BlueSouthPark

Comments by BlueSouthPark

Golden Hill "Renaissance Project” begins

There have been few studies of curb vs angle parking safety, and I find no data-based study of head-in vs rear-in angle parking. One 2005 study http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.e... shows clearly that curb parking leads to fewer crashes (see Table 4-10). The crash modification factors for various types of street settings are enough to completely rule out angle parking. San Jose has an ordinance making it illegal to back into any kind of parking space, based on safety factors. Most supporters of angle parking, particularly reverse-angle parking, rely on anecdotal concerns, not on engineering safety studies. Most maintain that reverse-angle parking is a traffic-calming/street-narrowing tool. Given that the stretch of 25th Street, from A to the 94 overpass, has no traffic problems at all, it certainly needs no calming. It has no parking problem. It is a convenient, uncrowded 4-lane street with curb parking that is always available, along with free parking lots owned by various businesses. Why would anyone want to create potential traffic jams (considering that metro buses use 25th) by reducing the lanes? Why narrow the street? Maybe some local business-property owners who have pushed this plan for decades would like to see space available in the wider sidewalk PROW for beer and food tables? And then free parking *would* become a problem, and paid parking could be imposed. Whatever. But bicyclists beware: normally, people pull out of a parking space head-first at higher speeds, compared to backing out. And there's no guarantee that any driver will always check for bikers, head-first or rear-first. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2014...
— April 16, 2014 10:31 a.m.

Atkins pushes bill so 30% of your neighbors can redevelop you

Here is the link to the Committee on Local Government, which reviews the Atkins proposal: http://alcl.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff Please, please contact each member and discuss your feelings about changing a state law that currently requires a minimum 50% (reducing it to only 30%) of petition signers before local gov and private groups can force a vote to tax you, and one that they know they will win. Because they have carefully drawn a line around area property blocks to create a "district" that will yield a majority of "yes" votes. Because they will be the group of persons who appoint themselves to decide how to spend your money. Because the term of the current state tax law now lasts 5 years (then a vote for renewal for 10 years), and Atkins' bill will change that first term to a generation: 20 years. Because it is not democratic. Or fair.
— April 4, 2014 7:11 p.m.