|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto plans to plant thousands of trees, accelerate the installation of more electric-vehicle chargers in local garages and — at long last — retire this summer the energy-sucking, sludge-burning incinerators in the Baylands as part of City Hall’s renewed push toward environmental sustainability.
These efforts and many others will be highlighted on Monday when the City Council reviews the annual Earth Day report and considers a staff plan for pursuing sustainability initiatives in 2019 and 2020. The council will also consider following in the footsteps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, which this week passed a law requiring protected bike lanes to be added to roads that are undergoing reconstruction and that have been identified in the city’s bicycle master plan.
The council agreed in February to designate “climate change” as one of its top four priorities for the year. Monday’s meeting will give council members a chance to weigh in on the city staff’s sustainability plan, which is geared toward reducing the city’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2030, with 1990 as the baseline.
The two-year work plan, which the council’s Policy and Services Committee endorsed earlier this month, focuses on four key areas identified by the council last year as pressing priorities: energy, mobility, electric vehicles and water management. It also includes three additional areas: sea-level rise, natural environment and the reduction of waste bound for landfills.
To reduce energy consumption, the city plans to update its building code by introducing new energy-efficiency measures, with the goal of saving between 2% and 5% of electricity through voluntary and mandatory programs. The Earth Day report notes that energy-efficient buildings “require less electricity, natural gas and water, while saving customers money.” (The city already adopted a goal in 2017 to achieve electric-energy savings of 5.7% and gas savings of 5.1% between 2018 and 2027.)
Given Palo Alto’s “carbon-neutral” electricity portfolio, city staff is also trying to encourage residents to convert from gas appliances to electric ones — an effort that has been hampered by high upfront costs for electric appliances, such as electric heat pump water heaters, and a lack of expertise among contractors about alternatives to gas appliances, according to staff. Utilities staff is recommending offering rebates for heat pump water heaters, providing technical assistance and encouraging “all-electric” construction projects. In 2018, the city provided rebates for 26 heaters, according to staff, up from 10 in 2017.
A bigger and more pressing challenge is addressing transportation, which produces about 94% of local greenhouse-gas emissions.
Palo Alto is already providing funding for the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), the nonprofit that the city established in 2015 with the goal of reducing solo commuting. According to TMA surveys, the percentage of downtown commuters who were drive alone has dropped from 57% to 49%.
But in addition to the TMA, the city is also trying to accelerate residents’ transition to electric vehicles by installing more EV chargers and by requiring new commercial buildings to include EV-ready infrastructure. The city is also providing incentives of up to $18,000 for multifamily homes and $30,000 for schools and nonprofits to install EV infrastructure.
The Earth Day report notes that Palo Alto’s adoption rate for electric vehicles is the highest in the country, with a recent report by the International Council on Clean Transportation finding that 29% of Palo Alto’s new vehicles in 2017 were electric (in California, the rate was 5%).
Councilman Greg Tanaka, who regularly bikes and rides an electric skateboard to meetings, argued at the Policy and Services Committee meeting last week that the city should think beyond cars when it considers incentives for electric vehicles. Given the growing popularity of smaller electric modes of transportation, including scooters, bikes and skateboards, the city should offer incentives to riders who choose these options over cars.
“We make infrastructure for cars, which are very expensive, which have a huge carbon footprint, but we don’t make the same for these electric portable vehicles, which have a much more dramatic impact on the environment,” Tanaka said at the April 3 meeting. “The same money we spend here, if we spend just a small portion of it for small electric portable vehicles, I think the impact would be much, much greater.”
In unanimously endorsing the work plan, the committee added Tanaka’s suggestion that the city’s mobility efforts include all types of electric vehicles. The committee also agreed with Tanaka that the city should consider following Cambridge’s example and adopt a policy requiring protected bike lanes in major road projects.
Another new initiative that the city plans to roll out is the planting of thousands of trees. The city has gone out to bid for companies that can create a digital tool that can analyze the percentage of canopy coverage in any area of town, down to an individual parcel. Such a tool would help the city reach the goals of its recently updated Urban Forest Master Plan, according to staff.
The city already has a plan to plant as many as 10,000 trees in south Palo Alto on private property, the report states, and Palo Alto Urban Forester Walter Passmore said the city has been in discussions with various corporations about funding the program.
“Whereas with a lot of (the city’s) programs, we rely on sources outside of our city, state or even nation to do the right thing, I think it’s very significant that we’re looking at doing something locally that everyone can see and directly benefit from,” Passmore said.
While these initiatives are relatively new, the city is also moving ahead this year with plans that have been years in the making. Staff expects to retire in June the pair of incinerators that have been burning local sewage for decades and that today represents the city’s biggest single source of greenhouse gases.
The one issue that council members and staff are particularly concerned about when it comes to sustainability is waste management. With China recently declining to accept the vast majority of recycled goods from other nations, Palo Alto like other cities has been surveying new ways to dispose of its paper and plastic.
Phil Bobel, assistant director of the Public Works Department, said that while the city has found other domestic markets for its mixed-paper recyclables, its mixed plastics are now bound for other nations in Asia, including Malaysia and the Philippines. China’s new policy has prompted some cities to stop recycling altogether or to incinerate its waste, but Bobel noted that Palo Alto has so far been able to find markets for its recycled materials.
Committee Chair Liz Kniss said she has become “more and more concerned about recycling.”
“Once again, we’re going to have to lead the way,” Kniss said.
“Palo Alto plans to plant thousands of trees, install more electric vehicles in local garages …”
Installing more chargers (not vehicles) and planting trees are both great ideas.
Can Palo Alto Utilities provide a time-of-use plan for residential customers? This would encourage EV owners to charge at home. PG&E has had one for many years. Palo Alto Utilities experimented with one but it never got off the ground: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/32678
I agree with Greg Tanaka’s comments on e-bikes, boosted boards, etc. I tried riding an e-bike to work recently and was pleasantly surprised at how fast, easy, and fun it was. No more waiting in traffic! My main concern with these modes of transportation is safety. Our current patchwork of bike lanes with a few bike paths is a good start. Let’s work with our neighbor cities to build a network of interconnected bike paths.
– Be very cautious about enthusiasm for standing electric scooters in Palo Alto. Santa Monica has them in droves, offered for short term rental by private companies, and they have been a problem, hated by residents who dodge them on sidewalks, crossing streets, and step over them as they are discarded and abandoned everywhere from rentals. And sometimes get hit by them. JAMA, one of the most respected journals of medicine found most rider injuries resulted from falls, and head injuries and fractures were common. More scooter riders were injured than bicyclists or pedestrians. Only 12% were wearing helmets (CA has refused to require helmets), 5% of riders were drunk and 11% younger than 18 – the supposed minimum age for use. The CDC is now doing its own study on the danger of standing electric scooters.
– We must protect our trees better, the ones protected under our Tree Protection ordinance (2 types of Oaks and Redwoods). We have the laws to do so, but unless someone comes to the rescue of even a protected tree, likely a new property owner or developer will prevail in getting the city to allow the supposedly protected tree to be cut down, even if the law sides with protection of the tree. Why the laws of our city can’t simply be enforced by staff is a mystery to residents and has been for years. This article notes the wonderful effort of planting 10,000 more trees in S. PA which has far fewer than in N. PA. But nothing is said about the loss of trees citywide. We need to save the trees we have as well as planting new ones. Enforce our Tree Protection Ordinance.
– If the city wants people to convert to electric appliances, or whatever, then the City needs to offer the difference in price between gas and more expensive electric products to low income residents. That’s how you will get those folks to comply.
I think this is an obsession and I’m uneasy about them forging ahead with these bold new ideas. There are lots of mundane issues that matter to ordinary people but these politicians are too busy chasing a higher purpose. Instead of preserving the city’s quality of life relative to cost of living, they are going on a fervent anti-plastic crusade. The nearsightedness is profound.
Regarding the Utilities department push to all electric, I haven’t seen any discussion on how much more it will cost for home heating, hot water, and cooking to convert from gas to electric. Not the cost of the new appliances and heaters, but the monthly extra electricity costs. Electricity is expensive for heating vs. gas. Also, electric rates are tiered, so if you start using more electricity, the incremental cost will also go up.
Is there evidence that adding EV chargers will actually encourages electric car use? We have an electric car and charge at home. I have never used a charger in Palo Alto.
This town gets crazier and crazier every day.
When people age, their bodies are no longer capable to ride electric scooters with confidence. A fall can be devastating. Tanaka clearly has no interest in understanding, or representing, all of the people who live in this town.
I will not be voting for him come 2020.
Where will these thousands of trees be planted? What happened to the bright idea of razing blocks of homes so that “skyscraper” multi-story buildings, without parking, could be constructed to house more people?
And what happens when the power goes out overnight, if there is a storm, a squirrel or similar that means that all these cars are not fully charged by morning?
We need to get a more dependable power supply which will not be affected by outages. We need our power lines underground.
Although manufactured elsewhere, cement is one of the biggest world-wide polluters. On the one hand the Palo Alto council claims to be serious about the virtues of taking responsibility for climate change at the local level. On the other the city’s new Comprehensive Plan permits 850K sq ft of commercial building. All the nice little feel good gestures that Palo Alto makes won’t begin to take climate change seriously while continuing to encourage commercial construction.
Trees are OK but this now mean I can justify buying a new Tesla?
Kudos Tanaka,
Electric scooters, a few more charging stations, and few more electric appliances, and a few more trees is not going to solve all problems but the opening of collective eyes might. As wonderful as our current quality of living is, we continue to ignore and discount the worst aspects of those technologies that made it possible.
For all the good that they do us, automobiles are responsible for nearly all our city pollution, nearly all of our city noise, and nearly all of our city blight. Cars isolate us, they inhibit our natural exploration, they take our resources, and they cut up our city keeping citizens from the healthy amount of socialization, exercise and exploration humans require to thrive. Automobiles pose an acute day to day threat much more than the scooter, bicycle, bus or train. Cars will kill you. Cars additionally pose an existential threat, and are the poster child of what might ‘do us in’ as a species by helping us destroy our own world.
If you can’t ride a scooter don’t. If you can’t ride a bicycle don’t. If you ride a tricycle or walk even with aide of walker, you will feel better and become more healthy for doing so. Neighbors do act without the best regard to their neighbors. A thoughtless neighbor on a scooter, skateboard or bicycle may hurt you. A thoughtless neighbor with two tons of steal wrapped and a 200 horsepower power plant is likely to kill you. The result is former behavior we collectively considered a problem. The latter condition we consider unfortunate but accept the tragedy.
Thanks you City Council Person Tanaka. In considering alternatives and being progressive you are likely one responsible for many recent, small yet noticed changes in traffic policy, calming, and signs in the city. These have made life better.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/02/13/escooter-safety-lime-bird/
“It was literally like two or three seconds – I was down,” Holly Bittinger said.
The West Los Angeles resident is recovering from a shattered wrist.
“Its very hard,” Bianca McMahan said.
McMahan, of West Hollywood, wound up in the emergency room with a fractured ankle, three plates and numerous screws
“I don’t think people realize how potentially dangerous these scooters are,” Catherine Lerer said.
Lerer is an attorney in Santa Monica. Since April, calls from scooter accident victims have flooded her office.
“I’ve been contacted by 200 or 300 injury victims so far. We’ve taken on maybe 60 or 70 cases,” she said.
Bittinger and McMahan are among Lerer’s clients who have filed lawsuits against scooter companies Bird and Lime. The suits allege, among other things, gross negligence.
“They’re not well maintained, they’re breaking down. The most common call we get is when a rider is injured because a throttle sticks,” Lerer said.
Bittinger was riding a bird scooter just north of Santa Monica Boulevard in August when her throttle got stuck in the downward position.
“I was futzing with the throttle trying to unstick it,” Bittinger said.
While the scooter was at full speed, Bittinger went down.
“Looked up and saw my wrist dangling from my arm and knew that it was broken,” she said.
McMahan and her husband were riding Lime scooters on Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica when she got hurt.
“They were in the bike lane. All of a sudden, their scooters slow down,” Lerer said.
A short distance later, the attorney said the couple’s scooters speed up.
“Her husband lost control, clipped her and she went down and was injured,” she said.
The pair had entered a zone that was geo-fenced. Some cities require scooter companies to slow down in pedestrian-heavy areas like the one McMahan and her husband were riding in. The scooters then speed up automatically when they left the zone.
McMahan said she and her husband had no warning of the changing speeds, and there aren’t any signs posted.
“They got a text message from the company saying you just entered a reduced-speed zone. But, you know, their cell phones are in their pocket,” Lerer said. “So they didn’t realize they they had entered and were coming out of the zone until after the crash when they looked at their phone.”
The companies have denied liability.
Lime’s user agreement is 262 screen shots long, and Bird’s is 58 screen shots. Language included in the agreements states riders assume responsibility for all “risks, dangers and hazards.”
“I signed a user agreement,” Bittinger said. “While I assumed there was some risk, what I was not prepared for was the equipment failing on me.
Bittinger said she misses being able to do the yoga she loves. For now, her hands can’t handle it.
McMahan wonders whether she’ll ever be able to navigate stairs with ease, or get back to her hobbies of biking and hiking.
“Changed my life, yeah,” McMahan said.
For now, demand for the scooters remains high.
But as more miles are logged and the injuries mount, Lerer said, “The calls keep coming.”
@ Barbara:
These tall buildings replacing single family houses (which Councilmember Fine advocates in his support of State Senator Wiener’s SB50) also have much more lot coverage and less open space. Meaning more trees cut down and less space for new ones. Trees are also being cut down to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which Councilmembers Fine and Tanaka advocate.
@ BobH: Another factor is there is an allowance for cheaper natural gas for heat in the winter, but one can’t choose cheaper electricity for heat instead.
Several years ago the Council voted to require new housing construction (and renovation?) to have the capability to install an electric charging station (e.g. requiring a 240v circuit into the garage or near the driveway). Many people argued then that we need more *generation* first, then we could promote more usage.
So, why not now require new construction, remodels, and new roofing permits to install solar panel mounting hardware? Then panels can be easily installed in the same way that charging stations be installed.
Better yet, why not just require the installation of solar panels themselves?
Lets boost production as well as utilization.
Finally, the next step will be storage, so that the electricity generated in the day can be used at night.
Just for some background, we have solar panels on our roof and have an electric car and charger. We pay no electric bill for 8-9 months of the year and a reduced bill in the remaining months.
I want to know how much these efforts by city council will bring down the temperature? One degree? Two degrees? Where are the benchmarks in this plan?
I would very much like to use public transit, but it is exceedingly difficult to do so. The Crosstown shuttle schedule has been cut in half and the 88 Bus which I used to ride to my volunteer work at the VA is being discontinued. I know that bus was mostly empty when I rode it, but it only ran every hour, not very convenient! A shuttle type bus would be more efficient for that run. At one time, the crosstown shuttle served the hospital, but VTA worked out a deal to serve the VA and limit the route of the “C” shuttle.
Infrequent service limits the usefulness of the service and then fewer riders causes another reduction in schedule and eventually elimination of the service.
Spending too much time and taxpayer money on the subject of electric scooter plans is ridiculous. I do not want my money going toward these dangerous outlier “vehicles.”
These politicians who seem to devote time to scooters are catering to the fringe.
Planting more trees – where – ? Would seem a plus in cities and regions that don’t have Palo Alto’s extensive greenery. I think values go up in cities/towns with more foliage and it’s clearly a plus as long as a lot of chemicals/fertilizer/pesticides aren’t applied!
If every Palo Alto citizen bought an EV and planted a tree in front of their house we would still have global warming or what some doomsday prophets call climate change.
Kind of like saying if Palo Alto went 100% vegetarian, fewer steers would be slaughtered worldwide.
Guess what? Palo Alto is just another city on our vast planet & inconsequential in respect to the world at large.
Time to get back to reality.
Developers = more commuters = more cars = more pollution/noise = destruction of community. Get rid of the commercial development and the other problems solve themselves. If you are not, first and foremost, in favor of limiting development you are part of the problem. Full Stop.
> or what some doomsday prophets call climate change.
A short list of DOOMSDAY PROPHETS who recognize the dangers, and existence, of climate change:
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources
google the FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
The best thing Palo Alto could do to fight climate change would be to get rid of all the commercial jets roaring overhead every other minute… and to encourage the building of fast trains…
Fighting climate change? Are you for real? Pushing more fear down the throats of regular folks just to fatten profits of the “green” industry.
“Tree city” moniker of Palo Alto is just as pretentious as some of its citizens, old healthy oak and redwood trees chopped down or its main roots chopped up and weakening them to be easy prey of diseases, all because development next door decides to build a basement close to them, all of this ok’d by the city of Palo Alto pseudo “arborist”.
“Tree City”? LOL
The City is so hypocritical as it talks about ways to address climate change while at the same time it encourages its employees to drive by giving them free parking. Model better behavior before telling others what to do. That’s how you lead.
Summertime approaching & the Chicken Little mindsets still brooding over climate change?
Let’s wait until next December. If it’s sub-tropical at that time in Palo Alto, I’ll consider the possibility.
This is just the Council trying to draw attention away from their sculduggery in removing the office cap after they kept the initiative off the ballot. Trying to look like climate change heroes. All this is just so much pie in the sky and will not affect climate change in the least. Where do we get these jokers?
Historically, warmer climates are associated with faster human evolution. Shouldn’t we be celebrating our ability to accelerate our own evolution, instead of making carbon-based energy use immoral?
> Shouldn’t we be celebrating our ability to accelerate our own evolution, instead of making carbon-based energy use immoral?
No.
You have little knowledge of the issue – advise you read the 4th National Climate Assessment, written by these agencies:
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources
> Historically, warmer climates are associated with faster human evolution.
To certain extent but early migration from Africa to the colder climate zones (i.e. Europe) forced humans to be resourceful as a means of survival.
There is always a point of no return as inhabitants of the colder & more temperate zones exceeded their brethren in Africa when it came to advanced tool-making.
The Industrial Revolution did not occur in Africa or the South Pacific for a reason…there was no reason to as hunter-gatherer society sufficed.
The Industrial Revolution is responsible for climate change & there is no going back because people living in modern societies have become accustomed to the conveniences of modern-day life.
For those who are doomsday advocates of climate change & global warming, don’t be sanctimonious by…
Driving conventional gas/diesel cars
Taking flight in jetliners
Using electricity off the conventional grid
Using plastic, steel and other industrial-manufactured products
Relying on electrical/gas home appliances
Eating processed foods
Imbibing in commercially-made soft drinks & alcoholic beverages
Wearing clothes made from synthetic materials (i.e. fleece)
Using commercially-made building materials for your dwelling
Riding steamships
Relying on modern medical equipment & facilities for your health needs
Riding on busses & trains
Chances are the doomsday prophets are just as guilty as the guilty. Pretty ironic wouldn’t you say?
> The Industrial Revolution is responsible for climate change & there is no going back…
These following fine folks disagree, and so so in the 4th National Climate Assessment. Please feel free to google it and read it, or stay in your little fact-free bubble:
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources
google the FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
A woman in our office is always spouting off about climate change (ad nauseum) yet she breaks every rule in the book as per the above ‘sanctimonious’ list.
Her global warming warnings are taken with a grain of salt as her credibility & lifestyle choices just don’t add up.
^ Since they all emit a negative amount of carbon, cutting their budgets to zero would make things worse.
Department of the Interior
>Department of Energy
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Like these entities don’t contribute to global warming on their own accord. Give me a break!
“Given Palo Alto’s “carbon-neutral” electricity portfolio, city staff is also trying to encourage residents to convert from gas appliances to electric ones…”
Given that “carbon-neutral” electricity is not the same thing as “no-carbon” electricity, and that the actual electricity in our wires has exactly the same physical carbon content as any electricity in the region, the city needs to prove that electrifying everything indeed reduces real carbon emissions. The real carbon is what warms the planet. Electricity carbon content accounting gerrymandered by financial engineering gimmicks is irrelevant in the real world.
Electricity carbon content
Gets reduced with every solar panel installed, and with every wind turbine erected.
Smart can not be said for fossil fuels.
*same
“the city needs to prove that electrifying everything [right now] indeed reduces real carbon emissions”
So you would wait until the state’s electricity is 100% carbon-free, instead of the 50-60% it is today, and then electrify everything? Really quickly? Are there things you worry we will adopt too fast, faster than we are changing our electricity?
“So you would wait until the state’s electricity is 100% carbon-free, instead of the 50-60% it is today, and then electrify everything? Really quickly? Are there things you worry we will adopt too fast, faster than we are changing our electricity?”
That’s not what I said. I could as well accuse you of advocating blindly increasing electrogenic carbon, but I won’t. OK?
Maybe instead of spending all this money on electric cars and trees the city should build one of these:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCllheizkraftwerk_Darmstadt
Why are we sending all our garbage to poor Asian countries, polluting their villages, instead of dealing with it here?
Use our resources fixing our garbage issues before we spend more money on electric cars and trees!
Look at national injury and fatality data. CARS are dangerous.
Only 20% of Americans get enough exercise. Walk everywhere, dammit. Keep those joints lubricated by exercise. Electric cars are B.S. On the internet: the comparison of the environmental damage to the environment electric vs. internal combustion: the same. Besides electric cars are built for small people, kind of like golf carts. Reduce our population (we are) and send all the illegal aliens over to the county board of supervisors so they can directly observe a population explosion, demographics so so politically incorrect in California as is much of science.
George Drysdale land economist and initiator
> Electric cars are B.S. On the internet: the comparison of the environmental damage to the environment electric vs. internal combustion: the same. Besides electric cars are built for small people, kind of like golf carts.
Except for maybe owning a costly Tesla, you’ve made a good point. Riding inside a Prius or Volt or BMW EV for an extended period of time time is like being transported in a sardine can on wheels.
> Reduce our population (we are) and send all the illegal aliens over to the county board of supervisors so they can directly observe a population explosion, demographics so so politically incorrect in California as is much of science.
^^^ Yes. Transport all of the illegal/criminal aliens to the sanctuary cities & let these individuals run ICE free.
On the other hand, the law-abiding undocumented immigrants should be entitled to remain where they are & live in peace.
All it takes is for law einforcement to verify one’s status via criminal checks & background info. Even regular American citizens are subject to this when they get pulled over.
No big deal…unless you are a criminal element illegally in the United States.
George Drysdale = the voice of reason.
> Yes. Transport all of the illegal/criminal aliens to the sanctuary cities & let these individuals run ICE free.
As has been said elsewhere – transport them to Florida, New Jersey, New York, LA, Hawaii, etc..
Where they can be hire by Trump properties.
^^^ I was thinking maybe San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley & New York City for starters.
If these cities are so pro-sanctuary, they should be willing to accept 99% of the undocumented immigrants including the criminals they prefer to shelter from ICE.
Fat chance.
> If these cities are so pro-sanctuary, they should be willing to accept 99% of the undocumented immigrants
Good Lord, what planet are you on? Have you ever been around NYC? That’s where immigrants actually *go* (and always have: Germans, Poles, Italians, Irish, etc..) The only reason they go to Dubuque, Iowa is because corporations need them to drive local wages down to enhance corporate profits.
Whoops – my bad. Can’t mention the unmentionable, that corporations thrive on more cheap workers. That’s why neither party has closed the border. Trump had a GOP House and a GOP Senate for two years.
What did they do? The GOP is just using this to rile up the base and will never actually *do* a thing. You’ve been so used. And tossed aside until 2020. In a corner. Crumpled. Ignored. Shamed.
Two years of complete control by the GOP and their corporate masters.
Nada.
Nothing.
And whatever the word is in German, Polish, Italian, Gaelic, etc..
** exception: Trump actually employs illegals on various properties, as well as brings them in on work visas. (google it)
And laughs at you and the rest of the base, all the way to the bank.
I hope this means that the city is going to start taking the Street Tree program seriously again. For the last decade or so the city seemed to be anti-street-tree. Some of the trees that they have planted as replacements have been very stunted and low-quality, and, they haven’t done anything about it.
Plant fruit trees like apple & oranges…then Palo Altans can grab a convenient & healthful snack while taking a walk along its city streets.
> Good Lord, what planet are you on? Have you ever been around NYC? That’s where immigrants actually *go* (and always have: Germans, Poles, Italians, Irish, etc..)
You are talking about the ‘old days’ & besides…Germans, Poles, Italians & Irish are not the issue here.
What planet are you on? Have you ever been to Queens? This particular borough is everything but what you have mentioned as traditional immigration to the United States.