One curious quote came from a resident of Delmas Park, the neighborhood between Diridon South and CA-87:
All the more reason for more parking to be built in the area, in conjunction with additional event use and future transit hub use. Then again, maybe the city is "okay" with the situation since those $50 tickets help San Jose's general fund?Just ask Chuck Bean, 60, who lives on Gifford Avenue in Delmas Park, where nearly all parking is by permit only — a concession granted after HP Pavilion was erected.
"People will park here anyway, despite the fact that there's a $50 ticket. It doesn't faze them," he said from the house his wife's grandparents bought in 1942.
13 comments:
All parking around my house in Cahill Park is permit only as well. My question is why is this a concern if you have your own garage?
It's just to keep outsiders out of the neighborhood. I have permit parking where live near SJSU, but the restriction is lifted after 6 p.m. I suppose that it's more of a deterrent than anything else.
Marine Layer,
I'm glad that you're all right. I was getting worried. I thought maybe Lew Wolff was holding you hostage after those last two threads. Anyway, I'm glad you're OK.
Hard to believe a $50 ticket doesn't deter--when I go to Sharks games no one I know parks in the permit only areas---The Tank is a great example of how it can work--what was great was ex-Mayor Hayes talking about how she was opposed to the arena (lives in Shasta/Hanchett) and how wrong she was--how well the city has managed it--and she spoke in support of the ballpark--that says alot
R.M.,
Those old bungalows along Park and Gifford Avenues across the LG creek: If a Diridon ballpark becomes a reality, any chance a developer comes in, buys the plots, and builds lofts/condos? Those old-a$$ bungalows sure seem out of place in a future big city downtown.
I know the site is noisy and slated to become Barry Swenson condo towers, but IF Diridon proves to be to difficult (for some unknown reason), the city should consider a land swap for the 9-10 acre North San Pedro/Brandenburg site. Just a thought.
And for the record, I'm not a member of the McEnery family tree and have not bought property at San Pedro Square. Again, just a thought ;o)
OAFC is salivating at the thought of another Fremont-like protest.
No way in hell I would willingly pay 50.00 to park somewhere. I'd rather walk a mile than do that. There's a park named after one of our starters. Good Omen? We'll see.
Keep the thread about SJ Diridon and just ignore the nonsense from anon 7:17. For the record, big city SJ isn't suburban Fremont.(see April 7 SJ City Hall meeting for proof)
The article doesn't make it sound like neighbors are opposed to it at all. Sounds like some are indifferent, that is, that it will be pretty much the same as it is now. And the ones who are concerned, as the article says, just want the Ballpark done right.
"It's not that neighbors oppose a ballpark, Chapman said; it's just that "if you're going to build it, build it really, really well."
Livermore, any thoughts? I think they're getting BART and they have a lot of land.
Keep outsides out of the area? Next to a big transit hub like Diridon? Sounds beyond stupid to me. From the neighbors I've spoken to, the biggest worries are the light towers, noise and parking. I do like the San Pedro idea, though isn't it slated for residential development as part of the San Pedro Square redev project?
SFP 7:01,
San Pedro will be developed into housing starting this fall, 09. But I kind of like San Pedro for ballpark also; better connected to downtown core and could leave Diridon to housing. However, don't want to get to picky about SJ sites ; let's just hope we get baseball in SJ.
I'll take either Diridon or San Pedro. The San Pedro site would literally be in my back yard, but I wouldn't complain because my property value would skyrocket.
Post a Comment