Town Square

Post a New Topic

A city park that bans bikes and trees?

Original post made on Feb 3, 2016

A tangle of restrictions and costs led many at Tuesday's City Council meeting to denounce plans for a new mini-park near Fayette Drive.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 3, 2016, 5:31 PM

Comments (21)

Posted by bike rider
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Feb 3, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Unclear to me. Does this mean bikes are banned at these parks, Rengstorff Park, Klein Park, Rex Manor Park, the Senior Garden, Whisman Park and other sites? All of them or just parts? If partial, how will it be marked? Who would enforce? Could the city council vote to tell the police and city officials not to enforce any bike ban beyond putting up signs? Though there wasn't a city council vote or discussion on it, ignoring and non-enforcement seems to be the method used for enforcing the smoking bad on Castro Street the last few years -- just walk by all the people sitting outside places smoking.

Posted by Say what?
a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 3, 2016 at 9:58 pm

Why does the SFPUC care if our network of bicycle trails have poor connectivity? Shouldn't they just care whether we maintain the land in a way that works with their pipes?

Posted by Taxes
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Feb 3, 2016 at 10:02 pm

Do government agencies pay property taxes or is SFPUC not a government agency?

Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Feb 3, 2016 at 10:56 pm

@Taxes - That question was asked during the meeting. While a government agency, SFPUC has to pay taxes on properties outside of San Francisco County.

Posted by Annexation next?
a resident of Slater
on Feb 4, 2016 at 9:02 am

Homeowners in the San Antonio area may want to get their properties annexed to Palo Alto and then sell them for an extra million dollars.

Posted by Cyclist
a resident of The Crossings
on Feb 4, 2016 at 9:49 am

Put in the park, put in a "walking" trail, and put up a sign banning bikes, and then write the agreement so that it's the SFPUC which will be responsible for "enforcing" the ban which they won't do. Revisit in a couple years, and when they finally remove the restriction take the signs down. But don't scuttle the whole deal.

Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Feb 4, 2016 at 10:55 am

Got to wonder if the "no bike trail" policy is linked to the Target parcel and its legal dispute with the SFPUC (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.: 1-12-CVC-227801 ?)

Posted by Tree hugger
a resident of Waverly Park
on Feb 4, 2016 at 2:37 pm

And what problems are the 27 trees causing?

Posted by jean struthers
a resident of another community
on Feb 4, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Long ago when i worked as a park commissioner in Los Altos we got the Hetch hetchy right of way for a bike route to Palo Alto. I goes from Los Altos Avenue to Arastradero in Palo alto. It crosses Adobe Creek and parallels the Alta Mesa Cemetary. Why now no bikes. It is a paved wide trail and is used a lot. it seems very inconsistent to now not allow bikes. These trails should connect. It is a very good off-road route to work for employees at Gunn Hi or the industry in the Stanford lands.

Posted by Tim
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Not allowing bicycles seems silly. Can we turn off the pipe so San Franciscans drink sea water instead?

Posted by Probably74
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 4, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Could someone please explain to me what good it is to have this park if it's going to cost money, reduce clean air (by removing trees) and be useless to residents? It sounds like a big lose-lose to me.

Posted by Reason
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2016 at 4:59 pm

Maybe they want it to "SAAAY" bikes are banned, but have no care at all about anyone enforcing it.
I would guess, (right or wrong) that liability goes up when you allow cyclists, so this way, they just put up 2 signs saying No Bikes Allowed
If an accident happens involving a bike and lawyers get involved, they can just point to the No bikes allowed sign, shrug their shoulders and walk away.

Posted by Those pesky trees
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm

They want to be able to freely and easily use aerial survey of the pipeline so at times trees can and do inhibit that. I'm sure the plan was to just to let them eventually die, or maybe remove only if necessary, but now they can get them down at the cities expense.

Posted by gardener
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 4, 2016 at 8:37 pm

May we please have the city consider using at least 50% of this new park as a community garden. Mtn View only has one (for non-seniors) and the wait list is nearly a decade long.
Thank you.

Posted by DoctorData
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 4, 2016 at 9:49 pm

DoctorData is a registered user.

"We are altering the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further."

Darth Vader said it best.

Web Link

Posted by Otto Maddox
a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 5, 2016 at 11:37 am

Amazing when the people own land and then aren't allowed to use it.

Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Feb 5, 2016 at 11:39 am

About the only reason I can think of for banning bikes is construction/maintenance of the bike path would mean bringing in heavy vehicles. The reason for the trees, I would imagine, is that tree roots can mess up pipes.

Posted by Jean Struthers
a resident of another community
on Feb 5, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Their reasoning stated back in the 70's was that tree roots could be a problem with the pipes. Only shrubs were allowed then. so that is at least consistent with their former rules. But bikes should be allowed. Maybe the city needs to install a paved bike and walking trail like the one in Los Altos.

Cutting off the water that is the supply for Mountain View certainly does not make sense.

Posted by Tom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Nice way to support sustainability Mountain View.

Posted by Scott
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 7:50 pm

Does this ban include unicycles? What about hover-boards, pogo sticks, skateboards, scooters, and inline skates?

Posted by Public BeneFAT
a resident of Gemello
on Feb 6, 2016 at 8:04 pm

I hope people remember that the developer who built housing next to this property was given concessions for promising to develop this park (right next to his property which would largely benefit his tenants) and has not had to do anything.
The citizens of Mountain View get screwed by big developers yet again, but in a whole new way!

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Sutter and PAMF — protect your patients from coronavirus — not just your employees
By Diana Diamond | 42 comments | 3,864 views

Rozmary Kitchen's weekly sandwich pop-ups return to The Midwife and the Baker
By The Peninsula Foodist | 1 comment | 3,610 views

Is Watching Porn Considered to be Cheating?
By Chandrama Anderson | 11 comments | 2,959 views

What can you do with your EV battery?
By Sherry Listgarten | 7 comments | 2,759 views

Sugar – Bigger Sinner Than Wine?
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,799 views