http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/2013/02/01/city-responds-to-parking-concerns-on-edgewood-drive


Town Square

City responds to parking woes on Edgewood Drive

Original post made on Feb 1, 2013

Prompted by a flurry of complaints from Edgewood Drive residents about safety, litter, and an influx of cars from East Palo Alto residents across the bridge, Palo Alto has responded with new parking restrictions and road improvements near Newell Road.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, February 1, 2013, 11:06 AM

Comments

Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2013 at 11:34 am

This is not a parking "crisis." The litter is inexcusable and greatly reduces my sympathy for the parkers.

THERE ARE NO NEW PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON WOODLAND!!!!!! If, somehow I am incorrect, PLEASE tell me what the new restrictions are. Am I blind? I see no new signs, have read of no new laws, and even regular, normal enforcement of the laws isn't aggressive. If the residents here didn't overcrowd their places to save $$ and weren't too cheap to pay for parking onsite AND the scumsucking landlord wasn't so greedy, this wouldn't be such an issue. It dominates our lives at times by the constant noise, horn honking and jerkoff drivers and it's disgusting. But many of them are jut regular folk causing no harm. But, adding the classist, snotty whining from PA is the extra fillip that you all need, but leaves the rest of us rolling our eyes.


Posted by Brian, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Feb 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Hmmm,
Enjoyed your post. Agree that we (Palo Altans) are way too full of ourselves, and not very friendly toward many of our neighbors.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Thanks, Brian. OTOH, the parkers should not make messes or noise or park dangerously. I actually find it ironic - the NIMBYs w/the What's a Backyarders are well-matched as their mutual annoyance levels! But seriously, both sides sort of deserve each other...


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 1, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Whether the parking restrictions are from landlords or by City of EPA - there are now 50-75 cars parked every night in the residential area near the Newell bridge. The problem is not limited to parking, but there are also used condoms, fast food bags, cigarettes, beer and soda cans, etc. in the yards and on the street.

I don't think its whining or NIMBY to be unhappy about used condoms in your front yard and beer cans on your sidewalk. Try explaining that on your walk to school with your child.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2013 at 2:16 pm

Suddenly 75 cars...interesting. Yes, it's NIMBY, however you slice it. The litter is inexcusable, so is the snobbery. There are NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS - what do you folk and the media not understand about this? Look to illegal numbers of people in dwellings - many of them car owners. Look to the greedy landlord charging for parking for the first time ever - that started several years ago. Look to the landlord to fix the problem - no the city, which is doing nothing wrong and has nothing to do w/this - unless they're not enforcing proper numbers of residents per square foot. Call the building inspectors and the landlord to enforce the already adequate laws. Pressure the wealthy landlords - you know, the people who live in neighborhoods like yours - they largely created this problem, not the city.


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Hmmm - from what I understand, the parking restrictions are from Equity which is the owner of most of the rental housing on the EPA side of the Newell bridge. And again, I don't think is NIMBY not to want trash in your yard - especially used condoms and beer cans.


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 1, 2013 at 3:49 pm

@Hmmm The parking situation on the Woodland has changed recently. While parking along the creek may have always been illegal, there are new no parking signs within 50 feet of the bridge, and also new no parking signs at that creekside dirt lot. Presumably increased enforcement has accompanied the new signs. And the result has been even more cars parking on Edgewood.

Calling this NIMNYism isn't helpful, or particularly accurate. It is no more NIMBYism than wanting crime, pollution, or traffic. It is not like I want to park my car in EPA, but won't let you park your car in front of my yard.


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 1, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Lest you think we are exaggerating about the cars, we counted 70 the other night in a few block area.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 12:50 am

The concerns of our citizens in the Crescent Park neighborhood are legitimate. We should not have to cope with the noise, litter, and serve as overflow parking for a neighboring city in a different county. There is absolutely nothing snotty about having these decent and reasonable expectations in our neighborhood.

Ultimately it is not the responsibility of the city of Palo Alto to solve whatever problems and issues are taking place across the creek in EPA. That is solely an EPA matter that should be dealt with by the city and citizens of EPA. The problems there should not bleed over to a neighboring city to this extent, nor should Palo Alto residents be expected to simply tolerate the problem, or be accused of being snobs just because they have reasonable expectations for a clean neighborhood and desire to park in front of their own home.

If the city of EPA and its property owners are incapable or unwilling to provide adequate parking in their own city, then Palo Alto has every right to establish parking restrictions that will ensure that its residential streets do not become an overflow parking lot for a neighboring city. Palo Altans have every right and expectation to be able to park their cars near their home, and not have to endure the noise, litter, and trash.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 2, 2013 at 9:01 am

After hearing all about this, I think it's fully correct what the City of Palo Alto did to assist their homeowners/residents. There is no reason for people to cross over a bridge into another county to park cars on someone's residential street. The scope of the problem sounds big enough to support action from our city. The litter is inexcusable and not a way to gain goodwill. I am sorry about economic problems of some people/renters in EPA; but PA is a different city in a different county. I don't even know much about that county and what redress they have for parking challenges of their own residents, but of course they should look into it.


Posted by no right to parking on public streets, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 9:18 am

" Palo Altans have every right and expectation to be able to park their cars near their home, "

Wrong. No one has the RIGHT and EXPECTATION of parking on public streets.
If you start from that bogus assumption, then we will never reach a solution. Public streets are just that--public--open to anyone from any county, city, state and country

"we counted 70 the other night in a few block area"
Palo alto mom--how did you determine ownership of these cars? How did you know that all 70 were from EPA???? None were from PA or from visitors to the area??


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:03 am

And you are out of touch with reality and common courtesy "no right". I believe that someone living in a residential neighborhood should have a "reasonable" expectation of parking near their home. Not a personal, reserved space, but a reasonable expectation just the same. Especially if that expectation is being infringed upon by residents from another city and county that use those same streets as an overflow parking lot.

Parking issues and problems are addressed through state and local regulations. So, no, you don't always have the "right" to park on a public street whenever and wherever you wish. That would apply to hourly parking restrictions in a commercial area, loading zones, parking meters, and yes, residential permit parking area. These restrictions are applied when parking needs to be controlled, or in this case, when a residential neighborhood is subjected to an unreasonable, disproportionate impact of overflow parking.

Your take is convenient of course, until someone starts parking their car in front of your home every day and night, and you're having to deal with the noise, litter and trash. Then I'm quite sure your opinion might change.


Posted by Palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:09 am

no right to parking - no one said all 70 cars were from EPA, but they did not belong to the people on the street (most people know their neighbor's cars and Edgewood typically did not have much overnight parking previously). There is only residential parking in the neighborhood, there are no businesses or other reasons for the increase in parking.

While we may not have the legal right to park in front of our homes, we do have the right and expectation to not have our lawns and sidewalks covered in litter.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:15 am

And to add to your thoughts Palo Alto Mom, while currently the Edgewood residents have no exclusive right to the parking on their street, that can be changed through the implementation of residential permit parking restrictions. This should take place when a neighborhood, especially a residential neighborhood, is impacted to a degree that is unreasonable and excessive in nature. It is my opinion that this situation fits the bill. I am all in favor of creating a permit parking zone in the Newell/Edgewood neighborhood.


Posted by no right to parking on public streets, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:20 am

" I believe that someone living in a residential neighborhood should have a "reasonable" expectation of parking near their home"
You can have an "expectation", but not a right, as for it being an expectation--it is just that--you can expect something, but that does not mean it will happen

"So, no, you don't always have the "right" to park on a public street whenever and wherever you wish."
but you are the one speaking of "rights". I am the one who stated that no one has the right to parking. Get the facts straight.Bottom line, public streets are available for all--as long as the rules are followed. If you are unhappy with the rules, have them changed

"Your take is convenient of course, until someone starts parking their car in front of your home every day and night"
I have a driveway and a garage, so whoever parks in the street by my house is not my concern. As for the litter, that is another story and should be dealt with.

"no one said all 70 cars were from EPA, but they did not belong to the people on the street "
Please answer my question--how do you know where the cars were from? Did you knock on every door and ask???
Sounds like another PA traffic-related exaggeration

"we do have the right and expectation to not have our lawns and sidewalks covered in litter."
You are correct on this, but this a matter separate from the parking issue.


Posted by no right to parking on public streets, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:22 am

" I am all in favor of creating a permit parking zone in the Newell/Edgewood neighborhood."

Good luck with that--look how the city has note allowed one for Professorville and they may have real parking problems--unlike your area


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 11:14 am

We are in agreement on the legal issues here "no right", so I'm not sure what your point is. The bottom line is that this neighborhood is being impacted with parking problems that are unreasonable, excessive, and disproportionate. The recourse is to seek parking restrictions that would minimize if not solve the problem. So yes, I understand the current legal limitations, and I've been simply stating what you just said, "if you are unhappy with the rules have them changed." Exactly. That's precisely what I'm talking about. Of course people have the right to park on a public street unless there are restrictions enacted for reasonable cause. Restrictions are what we need to resolve this problem.

The College Terrace neighborhood was successful in obtaining permit parking, so nothing ventured nothing gained. Some improvements have already been made by restricting parking for everyone on Newell between the bridge and Edgewood, so I don't feel this an impossible endeavor or lost cause.

I live in this neighborhood so I, along with my neighbors, have first hand daily experience dealing with these issues. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that somehow these concerns are not "real parking problems" as you state. What experience and knowledge do you have on this issue?


Posted by No right to parking, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 11:45 am

But from the articE it sounds like the city is taking steps. But do not count on permit parking.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm

There are no guarantees so I'm of course we're not counting on anything. There are other restrictions short of permit parking that could also help with these problems. I'm grateful for the steps being taken and look forward to more progress.


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm

@no right to parking on public streets - You are beng deeply disingenuous in quibbling about the facts. Go to Edgewood and Newell one evening, and note that every available street parking space is taken. Then walk 1 block in any direction, and note that maybe 5% of available spots are taken. Also note people parking cars then walking across the bridge.

Residents are obviously impacted, but what motivates you to oppose them improving their neighborhood? Are you just a curmudgeon, or do you have some odd higher parking principle you'd like to share?


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm

>The College Terrace neighborhood was successful in obtaining permit parking, so nothing ventured nothing gained.

Bingo! It was a long struggle, but College Terrace has led the way, as it often does. I strongly support other parking-impacted neighborhoods to follow our lead! Insist on your own Residential Parking Permit Program, in your own neighborhoods. It will make your neighborhood more liveable for you, and it will preserve/increase your property values. Don't feel an ounce of guilt about it (why should it?)...just go for it.

Insist, and you shall get....


Posted by No right to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Mrrecycle, dd you read the story, the city banned raking on Newell between Edgewood and the bridge. They also red curbed streets near interse tons. Let's see what that does. I am just stating a fact --- public streets are available to all, as long as the laws are followed. I am not being disingenuous. Barring use of public resources to benefit some does not improve a neighborhood.
The reason the city will not approve other permit parking areas is that they know I this city once another neighborhood gets it every neighborhood will want it.


Posted by No right to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Should be parking and not raking!


Posted by Aquamarine , a resident of Stanford
on Feb 2, 2013 at 5:13 pm

So nice that residents are such experts in identifying who lives where when they park - I wish I had that superpower. Wait, what a useless ability - unless one worships at the altar of Gladys Kravitz.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Here's the bottom line no right. Public street are indeed available to everyone. Thanks, we get it already. When those same streets are adversely affected with overflow parking from a neighboring city, and the residents are too often left with dealing with noise, litter, and trash, then the residents and city may also take legal action to reduce and/or eliminate those problems.

Not every neighborhood will qualify or meet the standard for permit parking. There must be a parking condition that impacts that neighborhood in a frequent, excessive, and disproportionate manner. Neighborhoods don't get permit parking just because they would like to have it. College Terrace qualified in large part because their residential streets were being filled night and day with spill-over parking from Stanford. Our streets in the Edgewood/Newell area being filled with spill-over parking from EPA/San Mateo County residents.

For Aquamarine, those of us living in the neighborhood essentially know what cars are neighbors are driving. There is a steady stream of people that park their cars on our city streets, and can be seen coming and going over the Newell Bridge. We don't need a crystal ball or super powers to figure that out. It's called common sense so spare us the sarcasm. It's a true problem, and our residents deserve the relief.


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 2, 2013 at 5:47 pm

>So nice that residents are such experts in identifying who lives where when they park - I wish I had that superpower

No superpower needed, just Residential Parking Permit Programs (RPPPs). RPPPs work...time to employ them throughout Palo Alto, where parking intensity is a problem.

A real no-brainer.

I have to say that I am proud of College Terrace for leading the way.


Posted by No right to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 6:06 pm

College terrace was unique because of Stanford--- also college terrace are experts at getting what they want from the city. I stated above why the city will not issue RPPs for a long time to come. If professorville did not get it.....
Every neighborhood will want it and PA cannot afford to blanket the entire city with RPPS areas.
Anyway, Lyle, the noise litter and trash issues are separate from the parking issue-- as you agree parking is legal, the littering and noise is not. The city has taken steps to alleviate the problem. Seems that you are not willing to wait and see if those steps are enough.
As for Craig, he is always patting himself on the back. Right, Gary??


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 6:26 pm

The noise, trash, and litter are a direct result of those using our neighborhood streets for their overflow parking needs. By the way no right, you never answered my earlier question. What personal exposure and experience do you have to claim that the parking problems in the Edgewood/Newell area are not real? Your words not mine. How can you speak so assuredly on this issue. I'm curious.


Posted by no right to parking on public streets, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 6:42 pm

"What personal exposure and experience do you have to claim that the parking problems in the Edgewood/Newell area are not real?"
Professorville has a neighborhood wide problem--you have a problem on a couple of streets. The comment that they are not "real" is relative to the issues facing another neighborhood. ANyway, they are my opinion.
I am also sure that you really do not know what every person living in Crescent PArk/Duveneck St Francis are driving.
Over the years I have come to understand that when it comes to traffic issues, people love to inflate the "facts" to make it sound that their neighborhood is suffering more than any other.
So that is where I came up with the real comment.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 7:03 pm

Exactly, an opinion apparently based on no first hand knowledge, exposure, or credible research. If you did live here you would know that it impacts more than a "couple of streets" as you claim. Not sure how you can make that statement anyway when you obviously have no idea what areas are being impacted. If you lived here, you would know that we deal with the daily chore of picking up litter and trash on our curbs, streets, and even our front yards. If you lived here you would see the stream of people coming and going to their cars from over the Newell Bridge. You have zero first hand knowledge or exposure on any of these issues impacting our neighborhood, but yet somehow you know enough to dismiss our widespread concerns as just people who love to inflate the facts. Indeed everyone has a right to an opinion as you said, no matter how uninformed and lack of credibility it might carry.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 2, 2013 at 7:37 pm

We should investigate the use of no overnight parking similar to Menlo Park. This would ensure residents used their driveways and garages too.


Posted by No right, to parking, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 2, 2013 at 7:58 pm

Thanks, Lyle. I guess if you do not agree with your take on the issue then you have to be "uninformed" and not have done " credible research". Clearly the city thought that the issue involved a few streets, since they have imposed the parking restrictions on only a few streets. We have another poster saying that they counted 70 cars. Yet when asked the poster could not respond on how they knew where the cars where from. And now we have you saying that people are "streaming" over the bridge.
And I will repeat again, the litter and the noise are a legal matter which the city should address. The parking is currently an allowable use of a public street.
Sounds to me that you are not even willing to wait and see what the results will be from the actions taken by the city.
Sorry Lyle, but your part of the city is not the only neighborhood that has issues. Every neighborhood constantly complains about traffic. In fact people have figured out that there must be a steady stream of complaints about traffic and every neighborhood has to try to outdo the other with traffic woes.
The city has addressed the issue in a fairly rapid manner ( compared to professorville). Let's see if this solves the problem. In the meantime, be strong and try to live with the situation. By the way, how many cars do you have and where do you park them all.


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 2, 2013 at 8:04 pm

So now noise is against the law? Huh, interesting. But those parking on the wrong side of the street, the loud leaf blowers, loud parties- those must be legal. But if you're a brown person parking your car too far from home, you'll be spied on by nosy neighbors who resent your obeying the law by using public parking.

Maybe Crescent Park residents should simply move to Menlo.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:28 pm

For aqua and no right, the problems raised, true quality of life issues, can be greatly mitigated through reasonable parking restrictions. Be it noise, litter, or trash, these are real problems that we are subjected to in an unreasonable, excessive manner. Nor does race have anything to do with it, although I should have expected that card to be played. Fact is if any of our other neighboring cities were using our city streets as an overflow parking lot, I would support those residents in pursuing permit parking as well. I could care less who is parking their car in our neighborhood streets. What I do care about is having a reasonable expectation of parking near my own home, and not have those spaces constantly filled with residents from a different city and county, nor do I wish to pick up the litter that they leave behind.


Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm

And still amazed that you two admittedly have no first hand knowledge, experience, or exposure to the issues that exist in our neighborhood, zero, but yet are adamant about what the solutions should be. Typical.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 3, 2013 at 2:51 am

This is not NIMBYism, this is a genuine pain in the ass.

All up and down Newell by the bridge now I see cars parked all over where there did not used to be cars packed in like this.
Who wants people from other neighborhoods parking in front of their houses on a long term basis - especially when they do not respect the properties they are parking in front of? Not me.

The attempts to WRONGLY shame Palo Alto residents who are unhappy with this situation is what leads to Palo Alto residents ultimately being short tempered and looking for drastic solutions and I don't blame them.

This is just like any other usage situation ... who wants people from whatever other neighborhood to walk around, walk their dogs, use other people's parks in a way that causes a problem. No one worries about anything within reason, but this has gotten out of hand, and it is a danger. Not long ago someone was mugged over there, and all the cars and people make it more likely and easier to happen again.

I cannot help but think that ultimately this results from both cities and maybe counties playing games with developers to build without proper parking places. Parking is a fact of life and will be for a long time, so quit trying to use some future Utopia where they are no cars and ubiquitous Public Transport as a reason to let developers and builders cut corners on construction - or people buy houses for slightly less that add to this problem over years until it becomes chronic and vitriolic - with no easy solution ... which is what we now have.

Incompetent city leaders are behind this, and greedy apartment managers from what I have been able to glean.


Posted by No right to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 3, 2013 at 6:37 am

There you go again, Lyle. Same comment over and over. The city has taken steps to try to solve the problem but you are not willing to wait and see if that helps? Why? Because it is all about you. The world revolves around you and your problems. Have some cheese with your whine.


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 3, 2013 at 8:32 am

>Every neighborhood will want it and PA cannot afford to blanket the entire city with RPPS areas.

Nonsense. If the fines and fees are high enough, the RPPPs will pay for themselves. There is also economy of scale, as well as efficiencies accrued due to enofrcment effectiveness (the problem dampens with enforcement, thus fewer parking officer hours are requred per area).

Whatever the costs, the improvement in lifestyle and property values is well worth it. I hope all parking impacted neighborhoods in Palo Alto are allowed to get their own RPPP.




Posted by Lyle, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 3, 2013 at 9:01 am

At least my comments are based on first hand knowledge and experience no right, as opposed to pure speculation. Apparently I have to be repetitive in a vain attempt to educate you on the real issues. You obviously don't care to learn about the impact this problem is having on the neighborhood, nd you still never answered my question. You claimed that our parking problem are "not real" compared to the ones in the downtown residential area. How do you know that? Have you visited our neighborhood and seen what's going on first hand? Have you spoken to anyone who lives here? I'm guessing the answer is an emphatic no. How perfect is that. Knows zero about the problem, but weighs in like the ultimate authority. Shows no interest to learn about the real problems that people are experiencing in our neighborhood on a daily basis, dismissing them as being self-centered whiners. If you had a shred of credibility or logic I could almost get upset. Like someone said, the loudest critics are usually the ones who know the least about they speak. Done with you. Let's just agree to disagree I suppose.


Posted by No right to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 3, 2013 at 9:21 am

Lyle--- you seem to be upset that I disagree with you. How terrible. You seem to equate disagreement with your view ( apparently the only view to be tolerated) with a lack of knowledge about the situation
To answer your questions:
1 because the professorville problem has been going on for years. Yours is very recent
2 yes I have visited
3 I have spoken to a resident

Now, your turn- how many cars do you have and where do you park them?

Did you even read the title of this story-- city responds to parking woes? The city has taken steps. You are not even willing to wait and see the results. You just want to rant and rave about how miserable it is for you ( btw, are you the appointed spokesperson for the neighborhood). You also cannot stand anyone questioning anything you say. Why don't you even acknowledge that the city has tried to address the issue, unlike in professorville where all the residents get is lip service from the city.

Would you like a havarti with your w(h)ine?


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 3, 2013 at 9:48 am

No right to park -

Most observant people know which cars belong to their neighbors - part of being a "safe" neighborhood.... On a street with 30 or so houses and plenty of driveway space, there are not suddenly dozens of cars needing to park on the street.

The City's efforts are helpful in keeping the intersection of Newell and Edgewood safe (better visibility at the stop sign, more room to come and go over the bridge). The City's efforts will NOT impact the people parking in Crescent Park overnight and walking back over the bridge.


Posted by No right to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 3, 2013 at 10:08 am

Pa mom-- so the issue is not really a lack of parking spaces? Are these people breaking the law by parking on the streets?
I find it hard to believe that all of the peoplE in the neighborhood know which cars belong to each person living in the area. What do you do if you see a car that you do not know whom the owner is-- do you call the police? Is your database shared by all the neighbozrhood. My point-- I think you do not know who the cars belong to and claims of 70 cars, parked legally are meaningless.


Posted by Bob , a resident of Community Center
on Feb 3, 2013 at 10:55 am

Menlo Park has the overnight permit system - has or did have it for years. Have-a-guest-get-a-permit. It was no problem. My folks lived in the Willows area for many years. I'd come for a visit, and they would have the permit ready for my windshield. It worked. I don't know if it still does this.


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 3, 2013 at 11:26 am

No right to park - A neighborhood should not be over run with cars, trash, noise, parties and pot smoking because a nearby landlord started charging for parking and a neighboring city is enforcing parking bans. Edgewood and Newell went from having a handful of cars parked overnight on any given evening to the streets being filled with parked cars.

I used to live on Seale near Newell. Any given evening, there were a handful of cars parked on the street on our block. We knew who most of the belonged to because they were our neighbors (and of course we would not call the police if someone else parked there...) When there was an event at the Art Center, suddenly our street was filled with parked cars there for the event. This is what Newell and Edgewood look like every night. Like there is suddenly an "event" happening. If we have guests coming over, there is nowhere for them to park.

You are naive if you think that suddenly 70 cars appeared in a previously quiet neighborhood with 30 house or so. People who live on the streets see the drivers park, get out of the car and walk back over the bridge.


Posted by No right to park., a resident of Midtown
on Feb 3, 2013 at 11:52 am

I will repeat once again, the trash and noise are problems that the police should address. The fact the people legally park on "your" street is not a crime ( except in your book). Now it seems you are escalating the "facts" by claiming that there are parties going on, on your street. Also I note that your comments suggest that the problem is confined to one small area, as opposed to Lyle who makes it sound like the entire crescent park area is being over run( people streaming over the bridge!!!).
I still find it amazing that you know exactly which cars belong which neighbors.
If there is a city wide hobby, it would over exaggerating traffic problems


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Love the exaggerations - necessary because the parking is legal. Fomenting this level of snobbery is funny and disturbing. The poor millionaire victims, who are effective and successful in all areas of their lives except who can park in their area. Victims of the blue collar working class, you're left with no choice but to exaggerate and over focus. Plus, hoisted by your own petards by living in a city with such lax parking laws. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 3, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Seems like some photo documentation could help.This is all in public, so there should be no problem photgraphing parked cars, trash on the edge of the road, and people walking on foot over the bridge. Some of us other PA residents had not heard previously of this issue, though I have posted I am sympathetic about it - but providing police with photos (no faces, of course) should bolster the case for more parking rules and enforcement. I still don't believe drivers from another city and country should be able to burden nearby streets of another city and country, if that is indeed what is happening.


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 3, 2013 at 3:59 pm

> The fact the people legally park on "your" street is not a crime ....

It is a violation of city rules, if there is a RPPP in effect, in a given neighborhood. A sufficient level of fines will end the issue.


Posted by legal, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 3, 2013 at 4:50 pm

But there is no RPP in that neighborhood, so it is legal. I also believe the RPP.in CT has limited hours


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 3, 2013 at 5:37 pm

>But there is no RPP in that neighborhood, so it is legal. I also believe the RPP.in CT has limited hours

You are correct. I am supportive of any parking impacted neighborhood achieving its own RPPP. The CT RPPP is limited by hours, but the hassle of playing the hours is very discouraging to those who wish to play the game...basically, they mostly give it up.

RPPPs work! They are not perfect, but they are still a a very decent solution. College Terrace has benefited greatly from its RPPP, and I hope that other neighborhoods can benefit from their own RPPP. They deserve it!



Posted by EPA Resident, a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 3, 2013 at 6:10 pm

It's always a bad idea to inconvience the 1% ers... those darn 99% ers are always messing up everything. Maybe a 14 foot wall will help to protect 'us' from 'them'. You know - those working stiffs trying to scape by. Shameless, Palo Alto.. Is Palo Alto Alabama circa 1960?


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 3, 2013 at 7:08 pm

Hey EPA,

Suppose a private bus service, providing commuter service to Silicon Valley workers, decided to pick up their commuters in EPA, suggesting that their clients just park in EPA on variosus defined streets in EPA? Completely legal, right? How would you like that one? I think EPA deserves some respect and dignity, too. So does Palo Alto.

Parking permits should become a standard throughout the Bay Area, whenever a parking impact occurs. My focus is on Palo Alto, especially College Terrace. You can take on EPA, if you wish...I shall support your efforts. The 99% (even though it is a false concept) deserves protection, too. Will you work to provide it? Or just complain about the so-called 1%?


Posted by End this now, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Feb 3, 2013 at 10:22 pm

This is getting ridiculous. Just ban all on-street parking and done with it.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 4, 2013 at 11:32 am

I don't live near the bridge - but I support my neighbors on this.

@ No right to park: I know my neighbors and I know their cars. We don't have any parking issues, but for you to doubt someone on their personal knowledge of their neighbors and their cars comes across you just trying be an antagonist.


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 4, 2013 at 1:19 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff due to reference to a deleted comment.]


Posted by No Land Bush Knell, a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2013 at 5:48 pm

I was wondering why there was an immediate response to this neighborhood's parking complaints when other places like Professorville have been waiting for years for a response. Then I remembered that the 1400 block of Edgewood is on one side of Newell, and the 1500 block of Edgewood is on the other side of Newell, and that a famously rich person lives on one of those blocks.

Maybe I should move to Professorville and help that neighborhood get a fast response from city hall. Or we could just play ping Pong.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 4, 2013 at 6:04 pm

You got it, in part, No Land. Big diff between the disgust for EPA residents & white/pink collar PA workers, PA residents, etc, in Professorville. Pong!


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 4, 2013 at 9:13 pm

@No Land Bush Knell - there has been far more discussion on the Professorville parking problem, and they are much closer to getting a permit program than the Edgewood residents. The only action so far by the city is a few dozen feet of red curb on Newell, which if anything will make the parking problem worse on Edgewood.


Posted by Jeannie, a resident of Duveneck School
on Feb 5, 2013 at 12:46 pm

The only reason that the city became concerned about the parking on Edgewood Drive is because Mark Zuckerberg lives on that street..


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 5, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Whether it is a person of influence, or just the regular Joe, like me, all neighborhoods in Palo Alto deserve protection from intense parking issues. RPPPs, as initiated by College Terrace, are a good first step.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm

This isn't an "intense parking issue'" as like downtown or in CT. This is a tempest in a teapot, as the only illegality is the trash & most of the residents have driveways & garages. The hot button here is merely that the residents don't care for it & they're not used to being slighted. Marky Mark, btw, is just as cad w/his constant parade of people who park on the street & his 24/7 security. But no one complains about that real privacy violation. We also put up w/the very same parking problems but since the parking is legal, little can be done.

These articles are also poorly written as they're so clearly slanted toward the PA residents & there appears to be little fact checking done re the EPA issues that are driving (pun intended) the parking.


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 5, 2013 at 4:34 pm

@Hmmm - Stop raising the issue of legality. It is obviously legal today, and it is obviously legal for the city to create permit parking zone to fix the problem.

What is driving EPA residents to have to park their cars in PA is not really the concern of PA residents, or the City of PA, or the Palo Alto newspapers. That residents "don't care for it" is reason enough to do something about it.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 5, 2013 at 4:58 pm

Get a life. Mr. Recycle, since you love to tell others what to do. Crappy journalism is what it is. The whys & wherefores are pertinent to the story, but are glossed over & made up, not fact checked as they should be - Journalism 101. The legality is also important - but you clearly can't admit that. You don't have a leg to stand on since the parking isn't illegal. So, it comes down to NIMBY whining, something that PA residents have perfected & I recall well from my youth.

PA has some real despicable problems - lowlifes, violence, theft, chicanery, terrible drivers injuring & killing others, suicide, problems in the school, screwing over city employee to save money, complaint about pensions. The headlines these last few weeks have been horrendous regarding public safety. So I'm not surprised this parking is such an issue - all a desire to control one's environment. Good luck w/that - you clearly need it.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2013 at 5:19 pm

I have no real comment about the problem since it doesn't affect me due to not living nearby.

However, if the parking is legal and there is no comeback, how about trying to deal with the trash and noise problem. Why can't the police have a presence there during the evenings just to make sure that those parking do so quietly and leave no litter? If those parking know they are being watched then presumably they will learn that they will have to be good neighbors if they are going to park there and that means behaving quietly and without littering.


Posted by No righ to park, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Well said, resident. I have been saying the same thing all along. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 5, 2013 at 6:43 pm

@Resident - There are only a handful of police on patrol, does it really makes sense for the rest of Palo Alto to have them monitoring Edgewood for litter? Parking permits are easy, why would anyone oppose them?


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 5, 2013 at 6:44 pm

@Hmmm - you claim that the facts are incorrect in the story, why not back up your claim?


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm

Because it's not my job - it's the journalist's responsibility. Numerous times, I've made clear the mistakes in all of these news stories, as well as given the scoop about what the causes are. Go back and educate yourself, or tell the reporter to get the facts straight. Your in your face attitude is lousy & useless, so even if I was nice enough to reiterate it all, I wouldn't because you don't deserve that courtesy w/your current attitude.


Posted by Atherosclerosis, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2013 at 11:28 am

Hmmmm,

What drives parking is traffic.

What drives traffic are buildings.

What drives buildings are developers "visions$$$$$$"

What drives developers is City Council, flush with zoning powers.

What drives City Council, I have no clue. They trade out zoning for nothing, make no investments, can't count, and build, build build, build.

We don't have streets the size of Manhattan to sustain all these buildings.

The crunch in one neighborhood is a signal to all neighborhoods.

Palo Alto is getting Atherosclerosis.


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 6, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Atherosclerosis - our City Council has nothing to do with this parking problem, there are no new building or zoning changes that affected this area. Apparently the apartment complex owners on the other side of the bridge are charging for parking, hence the need to park somewhere else. This is the closest area with on-street parking available.


Posted by EPA Resident, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 7, 2013 at 9:41 am

In reality, I can understand why folks on the PA side of the bridge would be concerned. As a homeowner, I'm always aware of what happens on my street. However, IMHO, the issue is much more systemic than we sometimes acknowledge.

For this latest round of issues (realizing there is decades of history between EPA / PA) you have to go back to the mid 2000s when Pagemill Properties bought up 85% of the rental units concentrated on the west side of the freeway. Once they went bankrupt in the real estate crash to our great consternation and protests Wells Fargo sold again to a singe landlord, Equity.

Equity continues the unjust process of evicting and harassing low to moderate income tenants preferring to go after Silicon Valley techies as tenants. One recent policy was to charge an additional $100.00 for use of extra parking spaces. For many of the folks in the apartments $100.00 will break their budget and force choices between food and gas or parking. Families with multiple wage-earners need more than one car to survive. This policy created the issue - residents drive across the bridge and park. It's exactly what you or I would do if we were in the same situation.

We should not demonize each other. We should realize that both sides of 'the bridge' have hard working people trying to care for their families. We should also understand that those on the EPA side are the more vulnerable. They are hard working, family loving individuals. Palo Alto needs East Palo Alto, and vice-versa.

I would suggest the anger of Palo Alto residents is directed at Equity Residential and Wells Fargo for furthering the problem and not on the hard working folks of East Palo Alto. They are the ones that can make the quickest difference. Otherwise the options are 1) continuing to point fingers 2) create new parking policies in Palo Alto that will create issues for both communities 3) dynamite the bridge


Posted by No Land Bush Knell, a resident of another community
on Feb 12, 2013 at 12:46 pm

The Palo Alto Police had better hurry up and remove all those cars owned by Democrats from East Palo Alto that are parked on Edgewood Drive, because I just read in today's Daily Post that Governor Chris Christie will be visiting Mark Zuckerberg at the end of a three-day campaign in California. Those with a conspiratorial attitude may wonder about the timing of the complaints about the parking problems on Edgewood Drive near Newell Road.


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 29, 2013 at 12:20 pm

I heard from a friend of mine that the SJ Mercury did an article on this issue. I have not seen the article.

Any information?


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 29, 2013 at 12:25 pm

I read that the latest idea is to prohibit overnight street parking (like Menlo Park) on certain blocks/streets near the bridge. I don't know the specific locations.

This would probably cost less than running a permit program. The only question is whether the EPA "overflow" would just park further down the surrounding streets in Crescent Park.


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm

CPD,

It always comes down to enforcement. That means enforcement costs, whether it be RPPP or an overnight ban, like Menlo Park.


Posted by the parking problems simply move, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 28, 2013 at 8:11 am

The parking problem in Crescent Park has simply moved due to the permits for Edgewood and Hamilton. I picked a friend up on Dana and Newell this morning, Dana is now the new parking lot. We need a comprehensive parking solution for that whole atea.


Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 28, 2013 at 8:52 am

Telling the prospective parkers that you saw the neighbor call the cops to try to get the car towed works pretty well, but it's not a long-term solution.


Posted by Selfish, a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 28, 2013 at 9:09 am

"Telling the prospective parkers that you saw the neighbor call the cops to try to get the car towed works pretty well, but it's not a long-term solution."
Why would you tell a blatant lie to someone legally parking their car. On what basis would they try to get the car towed? The permit program in CP is limited to night hours.
Not sure where your idea is coming from Chris. It is not like they are making illegal U-turns.


Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 28, 2013 at 11:41 am

I'm not gonna wait until one of my or the neighbors' kids is run over by a motorist whose view is blocked by the wall of street-parked cars. Sue me.


Posted by Selfish, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 28, 2013 at 11:54 am

"I'm not gonna wait until one of my or the neighbors' kids is run over by a motorist whose view is blocked by the wall of street-parked cars. Sue me."

Are the cars parked legally?? Do you actually know who they belong to (not that matters if they are legally parked)?
If the people are crossing at the corners, the "wall of street parked cars" should not matter
Then you will not have to worry about being sued, since the police will ignore your demands to have legally parked cars towed


Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 28, 2013 at 3:49 pm

@Selfish - I'm referring to my 400-meter long cul-de-sac which by definition has no cross-walk, and my neighbors and I know which cars are ours vs parked there by those not living here. As one of the other posters said, all the city's restrictions have done is moved the problem down another block or two.

My clarification provided, do you now understand why sane, law-abiding citizens will want to do as I've done?


Posted by Not an issue, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Are the cars parked in your cul-de-sac parked legally. That is the question that is being asked. Are there no parking signs in your cul de sac? If not, I am not sure what you will call the police about, possible taking police away from important work.
The fact that the problem has been moved over a couple of blocks is not surprising. So the problem is late at night-- since you claim the parking has been moved to your street and the parking restrictions are in effect at night, correct???
Which parents let their children out n the middle of the night???? You are not making sense.


Posted by the parking problems simply move, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 28, 2013 at 7:36 pm

@not an issue - I was on Dana at 7:30 this morning. Tons of Duveneck and Jordan kids use Dana to bike and walk to school. It is a narrow street and it was wall to wall cars which made for very poor visibility. Dana was lined with cars for as far as I could see both blocks one either side of Newell, this was a neighborhood with the occasional car on the street.

The number of parked cars on those narrow streets make the street unsafe for bikes and barely passable for cars. This was not late at night - the parking restrictions are overnight, but the cars aren't gone by the time the school and work commutes begin.

In addition to annoying the neighborhood - the number of parked cars are a safety issue. This is true not only in Crescent Park, but Downtown on many streets, including Bryant the "bike boulevard".


Posted by Not an issue, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm

If the parking restrictions are overnight and the cars are still there in the morning, then they must have permits.
Maybe the city should deal with the whole and just appease a small number of streets. And if the parking is legal than " annoying the neighborhood" is not a factor. Especially that being an " annoyed neighborhood" is a pastime in palo alto.


Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 29, 2013 at 10:29 am

@Not an issue - you wrongly assume laws are both enforceable and enforced.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 29, 2013 at 10:46 am

> Especially that being an " annoyed neighborhood" is a pastime in palo alto.

What is the purpose of saying that? Do you think that dismisses any legitimate complaints of Palo Alto residents?

> you wrongly assume laws are both enforceable and enforced.

Exactly!

It's hard enough to sort out the facts of some of these city policies, the digs at Palo Altans and the sarcasm is really not useful.


Posted by Not an issue, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 29, 2013 at 11:18 am

"What is the purpose of saying that? Do you think that dismisses any legitimate complaints of Palo Alto residents? "
It is an observation I have made. But as your comment may suggest not all complaints are " legitimate".

"
> you wrongly assume laws are both enforceable and enforced.
Exactly!
It's hard enough to sort out the facts of some of these city policies, the digs at Palo Altans and the sarcasm is really not useful."

The fact that laws may not be enforced is a whole different issue.
As for the parking issue, as I stated earlier, maybe the city needs to address these matters as a city issue and not try to,solve problems piecemeal. So that " solving the problem" for one street in CP does not create new problems for other streets in CP, as an example.
The " digs" and "sarcasm" are my opinions, which I think I am entitled to.