45 replies to this topic

[M.E.G.]

I live in Prairie Oaks, but not close to the high school, so I doubt I will get the letter from the city. I do know that my sister lives in Half Moon Bay, 2 blocks from beach. They have parking by permit only on her street. It does not cost/did not cost her anything. There are signs along the street. She had to go to the city, prove she lived there and received a heavy paper style parking permit2 or 3) that she can give to visitors or use herself when need be. We have never had any problem when visiting putting it the windshield of the rv and staying a couple of days visiting. I am not sure why the city could not do something like that. The cost of the signs should be able to come out of lighting & landscaping as far as I am concerned. As a PO citizen I would not have a problem with $ going to that cause.

If I were to vote I think I might go the no parking from 11-1 during school days. It has less impact on homes and after a couple of parking tickets I would think it would drastically reduce the problem.

M.E.G.

[pet lover]

Why not? They all have garages, and if they remove the crap in there they can park where intended. It costs the city (that's us, people) to produce the signs and the permits and then to police it. The residents for whose convenience this is being done should have to pay for the administrative costs.

I don't live near this area, but I do drive by almost daily to work and see the congestion and it's terrible. I don't think residents should have to pay to park in front of their house. The garages are small and don't accommodate large vehicles. What about families that have multiple drivers? High school students should learn to respect the neighborhoods around their school and parents should be responsible to make sure their children park in the designated areas for students!

[awood]

A.) There is plenty of parking for students at the HS
B.) Students park in the neighborhoods to;
1.) Avoid supervision of school personell (smoking, etc.)
2.) Get the shortest distance to their respective classes (running late?)
c.) There is currently NOTHING to discourage them from parking in the neighborhoods.

It would take a lot less effort than has been exerted here to pass an ordinance, put up some signs saying "NO PARKING 9am-2pm M-F" and write a pad full of tickets......viola! Kids are faced with some sort of consequences for their actions and start parking on school property! (Any wonder why they aren't filling up the Intel lot for football games?) If you have or had a teenage kid you should know that they need limits. In this case there are none, so they take the easiest route (like most adults would).

[tessieca]

I don't think residents should have to pay to park in front of their house. The garages are small and don't accommodate large vehicles. What about families that have multiple drivers?

While I don't disagree that the students don't belong there, I am of the opinion that city streets are not made for the purpose of providing parking for residents. Many of Folsom's subdivisions have rules about parking, sometimes even in your own driveway. If a family chooses to buy a vehicle, it's their responsibility to ensure it will fit in their garage. If a family chooses to purchase more than one vehicle at a house with a one-car garage, they should have parking room in mind.

Lastly, the city's proposal is not for residents to "pay for parking." They would simply have to pay the administrative costs of producing whatever signage and permitting is required. Being that I don't have personal parking spaces on city streets, I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to provide that for someone else.

[tgianco]

I live a about five city blocks away from the neighborhood in question, and, while getting that odd occasion to drop my daughter off at Sandra Gallardo last week, I saw 5-6 boys on the side of one house just chain-smoking away.

If it was my house or if I was within a block or so, it would bug the hell out of me. It just looked disgusting, and don't think that smoke doesn't blow in homes.

[old soldier]

they also could pass a law that garages must be clean enough for a car or two depending on the garage size. they could set a day each month for all doors to be open for police inspection and a squad car could drive slowly by and ticket when necessary.

they could cover the town the same pattern they do with the santa parade

[HappyDaisy]

As a resident of this area, this goes beyond being able to park on the street in front of my home or having to pay for it (which I disagree with). It's an issue of safety. On numerous occasions, high school kids have been observed smoking pot and speeding down our residential streets. Aside from the safety concerns, there is the issue of the trash. For some reason, it's too difficult for them to leave their morning java cups or energy drink cans in their cars to throw away when they get home. They like to leave them in the gutter or throw them in the bushes.

For the previous poster who said, "the city's proposal is not for residents to 'pay for parking.' They would simply have to pay the administrative costs of producing whatever signage and permitting is required," I say semantics. We will be paying to park...anyone can skew the words to make their argument. I would venture to guess one might feel differently if the speeding and pot smoking were in their neighborhood.

[tessieca]

We will be paying to park...anyone can skew the words to make their argument. I would venture to guess one might feel differently if the speeding and pot smoking were in their neighborhood.

You can park in your driveway or garage for free. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize your ability to park in the streets.

Speeding and pot smoking are not parking issues, those are law enforcement issues.

[cw68]

In the neighborhood surrounding the high school I attended, the streets were marked 2-hour parking between 9am-3pm. If you were there two extra minutes, you got a ticket. Students simply didn't park there.

Paying for parking slips isn't that big of a deal to me. I had to have them for my apartment in Chicago. You'd pick up a huge stack for something like $3. Again, just to cover costs. If it solves the problem, methinks it would be worth it.

As for the smoking and littering, a friend of mine lives across the street from the middle school in Land Park. She times her sprinklers to go on ten minutes before school is let out because people used to sit on her lawn waiting, smoking cigs and the like. Now they don't. Sometimes kids used to hang out on her lawn after school waiting for parents, chatting, whatever but they don't now because the ground is wet. Good solution to the problem.

[Ahnold]

You can park in your driveway or garage for free. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize your ability to park in the streets.

Speeding and pot smoking are not parking issues, those are law enforcement issues.

+1

[HappyDaisy]

You can park in your driveway or garage for free. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize your ability to park in the streets.

Speeding and pot smoking are not parking issues, those are law enforcement issues.

I do park in my garage and/or driveway. As for the speeding/pot smoking this (to my understanding) has been addressed with law enforcement.

[SacKen]

You can park in your driveway or garage for free. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize your ability to park in the streets.

Speeding and pot smoking are not parking issues, those are law enforcement issues.

Um... wait. I'm a tax payer. Haven't I already paid for the right to park on a public street? I now should be burdened with paying extra for a permit to park in front of my own house because the city or school district or whomever is responsible can't control a situation that they created?

[tessieca]

Well, I don't want to argue. Ok, yes I do. Keep in mind, I'm not justifying the kids parking there, and I think they should not.

However, you do not have any inherent right to park on a street. The street is not built for the purpose of residential parking. It is built as a means of transport from one location within the city to another. The city does not owe you a parking spot. The could, if they wanted to provide spaces, meter it and make some revenues for the use of their streets. If you want to ensure that there is room for your vehicle on the street, I see no problem in requiring you to pay an administrative fee for the pleasure.

[Redone]

Well, I don't want to argue. Ok, yes I do. Keep in mind, I'm not justifying the kids parking there, and I think they should not.

However, you do not have any inherent right to park on a street. The street is not built for the purpose of residential parking. It is built as a means of transport from one location within the city to another. The city does not owe you a parking spot. The could, if they wanted to provide spaces, meter it and make some revenues for the use of their streets. If you want to ensure that there is room for your vehicle on the street, I see no problem in requiring you to pay an administrative fee for the pleasure.

So , you really have no solution to the problem caused by your campus ?

[old soldier]

was out for a walk and saw a high city sign warning about rattlesnakes. I guess the sign would protect the city from liability, it gave me an idea though

the folks who live in the area where the kids park could get signs that say

"warning tire slashing zone, park at your own risk" might scare a few off and more if some tires got slashed by a temporarily insane person tire of the gargage and scene