or when they get the problem in their own neighborhoods. Until then, they are just hypocrites."
See what did I tell you?? To label all those that for various reasons cannot accomadate the homeless as being hypocrites disqualifies you from the discussion on this matter.
Anyway, wether or not you take us seriously is of no concern to us.
We know where you stand on this matter and your use of ridiculous rhetoric means that you are alone in this matter. Enjoy being with your one member fan club
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm
>Anyway, wether or not you take us seriously is of no concern to us.
I am sure it is not. However, if you want a serious discussion, then you need to be serious. Thus far, the deniers and naysayers have not been serious. They could demonstrate their seriousness by volunteering their own neighborhoods to take over the load.
Just curious: Which neighborhoods are willing to bear the burden? I think CT and Cubberly and Ventura have paid their dues...time for Seale Ave. and Crescent Park to step up to the plate.