to Mr. Lisa P wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:03 AM:One simple rule that other cities use should make all reasonable people happy. That is, to qualify for on-street parking permits the resident/applicant must have more vehicles than the available off-street parking at their residence and all vehicles must be currently registered to the address on the application.

To Mr. Joan G. wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:43 AM:One simple rule of good government is that you don't inact legislation when none is needed. Good government is what makes reasonable people happy.

question wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:54 AM:I thought Daniels voted against the ordinance, and Waldron refused to support it in its current form as well.

STOP WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:56 AM:I completely agree with the writer Kurt Nunez on this subject. We must speak up against this ordinance. We must continue to speak up about the tendency of the Escondido City Council to enact laws, ordinances, and bans to further their own personal and prejudice agenda. When the housing ordinance went kaput after much tax payer money was wasted on it Gallo, Waldron, Abed and Daniels decided on this parking ordinance. I hope everyone will see how this ordinance affects ALL of us in Escondido. It is clear by comments made by these elected officials that they do these things to get rid of the illegal immigrants once again we must remember it is not the responsibility or obligation of local authorities and elected officials to combat this problem. This is a federal issue and they should handle it. All we are doing with these types of local attacks is clogging up our courts and violating the Constitution. Get over it Gallo, Waldron, Abed, and Daniels and anyone else who thinks these are good ideas, stop already!!!!! Why not focus on other issues that plague our city. Issues that you do have jurisdiction that are in your sphere of influence. You are all just spinning your wheels. I just wonder what their motives are!

elitist wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:10 AM:The evidence against this legislation that is so overwhelming for you is that you are not yet affected by the situation.
The truth is that legislation is needed. There are many, many, people suffering because of the overcrowded conditions on many streets. When a house next to you is sold to occupants who possess 8-10 vehicles, and you and your wife can no longer park in front of your own home, which I understand is not a problem for you yet, you will change your tune. Meanwhile the problem is becoming steadily worse in Escondido. It only takes one house on a block to destroy the quality of life for the entire neighborhood.

to elitist wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:28 AM:True, but a parking ordinance won't cure the more fundamental problem of overcrowding. And only the State (not the City) can regulate housing issues. So why pass a parking ordinace? It's like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.

to elitist wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:36 AM:Then why not set up an ordinance that allows residents to petition the city for parking restrictions on their own street as Councilman Daniels proposed months ago? Then if you had a problem the city could help you and your neighbors. If in the future the problem spread to other neighborhoods the residents could petition for controls on their streets. This way the people that needed help could get it, future problems would have an avenue of redress and those not affected would be protected. You know why? Because parking really has nothing to do with this ordinance.

You wish wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:47 AM:You wish you were an "elitist".

If you were an "elitist" then you would not be living in an area with parking problems. The truth more likely is that you live in the older part of Escondido with smaller lots and smaller streets and the "streets look crowded, and it is not pleasing to look at". Boo Hoo.

115 people for the ordinance is nothing in comparison to affecting more than 92,000 people with this STUPID ordinance...

Nor does 115 people's "problems" warrant spending at a minimum $300,000 - that's three hundred thousand!

Are you so self-centered that you think it's appropriate to spend $300,000 dollars to fix your problem - one house on one street that ruins it for your neighborhood. Now, that's self-centered!!!

An elitist? You wish!!

Marie wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:55 AM:Great forum and way to represent the good people!

To Chamber of Citizens wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:46 PM:Way to defend the status quo...

Citizens of Chamber wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:48 PM:We at the Citizens of Chamber (all four of us) think that what is unjust are inane diatribes such as this. Mr. Nunez and his wife are against everything that comes before the council. What is his solution to the overcrowding problems? Of course, none was stated in his article.

Solution Guy wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:58 PM:I think Mr. Prazeau needs to stop letting his wife write his articles for him.

I think wrote on Sep 18, 2008 6:07 PM:I think the little weaklings in this comment section have no guts. They are too afraid to put their name to their comments - just like Mr. Nunez has done.

He stands behind his findings and puts his name to it...ranters (like you people) hide behind blogs and offer not one shred of TANGIBLE evidence to support your rhetorical argument.

You people are so full of yourselves. Do you think Escondido is the ONLY city that has overcrowding problems? If you do, then obviously you need to come out of your caves!

And how about this: You say that the chamber only has four members...so how do explain how the Waldron, Abed and Gallo got their heads handed to them by "four" individuals. I guess these "four" individuals are much smarter than those three pretend council members who cater to the likes of people like you.

Are you paying for their flashing ads on the right? It must just really irk you when your councilmembers don't do what YOU want. Then you turn on them and threaten to take your one little vote and cut them off from your purse strings. Sick. Sick. Sick. Reminds me of Duke Cunningham!!!

P.S. Vote the wasteful council MEMBERS Abed & Gallo OUT in November 2008...unless of course you like wasting money & time & like the reputation Escondido has (do you not see people calling Escondido "Esconghetto" - do you think that's a compliment??) Oh wait...it's probably you people writing that crap!

To Solution Guy wrote on Sep 18, 2008 6:16 PM:Wow. What a rocket scientist!!

Your "solution" is to talk smack about people!

Way to keep the mantra of your favorite council members Abed, Gallo & Waldron alive.

Hey everybody!!! Take a look at the constituents of Gallo & Abed!

Look how "Solution Guy" acts like a little child and writes naughty things about other people.

Remember, when you (we, us grown ups) would visit the restroom in grade school and some little kid wrote on the bathroom wall something derogatory? You know things like: "Pauline" is fat and ugly. Or "Samantha" picks his nose. Or "Mary" smells like burnt rubber.

Remember how childish and idiotic that was?

Well, you no longer have to just remember...because the "constituents" of Abed & Gallo & Waldron will keep these childish behaviors alive.

Good job! A fine example of the people that support the city clowncil members!!!

Kurt wrote on Sep 18, 2008 6:56 PM:Ah personal attacks, the last desperate tactic of the intellectually defeated. Here are a few things to think about Pablo, Solution Guy, Citizens of Chamber or whatever name you are choosing to blog under at the moment: First of all every word was mine and mine alone. Secondly, just as liars think everybody is a liar, and thieves think everybody is a thief, you believe that since Joan G. does all the talking for you that the same must be true for me. Sorry, not so. I addressed the city council and stated my name, and voiced my opinion and where were you? hiding in the back of the council chamber letting your wife do the talking for you. I wrote this community forum and stated my name for the record. Where are you? hiding behind multiple blog aliases because you lack the courage of your own convictions. Thirdly, your constant attacks on the Chamber of Citizens are silly and only show how afraid you are. And just for the record I know you saw seven members of the Chamber of Citizens speak at the council meeting and there were at least five in the audience but hey, you already knew that. And lastly, if you think calling me Mr. Prazeau is some kind of insult, you’re very mistaken. Lisa Prazeau is the finest woman I have ever met and no one has worked harder for this city without regard to personal (or monetary) gain than her. It is my honor to be her husband. I would be more than willing to debate this issue (Parking) with you based on the facts anytime or anyplace, you just name it.

to to elitist wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:03 PM:To answer your question, in regard to the Daniels proposal, it crashed and burned. Even Daniels could not defend his cop out idea to force the poor family that just wants to park in front of their house from the potential wrath of the criminals and gangsters that control most of the Escondido inner core. Please don't be so naive. And that answer is polite because I am not a raving lunatic like you know who.

To Kurt wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:44 PM:You romantic devil!

jerrylen wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:03 PM:Citizens of Chamber(pot?). You have to be pretty dense to not know what the SOLUTION is. It's " Replace the morons in Nov., that have brought us to the brink of financial ruin & made Escondido the laughing stock of the country". Why were Gallos' lips trembling when he said "I KNOW GAG's HERE".

lady wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:42 AM:TO ALL: on here
Why don't some of YOU come up with an idea?? Because something has to be done PERIOD!! It is the same these days in Oceanside. I have 2 houses next to me where 10 people live in the house. They park cars on yards etc. The streets here are looking like TJ. Enough is enough already. I live here,own a home ,pay my taxes. Getting real fed-up with the way our streets LOOK too!!

JimRT wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:05 AM:To Kurt - I do not know you and I do not know about romantic but I will say, "Well said, Harrumph"!

RG wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:55 AM:I LIVE in the areas where parking is a problem. We've gotten in at least 4 neighbor's faces in English and Spanish to move their damn car that is parked directly in front of my house if they're not planning on visiting me. It got to the point that when we leave our spot open, we cordon it off with trash cans and the neighborhood has got the message. If we come home and someone has taken our spot, 99% of the time it's a neighbor visitor who doesnt know our "rules". As soon as we arrive and have to park elsewhere, we probably dont have to wait more than 20 mins before someone comes out and moves the vehicle.
My point is I solved my own parking problem, so why does the city feel it has to butt in just because I live in one of their deemed "affected" areas? We all know what this is really about and Daniels finally pulled his head out and realized it's a quick train to nowhere. Their illegal-cleansing agenda is just going to cost us all more in fees and taxes to enforce it and their supposed "quality of life" reason is nothing more than an excuse. Since when has the 'elitists' in the city council given a damn about how the lower income side lives? It's pretty apparent it's a witch hunt when, as Mr Nunez pointed out, only a select area was surveyed.

To Kurt wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:59 AM:Haven't met you...but when I do I'll shake your hand and say, "Well said."

Craig wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:59 AM:to I Think: I think you just called yourself a "little weakling"

"I think the little weaklings in this comment section have no guts. They are too afraid to put their name to their comments - just like Mr. Nunez has done."

I didn't see your name anywhere in your post.

Forget the writer wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:07 AM:do you live in the areas affect? I do! And we want that ordiance passed! You people that aren't affected crack me up, you might have to drive through our part of town once in a blue moon, yet here you are trying to dictate to us that are really affect by having 10 cars per apartment. To you that agree with the author I say, walk a block in my shoes!

To Kurt Nunez wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:14 AM:Thank you for your courage in writing this Community Forum. I have heard of the group the Chamber of Citizens and want to say thank you to all of the members who put themselves out there for attack, just as witnessed on this blog. How sad it is that some people believe personal attacks are justified because they don't agree with your position. I say if they can not logically and intelligently argue your position and have to resort to name calling and insults well who cares what they have to say. Thank you to you, your wife, and the Chamber of Citizens for your passion for our community here in Escondido and I wish you great success. Oh one more thing to all of you posting rude and disrespectful comments why don't you do as Mr. Nunez did and and publicly state your case rather hid behind your keyboard.

I like wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:57 AM:the first poster's idea. But the city should actually inspect the residences to make sure that all the parking on the premises are being used for that purpose before issuing any permits. If the garages are full of stored items, that is not acceptable, and no permit should be issued.

To RG wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:13 AM:Do you think you own the street in front of your home? Really do?

To Forget the Writer wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:59 AM:These are few isolated problems throughout the city, but it will cost the entire city. ... When I have a problem in my neighborhood, I take care of it one way or another. All neighbors need to be considerate of each other, if not, make them want to move.

To To RG wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:33 AM:I dont have to own the asphalt in front of the home I own where I park my vehicle. Common courtesy dictates you dont park directly in front of someone's house unless you're visiting them. We let the opportunists know it's rude and we dont let them get away with it.
The whole point of this is the council is trying to use an agenda to police something that the normal citizen can handle on their own. If you live in one of these affected areas like I do, stop expecting a govt authority to plug dollars into something as silly as a parking space when you can handle it yourself.
If the real problem is trying to get rid of the illegals who clog up the system, call it what it is, dont hide behind legalities simpletons will rally behind. And if you're so behind the proposed ordinance, maybe you've got an agenda of your own you need to fess up to.

To RG wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:51 AM:Common courtesy also dictates that you not get in your neighbor's faces in English or Spanish. You are rude. The Escondido City Council adamantly deny this ordinance has anything to with the illegals who live in Escondido, do you think they are lying? By the way we do not own the street and people can in this free country park any where they wish.

To to solution guy wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:30 PM:Samantha picks HIS nose? Would this be a boy named Sue's brother?

Bill wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:41 PM:Facts, like the truth are a personal thing. You can have a line of geologists tell you that the earth is hundreds of thousands of years old. You can have a line of Christians tell you that it's only 6,000 years old. Who is telling the truth and has the facts?

One thing that is pretty easy to see, is that in Escondido, there is a big problem!

If you take a one gallon baggie and try to put two gallons of something in it, at first, it will just make a mess all over the place, but after awhile, the bag will be ruined.

If you take a house, meant to house 5-6 people and put 14 in it...guess what's going to happen eventually?

The money being spent on the people causing the problem here is unfathomable!

I think the government should put a survey in with our tax returns for this year and ask everyone if they mind the illegals being here or not. For those who answer they don't mind, they will get charged more in taxes to pay for them. Those who answer they do mind, no extra tax dollars will be charged.

And if the government were to tell everyone they were doing this, how many do you think would honestly answer that they don't mind? If you run out of fingers while counting, use a foot! You won't need to use the other one.

I also wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:45 PM:agree with the first poster's idea. The city shouldn't give anybody a permit to park in the street unless they actually make sure that all the parking on the premises are being used for that purpose. If the garages are full of stored items, like Mr. Nunez and his wife declared their's was throughout their dog and pony slide show during the council meeting, that is not acceptable, and no permit should be issued to them or anybody like them. Self-absorbed twits.

Karl wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:23 PM:Regardless if you are for or against this ordinance (I am for), no one has a right to park in front of their house. The street is public property along with 5 to 9 feet behind the curb. I do agree that common courtesy would dictate leaving a neighbors spot in front of their home for them.

januaryM wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:40 PM:I am not interested in spending one red cent on any parking "problem" .My area of Escondido has no parking on the streets 24/7 period .My area is not affected by this ordinance but my wallet will be.
Tax payers paid $50,000.00 for the Walker Study ...findings
Escondido has NO parking problem.
No parking restrictions warranted .
The ordinance is not cost-effective,creating unneeded levels of bureaucracy/inconvenience to residents.The Walker Study considered the ordinance "bad legislation," unreasonable & unjustified.
The Council needs to heed the findings of the Walker Study or it will surely be used against them in court.
Tax payers will again be paying for the no parking problem.
3 hour parking ban won't help anyone.
Stop allowing this council to play you.
You ROCK Kurt Nunez!Great Article.
Vote the out NOV 2008
Goodbye Abed Gallo
***** GAG *****

To to RG wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:16 PM:I'm rude and the people who park their extra vehicles whereever the heck they damn please aren't rude? I have more than 2 vehicles, but I dont clog the street with my extra vehicles--omigosh, that sounds so courteous, apparently so unlike me!
All I'm asking for is one parking spot in front of my house. I dont think that's unreasonable and I dont think a law has to be passed in order for that to be a reality.

Sometimes you have to be firm to make a point to the clueless. Every time we've told them, "You have a house. Go park in front of it, not mine".

Now, to answer your question about the council, YES, I think they are LYING about what this is really about. The landlord thing on renters didnt work so now they'll try this avenue. If/when this doesnt work, they'll find something else that will target the illegals.

Bob wrote on Sep 19, 2008 4:11 PM:Mr. Nunez, you say the ban would effect approximately 64% of the city's residents. How do you know that? Where does that figure come from?

To Craig from I think wrote on Sep 19, 2008 4:30 PM:You are right, Craig. It does appear that I am calling myself a weakling. Good call.

What I meant to say is: Don't talk about Mr. Nunez and his wife because they had the guts to state their names and expose themselves to the comments of those less than courageous like the "weaklings" I refer to.

As far as my name goes, that really isn't the point. The point was...Mr. Nunez puts his position out there and the commenters should do the same...especially if they want to just act childish and not debate the actual facts.

I agree with Mr. Nunez this ordinance is arbitrary and capricious!

To Forget the Writer wrote on Sep 19, 2008 4:39 PM:You crack me up.

Because you live in an "impacted" area, you think those that do not (like me) should rearrange their lives, Just for YOU! That's a crack up.

And obviously you think your problems are so big, that the city should spend a few hundred thousand to fix your problem (which it ain't gonna do - people can still park in front of your house - if they want - and will if you & your neighbors are not amicable).

But, what is even more of a crack up is that you choose to ignore the results of the $49,000 dollar study. They said only 46 streets were impacted out of more than 1500 streets surveyed - LESS THAN 3% are impacted.

So, it cracks me up that you want the city to spend that much money to "help" you. So, I have to respond...how about "forget you".

Dennis wrote on Sep 19, 2008 4:57 PM:People getting mad because they cann't use the bike covers at the train stops as Bathrooms!!!!

To Solution Guy wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:07 PM:To Solution Guy @ 4:58...

so said the man whose wife read his community forum at the May 14, 2008 city council meeting...

it went something like this..."continue to work to adopt an ordinance that is ACLU proof".

I wonder what's on you & yours minds? And the position yours holds is a contradiction of purposes!!! Shame Shame Shame!!! Judge thee not, lest ye be judged!!!

To RG wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:57 PM:you said you've "gotten in...neighbor's faces" over this problem, and I'm curious to know if any of them have ever asked the police dept. to weigh in on the matter and determine who in fact "owns the road"?

To Bob wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:31 PM:I know the answer:

29,729 dwelling units in the restricted area

SANDAG figures avg 3.068 per dwelling unit

equals 91,208 residents in the restricted area

approximately 141,000 residents in Escondido

91,208 of 141,000 total residents equals....

drum roll please: approximately 64% of the population.

bob wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:43 PM:Actually the city's negative declaration says the parking restricted area comprises approximately 22% of the current city boundary. And, the city's summary of environmental impacts says the 2,000 census determined that there were 4,332 households with six or more persons in the city. So considering that over eight years the city gained more households with more than six or more persons, there actually could be many thousands more than Mr. Nunez's estimated 64%, 91,208 residents, crowded into the 22% of the area of the city boundary covered by the ordinance. I think that the proponents of the ordinance are on to something.

To To BOb wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:06 PM:And there are about 4,000 people living in Escondido BEFORE you factor in the illegal immigrants. (Do the math based on the most recent census report.)

NO ONE, from any level of government, has ever gotten back to me as to why this is.

WHO are these 4,000 people? What are they doing, where are they living, do they carry diseases, and are they here legally?

This is an INVASION.

Civil war is coming soon.... be ready for it.

Local wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:07 PM:It doesn't matter whether or not an ordinance is enacted. Escondido has an abysmal record of code enforcement. My guess is that these parking problems would be less severe if the city decided to actually enforce current laws. If this doesn't change soon, the slum lovers will get their wish. Life is short. Why spend it where the quality of life is continually decling?

Rearing their Ugly Heads wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:35 PM:I knew that was a "loaded" question.

Whatever Bob. Who gives a hoot how many are living in the urban core (duh, urban cores are usually the most congested because they have alot of high density housing - rocket scientist).

This Parking Issue is supposedly about parking scarcity! There is no parking scarcity!! Read the Walker Report and then comment on the Walker Report...not your wandering "facts" and assumptions about 6-family households (which could be anywhere in the city - I've got a copy of the demographics too - it's on my shelf - two feet away!)

Besides, "Bob"...affecting 92,000 residents is significant. The lacking negative declaration (that is not even a mitigated negative declaration) is basically worthless written by the city council with an agenda (don't bother to defend the council - everyone knows who pulls whos strings). Remember these words: "We tried the Rental Ban, but that didn't work," said Gallo. "Now we're trying the parking ordinance and that will work". How about commenting about that? You think it's cool to punish some people for the misdeeds of others?

So, try, try, try all you want to compare apples to oranges...try all you want to put lipstick on that pig...try, try, try - but the PARKING FACTS do NOT back up this thinly veiled ordinance. And your agenda is also very clear, "Bob".

To To To To Bob wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:39 PM:To whoever you are @ 9:06 pm

Go immediately to a phone book and look up psycologist...man, you got some serious issues!!!

anotherview wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:50 PM:Interestingly, the opinion-piece offers the wording that describes the true issue here: The parking study areas "contain a significant share of the city's multi-family residences." Too many cars parked in the street means too many people living in the houses on that street. Hence, the effective solution here involves the City of Escondido strictly enforcing its housing laws that prohibit overcrowded dwellings. Ending the unlawful condition of "multi-family residences" will in turn reduce the number of cars parked in the street. As well, with fewer people living in a neighborhood, the quality of life there may likely improve. Finally, the enforcement of the housing law will obviously require no new, untested law. The city only has to apply the existing law.

wahhh wrote on Sep 20, 2008 1:29 PM:I just got a ticket from my homeowners association in Emerald Heights for parking my car on the street in front of my own home, so it is not just certain areas of Escondido that deal with parking ordinances. I know....I chose to live here. Plain and simple, many of these residences do not have a garage to park their cars in because they have been illegally converted into additional living space. I don't know the solution, but there does indeed need to be one. There is nothing worse than coming home from a long day at work only to discover you have no place to park. My son lives in one of the affected areas, and he also has 11 people living in the 1,200 square foot home next to him. Out of those 11, there are 5 cars, 2 of which are broken and just sitting on the street. The city should at least tow the ones that are inoperable.

Bill wrote on Sep 20, 2008 2:29 PM:The solution is, tell the ACLU where to stick it and get rid of the people who aren't legally living in is country.

No matter what anyone thinks of the city council, at least they're trying to get something done, with no help from any of the surrounding communities.

We need enforcement in this town. If you get paid to enforce some laws, or rules, then do your job. Is it illegal to fire people in this community?

The mayor needs to get a big stick and learn to use it, until this town is in much better shape. If she doesn't have the stomach for it, then she needs to step down and let's get someone in here that does.

VOTE wrote on Sep 20, 2008 3:31 PM:Wood,
Sanchez,
Lowery

to out the BAD Super Majority trying to fill our council.

We need the good Monopoly that works together for a common great for the citizens.....

escondidoguiy wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:43 AM:I support this ordinance and there are many others that do but don't always express their views publicly. One of the cheapest ways of beautifying all of Escondido is to get rid of most if not all of the cars parked in the streets in residential areas. Some streets are so jammed overnight with cars on both sides it's amazing that the fire trucks can get by. The streets around Escondido are beginning to look like a cheap used car lot.

To escondidoguiy wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:52 PM:So...you think that $350,000 is "one of the cheapest ways" to beautify our city?

That does not make sense.

I'm against the parking ordinance because it will not serve the purposes for which the residents seek.

As far as cheap used car lots, what are your feelings about the new car lot the city is looking to approve next to Lowe's. If the city doesn't want us to have cars and if some residents will have to get rid of their excess vehicles, why would they allow another car lot?

This ordinance is nothing more than a horrible attempt to dictate to the residents how to live. And don't forget, it's a horrible waste of money. If you are so convinced it's a good idea, maybe you and your neighbors could start taking donations to pay for this costly ordinance (that won't work)!

Lawlessness wrote on Oct 16, 2008 1:43 PM:Over and over, Escondidans, in the VAST minority, thank goodness, advocate lawlessness. IF this parking ordinance adversely effects those breaking the law, SO BE IT. If they can't park in their garages because they illegally converted them, tear them down!!! If you have too many people breaking the law by overcrowding, GET OUT!!! Bottom line, do YOU advocate lawlessness? If so, you are the loser, ALL the way around.

To Lawlessness wrote on Oct 16, 2008 3:48 PM:Wow. What a concept! To penalize those breaking the laws! You should run for council - such depth!

Bottom line: Noone is advocating "lawlessness". But, we are advocating that the paranoid people give it a break!

Illegal garage conversions? Don't need a parking ordinance for that! Overcrowding? Enforce current fire and safety codes!

What is the real loser is this "proposed" parking ordinance!
1. It will cost a ton of money!
2. As it is written, it will not guarantee a parking spot in front of your house!
3. It penalizes good people (who may have a large family) for the misdeeds of a few! Are you familiar with these words: The occupancy levels for impacted streets is 3%.

What is even more lawless is the fact that our council is infactuated with implementing the ordinance...but have not backed up the infactuation with Fact! Gallo said that it was a continuation of the defunct rental ban. The city is BROKE! And the firefighters are spread so thin that the Union is worried to the point of informing the general public!

Implementing this ordinance is IDIOTIC and any council member that thinks it is a good idea SHOULD LOSE THEIR SEAT IN NOVEMBER! Vote No to the supporters of the parking ordinance: Abed & Gallo - and in two years, send Waldron packing!!

Pink Power Ranger wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:07 PM:Beautify our city without spending a dime.
Vote Abed & Gallo out!
Vote Olga in.
With her beauty we get intellignece and accountability too.
Sweet deal!

airheads wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:15 PM:Note to those who live in Old Escondido and like neighborhoods.
Put in a driveway a long driveway.Takes your vehicle off the streets.Solve your own problem.Don't make us all suffer cuz you can't park in front of your house.If you are parking your Recreational vehicle on the street...you need to rent an RV parking space like the rest of us.If you cannot afford to park the toys, you shouldn't have them.

To Lawlessness wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:51 AM:"IF this parking ordinance adversely effects those breaking the law, SO BE IT." The point is this ordinance affects those who are NOT breaking the law and anyone who supports it does not care about their community, just their own space. Those are the losers.

chamber Member wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:52 AM:I must say this parking enforcment is not going to help much. If you have 4 or 5 car living in single family house, It does not mean you have 20 people living in your house. I live on a street with car dealer owner's and master technician that have 5 car or more there all good and running car's not junk cars. I was sited two time ! go figure. two wheel hit the grass and that illegal i think city should go fine more better things to do, Like go stop all the drunk drivers on Bicycle on E valley pkwy on fri and sat nite yes, homeless drunk people riding there bike accross traffic on a heavy fri nite. almost causing accident Just go sit in Valley plaza escondido and u know what i trying to say. Thank you .

Only an Airhead wrote on Oct 17, 2008 4:36 PM:Only an Airhead would write the things "Airheads" did...I guess Airhead knows what he's talking about...he's an airhead!

Angelina wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:27 AM:If you want parking problems, go live in Los Angeles! You are bound to get 3 or 4 parking tickets within a few months, this is due to their parking ordinances (what a pain). If we complain about so many cars, then let's look at alternative forms of transportation.

How about making safer bike lanes, or wider sidewalks so people feel safe walking. As a result of our land-use patterns, and the increasing distance between our jobs and homes, we walk less and are becoming an obese nation. This leads to having heart disease, diabetes, etc. Therefore, let us unite and tell our council members we want a pedestrial-friendly city that also has transit-oriented development(TOD).
Let us advocate sustainable development and sustainable planning for our city. We need to go green, so why isn't the city talking about it? Of course, these suggestions aren't "the solution" to every problem, but its a start.