Future Escondido Resident wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:06 PM:I think this is a great idea! You have 10 adults living in one home..and they each have cars..that takes up the street parking of the whole block. How is that fair to others who only have two vehicles and have NO where to park in front of their own homes???!

pablo wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:13 PM:Dozens of California cities have had overnight parking ordinances for years. They work well. California law allows cities to ban on-street parking between 2AM and 6AM. California law allows cities to issue permits to residents to park in front of their residence. To make it easier for residents with permits to park in front of their residences California law even allows cities to allow vehicles with permits to park in front of the resident's own driveway. Therefore, I do not see a problem with permit parking as long as what the council authorizes is not to allow permits to be used for parking in front of someone else's residence. Common sense tells you that will not solve the overcrowding problem and will just create a domino effect moving resident's cars further from their homes. Remember, the domino effect can only happen if the permits that are issued are not restricted to parking in front of the permitee's residence which is allowed by state law. If the parking permits that are issued are good for any location within 1,000 feet or 1/4 mile, as staff currently suggests, it is the same as issuing permits to overcrowders to park in front of someone else's home. I don't believe any voter wants that.

Jaque wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:27 PM:""nearly impossible to thoroughly and equitably enforce""

And this is different from the thousands of other state, county and city ordinaces?

Get a clue Lisa

Chamber of Citizens is a Political Action Committee wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:16 PM:The Escondido Chamber of Citizens doesn't deserve this much press. They are self-indulgent and more concerned with their agenda than improving Escondido. While others are trying to clean up the city and make it look better, the ECC is only concerned that they might be inconvenienced a little. It's time that people start thinking about the greater good than their own little worlds. This is purely political so they can promote their own candidates in November. I hope they are paying the North County Times for this advertising.

Garages are for carsreally wrote on Aug 24, 2008 12:52 AM:Wow clearing out ones garage so they can park their car in the garage. What a concept!!

And the Citizens Chamber is against garages being used to actually park cars. What a group!!!

EscoWatchDog wrote on Aug 24, 2008 3:58 AM:The city council exaggerating results of a study? Hmm...this is too familiar. Remember what they did with the CSUSM report on Mission Park and the failed ordinance on rental bans.

ot the three stooges wrote on Aug 24, 2008 4:56 AM:it's time to leave our community alone, if you going to enforce this you have to do it in all the city, the ACLU will win a lawsuit agains the city, after a judge hears the comments made by Waldron and Abed that this will be the way to get rid of undocummented people.
are we going to waste another million of tax dollars ,like we did it with the rental ban?

Take some time wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:01 AM:I did something interesting this morning. The kids slept in so I decided to follow the link to the parking study referred to in this article. I read; the whole thing. Everyone should. A little dry, no doubt, but what it says is interesting. It says Escondido doesn't have a parking problem. It says in fact that with the exception of a very few number of streets Escondido residents have ample parking. It also issues a mild warning to the city officials of Escondido that if you want to create a parking ordinance be prepared for the fall out: added layers of bureaucracy that will cost real money; people parking in areas not included in the restricted zone and walking (or carpooling?) to their homes, parking in commercial areas over night, black market sales of parking permits which would require a whole different level of enforcement. I can even imagine an increased number of car break ins and car thefts of vehicles that aren't parked in front of the owners home. What the study seems to say is the City should leave well enough alone. So, the city paid for a study, the study said, "there is no problem" but the council insists there is. I just don't get that and I see another boondoggle in the making. How much will this one cost?

Solution Guy wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:11 AM:Who is this "Citizens Group"? How many members are there? I get the impression that this groups consists of three or four people who just like to complain about the current council in order to get their liberal candidate elected. Hey, NCT, how many publishing the names of these "concerned citizens".

To to the three stooges wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:17 AM:Are you the leader of the Chamber of Citizens? I think tou are.

Clueless Lisa wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:19 AM:The Chamber of Citizens is a left-wing political action committee with an agenda of getting liberals elected to council. They are clueless as to the real issues in our community.

Kimmie wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:51 AM:Who are these people? Is the Chamber of Citizens really an organization made up of slumlords? How many of their members own income properties in Escondido and where are the rentals located? Do Chamber of Citizens members, or their parents, or their children live where they have residents of overcrowded rental apartments and houses overwhelming the street parking in front of their homes?

Isnt this AMERICA wrote on Aug 24, 2008 10:34 AM:where you are free to own as many cars as you like and park them on your front lawn?

where you can have a two car garage jammed to the rafters with everything except a car?

Shame shame on the city council for trying to take AMERICA apart.

EscoWatchDog wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:14 AM:To Solution Guy, they have more than 4 members. Just the founding members alone are over 20. They have much more now. What organization are you from? It may surprise you, but just because the are more "complainers" than you think, and they do not just complain like many of the bloggers here, they actually put their complaints into ACTION.

Chamber of Zitizens wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:32 AM:believes the Escondido city council should vote unanimously to issue free parking permits, which have to be mailed to every address, so that all unlicensed drivers, and all owners of unregistered vehicles, and all owners o uninsured cars, and all residents of overcrowded residential units can immediately park on any city street, where ever and when ever they please. These permits should be applicable to all vehicles, including dump trucks, tow trucks, landscaper's vehicles, tractor trailers, and delivery vans, etc. To do otherwise would be picking on poor people.

Citizens of chamber wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:38 AM:We at the Citizens of Chamber oppose any progress in the City so that we can then complain about the state of the City and get our liberal candidates elected.

Solution Guy wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:45 AM:The founding members of the Chamber of Citizens are irrelevant. Who is in this group now? My hunch is that it has three or four active members who are the usual cast of liberal NIMBYs.

Slow Down a Sec wrote on Aug 24, 2008 12:11 PM:To all of you who are so ready to critize the Chamber of Citizens,I have a few questions: Have you read the parking study by the Walker Group? The study that concludes there is no parking problem? Yes or No? If the city council was willing to pay 50,000.00 for a study, why don't they give some consideration to it's findings? Does this council ever consider the advice of experts or do they just follow the anecdotal opinions of their most vocal (if not on occasion borderline rabid) consituents?

What parking prob wrote on Aug 24, 2008 1:07 PM:So if there is no parking problem in the city then by enforcing a parking limit it will impact only a few who are making life miserable for the people living around them. I don’t have a problem with that, and then the thoughtless will be taught a lesson about living harmoniously with their neighbors.

To Slow Down a Sec wrote on Aug 24, 2008 1:10 PM:Yes, I red the study on the city's website. It does show the overcrowding areas of over 50%. That is the area the council is considering for the ordinance. The so called Chamber of Citizens (created to oppose the Chamber of Commerce) is dead wrong that the study does not show a problem. A propaganda spread by few ignorant people. Go the the city's website.

Take a look wrote on Aug 24, 2008 2:22 PM:Some of these people claim that have to put many families in one home because they are poor. Well folks take a look and see the high end suv's and trucks sitting in front of these homes. I'm sure with all the benefits they are on they certainly can have their own home or apartment and cut down on overcrowding.

Lyle wrote on Aug 24, 2008 2:32 PM:Well, what part of single family dwelling don't people understand. There's the problem. I drove around town today and encountered neighborhoods beyond belief. Cars three deep, houses with 10 to 20 cars. What a blight and safety hazard. Oops, Mayor Pfeiler said there is no blight in Escondido. I guess she doesn't get out and around much.

To To Slow Down a Sec wrote on Aug 24, 2008 3:03 PM:I'm glad you "red" the study. Did you "read" that a parking problem kicks in at 85% occupancy and that applies to about 9% of Escondido streets?

NSShirlock wrote on Aug 24, 2008 3:34 PM:Implement the parking ordinance in the currently-impacted neighborhoods, with the option of expanding it to other neighborhoods as the problem spreads, as it no doubt, will.

To eighty-five percenters wrote on Aug 24, 2008 4:47 PM:It doesn't matter if the number of parking spaces being used on a street is 50% if that 50% includes the parking spaces in front of your house and your cars are not the ones parked there. The problem is overcrowding. Whether apartments or houses, makes no difference, it has to end. Only the resident of a property should be eligible to obtain permits to park his or his guests vehicle or vehicles in front of his residence, the same rule applied equally for every residence. Any council member who votes to give someone else a permit a park in front of my house can kiss my, my wife's, my kid's, my parent's, and anybody else I can influence votes goodbye. I would never support a politician who would vote to do such a thing to me, or any member of my family, or any neighbor, or any friend.

bogie wrote on Aug 24, 2008 6:12 PM:Even though we don't have a problem in my part of town, I am all for the parking permits. Bring it to my neighborhood if it helps square up the discrimination folks.

I hate to break it to everyone but even with a parking ordinance the street in front of your house does not belong to you. The street is public property and anyone can park in front of anyone else's home.

Drove Down My Street Today wrote on Aug 24, 2008 6:16 PM:and there was a first, a SUV parked on the grass lawn. This problem is spreading and disrespectful!! If Mexicans are running from an awful situation in Mexico, well... when you are here ... respect us!!! Park on the street!!! Don't live like you did in Mexico!!

To bogie wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:52 PM:Shh! You'll upset the one poster with his multiple aliases who has spent the last year trying to convert the public's street to his own personal and private property.

So Clever wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:53 PM:Some of these bloggers are so very clever. Such as the "Zitizens of Chamber" and "Pablo" (aka. Paul) and "JaQue" (aka. Joan)...how clever.

Too bad you folks have to resort to blogging all day long. Obviously, your argument doesn't has no more value than in the blogs. How clever you are.

Looking forward to Escondido city council getting smacked down again in court.

Alter Ego wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:38 AM:Ahhhh...the constituents of Abed, Gallo & Waldron. A proud moment for these three rocket scientists. (SARCASM!!)

You know, I have been meaning to ask:

WHY IS MARIE WALDRON SO QUIET LATELY???

Afterall, this parking ordinance was her brain child. Remember she brought it up after the council abandoned the rental ordinance.

Now, that she is all cozy on the dais after having run on a platform of combatting illegal immigrants - we are not hearing a peep out of her. No quotes - she's happy letting Abed Gallo & Daniels take the heat.

First, she proposed the rental ban (with the support of the Minutemen).
The council adopted the rental ban in October.
Then in November - "surprisingly" Waldron was re-elected.
And in December, the city abandoned the rental ban because the first defense of it in court proved to be detrimental to the city's total assurance that the ban would "hold up in court". WRONG-O.
Then in March, Waldron proposed the parking ordinance. Waldron, Abed & Gallo all foamed about the problems and they didn't need studies and they didn't want to drag out the process and they didn't need more public input. Well, "CONSTITUENTS" - YOUR Councilmen/woman ARE FAILING - MISERABLY!!! It is now ONE YEAR and FIVE MONTHS (since March 2007) and actually TWO YEARS since the parking ban was orginally proposed. And these three blind mice are running around chasing their tails trying to FORCE THE ORDINANCE into an ACLU-Proof ordinance. DUH!!! Wasted Days and Wasted Nights.

Anyway, everyone keeps gettin on Abed and Gallo's case - not that there is a problem with that - they certainly deserve it. It's weird though that suddenly this parkiing ordinance is about OVERCROWDING again! God! When will these guys get it right? Never - that's when. BUT, let's not forget - Councilmember Waldron - this is her brain child - it our duty to let her know how completely idiotic this ordinance is.

Oh. And let's not forget Dick Daniels - what happened to Mr. "I-Don't-Want-The-Ordinance-to-affect-honest-residents"? Oh, well "he" was just a phase. Daniles is actually more like "Mr. Whichever-way-the-wind-blows", "Mr. Can't make up his mind", "Mr. Flip-Flop".

And what about Waldron who said if we can't enforce this then we shouldn't do it. Oh, well, she is just Mrs.-Says-One-Thing-And-Does-Another. What is her claim to fame? What has she really done for the city? Nothing I can think of - nothing to write mom about. What has Waldron done about the illegals? Has she written a few dozen letters to state and federal officials explaining her position? Has she traveled to Sacramento to protest the powers that be to stop the illegal flow? Has she done anything? No. She was just all talk. And now...she has NOTHING to SAY. Pretty convenient. She's just riding the easy wave and racking up time for that pension. Special. A proud moment - for someone.

Steve wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:17 AM:I live on a little street called fig street. I'm leasing a newly remodeled 3 bedroom 3 bathroom townhome. we have 2 cars and one motorcycle. I can't even manage to get a parking space. So I illegally park in front of my garage. Hoping that it doesn't get towed away. I would love to park on the street but it seems like there are 4 to 6 cars with for sale signs on them for years. it seems like there is some kind of sale lot going on in front of my townhome complex.It's always been overcrowded in this area and so far for 10 years + there hasn't been anything done. I will have to get my car towed once I come home late from work parking in front of my garage. so yes there is a parking problem and to say that we aren't having one is absurd. im not saying everywhere is overcrowded but some places. expecially right near that corner where the usual checkpoints are. Fig and Lincoln. I have permits to park on the street but I don't trust anybody in my hood as far as i can throw them. permits are ok but when i have my parents come over for dinner its gonna be tuff, so whats left to do. move out of that area. parking permits are a good thing but it still doesn't seem like it's gonna help. it will only increase theft, cause people work around such regulations. i can't blame anybody except the building code that we have. once we build a townhome complex adding in a few more extra parking spaces would be nice.

Innocent Bystander wrote on Aug 25, 2008 5:33 AM:"... 7-square-mile zone bordered by Rincon Road, Felicita Avenue, Bear Valley Parkway and Interstate 15..."

So, basically the 92025 zip code, minus the 'rich' neighborhoods. That ain't gonna fly in court; it could get quite expensive to defend.

And, if the plan is to mail 2 permits per address, we're in trouble: The city has no idea what the real addresses are in that 'hood.

esco native wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:08 AM:I do think this is a great idea, I have one truck and I park it in my drive way. Now the people next to me have about 5 cars and park in front of my house so if I have visitor they have no where ot park! not to mention the school in front of my house that people park in front of my house too and stay there all day I the post office will not deliever my mail if my mailbox is blocked and it is not even my car!!

How much... wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:57 PM:...will I be able to sell my permits for? I have two cars which go in my garage (where they belong) and two spaces on my driveway for guests. Thus, I'd like to open the bidding for my permits...who'll give me $100 apiece?

By the way, anyone who believes that the "spaces" in front of their homes belong to them is seriously mistaken. Parking on public streets cannot be assigned, so get ready for invaders from 3 streets over looking for parking in your neighborhood. Again I say: who wants to buy my permits?

Same Song and Dance from You Two. wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:01 PM:Every time there's a story on this proposed ordinance there are two people who blog in multiple times under diffrerent aliases and attack the Chamber of Citizens. To be honest, I think it's getting really old. You two never have anything to back up your stance or counter the Walker Study. All you can provide is blogs. Just like the City Councilmembers who say "we don't need a study because I've gone on ride alongs with the police and I can see it". Again no facts to back up their stance. As though owning a gas station or a tee-shirt shop, or a public relations firm, or being a Real Estate Agent makes you gods of urban planning. This ordinance is nothing but the continuation of the City Council's policy of gentrification, they just don't have the personal integrity or courage to own it. (just like the two bloggers with the multiple names). Those of you who think this ordinance will garauntee you the spot in front of your house need to read the proposal from staff (it doesn't). Those of you who think it will eliminate overcrowding, it won't (you'll have permission to park in your side yard), and those of you who think it will take cars off the street, it won't (two cars per house on the street). All in all this is an extremely foolish attempt by four extremely incompetant people. And to you two bloggers, thanks, you've piqued my interest enough over the weeks and months that I actually took the time to read the Walker Study, the City Staff report and the submission of the Chamber of Citizen's. I was very impressed by the Chamber's submission. I wish I could say the same for you two and/or the City Council. I guess facts are too much to ask for from zealots.

Over Capacity wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:28 PM:No doubt there are real areas and streets in Escondido that have a parking problem. That's to be expected in a city our size. The real issue is that this problem is not nearly the extent the city council claims. My house falls within the area of the ordinance. According to the Walker Study my street was utilized just over forty percent. So around 60% of the spaces on my street were available the night of the survey. The reason my whole neighborhood falls under the proposal map? Because one side street a quarter of a mile from my home was rated at 53%!!!! On that street nearly half the spaces were available and yet this city council has the wisdom to tell me I have a parking/overcrowding issue. This is ridiculous. Certainly help those who have an issue but don't make the rest of us have to pay the price. And I have one question for the city council, Half the shops on Grand Ave are vacant, do you consider Grand Ave to be over capacity?

Big Gas Pains wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:59 PM:To Over Capacity...
Did you not read Sam Abed's claim that Escondido was prospering? That's why we have vacant shops on Grand Ave.
Don't forget the - $9.8 MILLION TAX PAYER DOLLARS DEFICIT.
Ohhhh..Sam I must have misquoted you...YOU are prospering...big gas sales,eehh?

Song and dance wrote on Aug 27, 2008 4:13 AM:The Walker study doesn't comfort those of us who live in the impacted neighborhoods. Someone should do an analysis of how much of our taxpayer money goes into these consultant studies. Study after study after lame study. I LIVE HERE! STICK YOUR STUDY!