Posted by Shoreline West, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm

What's wrong with the median on Shoreline?

Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Sounds like an excuse to start spending taxpayer money.

Posted by Tony, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Once again, these council members focus on the real problems. Bryant is obsessed with that stupid median. Get over it. We have other fish to fry.

Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm

Let's see.. we're short $750,000 but they want to spend an additional $800,000 on a teen center we've already spent $1,000,000 on.

Just exactly why do we need a teen center? I can remember being a teen, in Mountain View. I didn't have time to hang out a teen center. I got myself a job.

Posted by @ otto, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm

Life was different when you were a teen.

Plus teen-agers cannot work until 15 or 16. That leaves a lot of kids without a place to be.

AND, adults cannot even find jobs these days...not so easy for teens.

Posted by Gale, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm

How about replacing those massive broken planter vases in the median of San Antonio as you approach the Caltrain overpass heading toward California? The overpass and approach is a dump compared to what Palo Alto is investing in San Antonio. As it stands now it's the gateway into the ghetto.

Posted by Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Hmmm, the city is thinking about spending fairly big bucks on things we don't have to have while with out comment reducing spending on city staff by $600,000. If I were a city employee I would think the city does care about me which is not good from my point of view as a city resident.

Posted by @Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm

Rodger,

"on things we don't have to have"...you mean the Teen Center. I guess you say that because you are not a teen, nor do you work full-time and have a teen at home.

Posted by Dominick, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 9:45 pm

The City council just does not apply the questions that a business must use when deciding about capital funds. (Maybe because it's not their money.)

1. Must have

2. Should have

3. It would be nice to have.

The teen center falls under number 3,"It would be nice to have." The shoreline median is a number 2, "Should have."

Note there is no number 1, "Must have."

Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 7, 2012 at 10:45 pm

The $750,000 is a nice win, considering that if the City hadn't done its due diligence to shop around for health benefits, it would not have realized the savings.

Also encouraging to hear that Mr. Rich still intends to proceed with reducing the budget by $600,000 in employee costs, to stave off the impending deficit, regardless of this latest windfall.

But I'm still watching and hoping to see more progress with the City's negotiations with the unions, when their contracts come due for renewal. This will be a way to make long term gains on balancing the budget.

Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 am

How was life different when I was a teen? Seriously.. explain this to me.

I got a job when I was 16. Had a job of one kind (PT or FT) even since.

Please tell me what has changed to make it so the taxpayers should pay for a place for teenagers to hang out.

When I was a teen I called that the backyard, or the front yard, or the local park my "teen center".

Posted by MV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 8, 2012 at 5:28 pm

A teen center is what progressive busybodies come up with as a solution for Mountain View's gang problem. Notice that the teen center is in the epicenter of the gang bario.

Why not take that $800,000 and instead hire 10 more cops devoted to busting gangs and scaring the living daylights out of ne'er-do-well teens. The good teens won't use the teen center anyway, they are all working jobs or studying. The center is for the bad teens. Enforce the laws on those bad teens, and maybe you'll change their lives, instead of just giving them a fancy place to play video games.

Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2012 at 10:46 am

I think the teen center is also right next to the "very nice" old peoples ghetto. [full disclosure - I'm officially an old foggie and am eligible and have used the Senior Center] Gimmie a break. This area of the city has much higher apartment density (= no front yard) than my neighborhood. Property owners will much more appreciate an effort to decrease youth problems than spiff-up Shoreline median. Really - hadn't noticed a problem there! Good call Council!

Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Was once a teen, I too did work, did study. I do remember some of the youth programd both public and private. We didn't have teen center, would have been. A rec center, with a library and swimming pool would have been nice at Cuesta Park. Oh by the way I was pre video games.