Post a New Topic
Original post made
on May 15, 2013
It would have been better if the city or water distrcit bought those houses next to the park before they were occupied. There would have been more room for all those uses and there would have been no neighbors adjacent to it.
In regards to the parking comments in the article, it is also kind of St. Joseph School to allow their parking lot to be used for events at Mc Kelvey on the weekends. Without those spaces, even more cars would be forced onto the streets. The school could just as easily close off their parking lot on weekends, unless they are holding events of their own. I think they deserve some recognition for being a good neighbor to Little League baseball for many years.
YES YES! Flood it all! Hu Jin Tao will be proud! I love you all! America!!!!!!!!
"all of will be paid for by the water district"
WRONG! All of it (and more!) will be paid for by taxpayers, meaning you and me. Government funding doesn't just magically appear, those dollars are extorted from us all.
How ironic: the water district flushes them down the toilet.
The Water District has spent $20 million of taxpayer's money redesigning this project because of their inflated costs - and their own incompetence. What does Mike Kasperzak expect? That we should actually trust SCVWD - an agency that doesn't use its own historical data but makes it up as they go along? Jac Siegel is right on this one. Again.
Hardly extortion, given the passage rates of Water District Bond Programs. Could it run better, Absolutely, so feel free to run for the seat next time. Money for Flood Insurance does not magically appear either.
By using local bonds for local construction, many local residents will in the future avoid sending local money away in the form of Flood Insurance Premiums (required for many mortgages).
I discovered while trying to get "permission" to add a couple of hundred square feet to my kitchen that the Water District already has modern data that would remove a great many houses from "flood insurance" requirements that are based on data (and computer programs) more than 40 years old. They just need to submit it to FEMA, but they aren't willing to do that until they finish all their big projects. Hmmm. Wonder why? Is it really a cost savings measure, or do they get more political leverage by having a lot of people feeling the pain of flood insurance?
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Freebirds Palo Alto shutters, Pieology to move in
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,675 views
A Glimpse into local HS Suicide
By Chandrama Anderson | 15 comments | 2,836 views
Deny the 429 Univ Ave Project Appeal
By Steve Levy | 11 comments | 1,855 views
Now Playing - Your Dinner!
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,031 views
Teens and Cutting, What's Going On?
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 306 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.