North Central continues to speak out

Jan 22, 2025
Jan 22, 2025
11

Editor,

San Mateo residents are known to be supportive of one another.

(11) comments

Terence Y Jan 22, 2025 9:18am

Good luck, Ms Pierce, in getting the bicycle lanes removed. Perhaps you could frame removing bicycle lanes as a benefit… Highlight to our so-called leaders that they can reward union labor, again, in removing bike lanes. Similar to when they rewarded union labor when they put in the bike lanes. They’ve already finished the “dig a hole” portion, so to speak. Now they can “fill it up.”

easygerd Jan 22, 2025 10:18am

"Funding was awarded to reconstruct failing streets/sidewalks, install new light fixtures as well as provide improvements to pedestrians and bicycle improvements, not install new bicycle lanes."

Bike lanes are the only known bicycle improvements. San Mateo is a Vision Zero city since 2015, that alone requires them to install bike lanes. San Mateo's Equity Framework and Action Plan requests bike lanes here, so does the San Mateo Grand Jury of 2002 and 2022. No, this is purely about good old greed and "subsidized capitalism".

TBot old friend. You might remember Trina Pierce as the landlord with a few San Mateo politicians on speed dial - including Rich Hedges and both Papan sisters.

It sounded like back then she stiffed the city out of $12,000 relocation money, because she never fixed her 37year old roof, which made the place uninhabitable:

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-sides-with-landlord/article_46fcacda-05b3-11ee-9007-d3f5f6464204.html

Even without that backstory, if her tenants really needed parking, it's up to each landlord to provide that on her property. But like every good (aka greedy) business owner she wants to keep as much of her own property to make money through rent and outsource the cost of car storage to the city and the tax payer. It's not the governments job to subsidize corporate greed like this. The least the city could do is create a marketplace for parking. Add a price to storing private property on public streets. This lets all these old, poor, disabled widows living here make some extra income by renting out their garages and driveways. It's hard to believe that it's old, disabled ladies driving the poor-mans Cybertrucks, tricked-out Honda Civics, or motorcycles parked on this street. Working class people usually don't own squeaky clean pickup trucks with basically no flatbed. So these are just made-up sob stories, follow the money or subsidies in this case.

Ray Fowler Jan 22, 2025 7:18pm

Good evening, Gerd

Bicycle lanes are bicycle improvements that can help keep bicyclists safe, but they are not the only ones. Other improvements may include timely repair of road hazards, traffic calming measures (like speed reduction), designated bike routes, and designated shared streets. Perhaps the bicycle improvements in North Central included improvements other than bicycle lanes… IDK.

Your other issue steers away from traffic concerns in North Central. The story about today’s LTE’s author as a landlord got some ink in the DJ about a year and a half ago. There was a story about the San Mateo City Council reversing the city staff’s efforts to force the author/landlord to pay $12,000 in relocation costs for the tenants she was trying to evict. An op-ed appeared that excoriated the landlord for purportedly exploiting the most vulnerable in our community. I initially bought that line and said so, but I was wrong.

After examining the voluminous amount of evidence supporting the landlord’s appeal, I submitted an LTE correcting my mistake. Without a doubt, the city staff erred. My LTE focused on the Council reversing the staff’s wrongheaded findings which led to the Council granting the landlord’s appeal. In the comments that followed, I noted there was no enforcement of several code violations involving habitability and safety that could be attributed solely to the tenants. The roofing issue was already being addressed by the landlord with plans to replace the entire roof not just patch the roof in a few places. The landlord’s contractor examined the hot water heater, and it was working properly. The landlord’s legal counsel asked to be contacted when Code Enforcement would be inspecting the property. City staffers showed up a day or two later… no contact. Before the City staff issued a notice to the landlord, she approached staffers on her property, and they would not discuss the complaint with her. You may disagree, but there’s a good argument for saying the landlord was not treated fairly.

Check it out... Landlord prevails ... rightly so | Letters To Editor | smdailyjournal.com.

Ray Fowler Jan 22, 2025 7:44pm

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/landlord-prevails-rightly-so/article_aa020548-17a9-11ee-b595-7bd6fc8d1928.html

easygerd Jan 22, 2025 8:09pm

"Other improvements may include timely repair of road hazards, traffic calming measures (like speed reduction), designated bike routes, and designated shared streets."

- repairing road hazards is a given.

- As an avid driver myself, I want bicycles in their own dedicated space, so I know where to expect them.

- in a protected bike lane, a cyclist does not have to care about a car's speed.

- so "traffic calming" has nothing to do with bicycles, they don't need the calming.

- "traffic calming" is however one way how city managers steal bike funding for a car project - that is why you might mix them in with bike facilities.

- speed reduction through speed limits is always a good idea, but since there is no enforcement it's fairly worthless. Even the new speed camera laws allow speeding of 11mph, which gets you to a fairly "legal" or unenforced 36 mph.

- American drivers aren't known for "sharing" - certainly not on their streets. People that suggest that nonsense are usually the first ones honking at cyclists.

- "Take the Lane" and you will suffer a lot of honking.

- currently I would say "designated shared streets" are a myth like "The Unicorn".

- can you name a few examples of "designated shared streets" in the Bay Area, so I can evaluate what you mean?

- "designated bike routes" are as useless as "designated shared streets".

- And let's not forget killing two people in America gets you a misdemeanor charge and maybe an ankle monitor. So there is no driver's ed in America, there is no enforcement, and DAs and Judges always side with the violent driver of a car.

- "Open or shared spaces" hardly work in Europe and they actually do have laws that protect the pedestrian or the cyclist and put the perpetrator in jail.

All these are made up names for non-infrastructure, but gets them to reroute bike funding to car projects. That is why these false stories about Unicorns and "sharing the road" exist.

Ray Fowler Jan 23, 2025 9:23am

Good morning, Gerd

Repairing road hazards is NOT a given. That’s probably why the city’s funding included money to reconstruct failing streets. Remember almost two years ago when a former California governor repaired a pothole on the street in front of his home in Los Angeles? What was the City of Los Angeles’ response? They said it wasn’t a pothole… it was a service trench. Call it a pothole, service trench or street divot… it’s still a hazard to vehicles and bicycles. Repairing road hazards will make travel safer for bicyclists whether a bike lane is present or not. And cyclists do care about the speed of vehicles on the roadway. It is a given that the number of collisions on city streets will increase when vehicles are operated at speeds above the posted limit. So, if there is a lack of enforcement on North Central streets, perhaps San Mateans should let the Council know and ask for SMPD to start monitoring traffic in that neighborhood.

With respect to your other issue… I believed the same story you heard about some North Central tenants filing a claim against their landlord. A claim that turned out to be bogus. I admitted my mistake in assuming the landlord acted wrongly… she didn’t. Are you now willing to do the same?

easygerd Jan 23, 2025 11:35am

Thanks Ray, we do agree on that repairing road hazards increases safety and that this seems to be a foreign concept to our city's staff.

There are three ironic stories behind fixing streets I want to share here:

1] The "Good Roads Movement" was actually initiated by advocates to promote cycling in the 1870s. Of course it was later hijacked by the automobile industry who always favors to push cyclists off the road.

2] whenever our leaders ask for sales tax or bridge toll hikes they will promise more bike lanes, better public transit, and of course fixing potholes and congestions (which incidentally can only be achieved with dedicated lanes for public and active transportation). Currently the Mercury News is running an investigation against MTC's practice of taking said funding for potholes, bike lanes, and public transportation and putting that into a slush fund, which pays for bonds and more car-centric infrastructure. Out of 18 commissioners only 3 asked MTC staff any critical questions about lack of transparency. Apparently San Mateo's commissioners Gina Papan and David Canepa are not; they seem to be fine with money being spent on anything but fixing potholes, adding bike lanes, improving public transit. And as Board member of SamTrans, BOS president David Canepa should be outraged.

https://www.marinij.com/2025/01/15/editorial-unjustified-2-50-bay-area-bridge-toll-hike-state-audit/

3] thanks for bringing up Governor Schwarzenegger, signer of California's "Complete Streets Act of 2008". No California Governor has done more for cycling in this state that Arnold Schwarzenegger (maybe Ronald Reagan). No Democrat comes even close. For Arnold cycling is part of life, for all others it's only a photo op.

----------

The city paid $12,000 for relocation fees. The city asked the landlord to reimburse them. The landlord stiffed the city. We only seem to disagree if the landlord was right to stiff the city or if the city staff inspection was correct. She also used a groupon "pay one Papan sister and get two" - you must be seeing the conflict of interest here?

Now do you agree that the City of San Mateo should pay for the private car storage of this particular landlord on top of stiffing the city? Don't you agree that there are character issues with this landlord if she insists to take away bike lanes from children? There are other ways to mix driving lanes and parking lanes to slow down traffic as well. But going after children on bicycles is clearly painting a character issue here.

Ray Fowler Jan 23, 2025 1:44pm

Hello, Gerd

Yes, the City of San Mateo paid $12,000 after the city staff mishandled a complaint from tenants responsible for unsanitary accumulated filth and damages as well as installing a solid partition to create sleeping compartments in the living room. They essentially created a flop house and violated the terms of the lease by collecting rent from persons who were not authorized to reside in the home. San Mateo Code Enforcement goofed. The staff gave away city money and then sought to balance the books by penalizing the landlord. Thankfully, the landlord was afforded an opportunity to appeal the city staff’s insistence on reimbursement for money the staff wrongfully gave away. The City Council decided the landlord was not liable for the $12,000 given to the tenants. The landlord did not stiff the city.

I’m not sure why you believe there was a conflict of interest. How?

I don’t live in San Mateo. If you do, and you’re unhappy with your Council’s transportation policy, then it might be best to address potholes, bike lanes, and public transportation with them. You’re probably more likely to get a response from the Council instead of Gina P and David C.

It is my understanding the controversy over bike lanes in North Central predates the landlord-tenant dispute you have introduced into the conversation. I’m not sure how you are connecting them. Yes, there are character issues aplenty, but not with the landlord.

easygerd Jan 23, 2025 2:42pm

Let's look at the timelines here:

- San Mateo County and all member cities of C/CAG agreed and ratified something called Equity Framework and Action Plan which basically requires REAL bicycle facilities for Equity Focus Areas (EFAs) like North Central, ECR in Redwood City, North Fair Oaks, and a few more. It's basically the "Equity Bible" of San Mateo Democrats.

- When the bike lanes came in front of the council the approval should have been automatic. And yet Diane Papan and Amourence Lee voted against them. This makes them DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) and shows a serious lack of understanding equity. That is a red flag on Diane Papan and Amourence Lee and Lee's Home Association.

- Amourence Lee and Adam Loraine are endorsed by YIMBY groups, which means they MUST support bike lanes, because if you support high-density housing you MUST support high-density transportation first. And yet Amo voted against bike lanes. That is another red flag on Amourence Lee.

- Usually 3 months after bike lanes are installed people have adapted and enjoy the benefits. Bike lanes are not really that controversial, except for car socialists who think we need to pay for their many cars.

- Car ownership is still to cheap in America. People own more cars than they actually need and use. Cars are standing around like 95% of the times and for every car there are 4 to 5 empty parking spots.

- Currently the street shows plenty of empty off-street spots (garages, driveways, front yards, side yards). There are even empty on-street parking spots on Humboldt and on side streets.

- And yet Amo Lee and Trina Pierce are leading an anti-equity campaign trying to make the point that this street is full of old, disabled ladies that don't have garages, driveways, front yards and MUST park directly in front of their own house. Nothing else is acceptable. That is another red flag on Amourence, this landlord and the Home/Car Owner association.

- The sob stories we hear are right out of the secret manual provided by the Ford Foundation on how to get more government money to subsidize car infrastructure. It's all made up. There are Audis, Lexus, the largest GMCs, I saw several Teslas and Cybertrucks, RVs, trailers, Mustang, cars looking ready to race, super clean pickup trucks with no flatbed, etc.

There is no "Need" here, it's all greed. It's not the poor people that have too many cars. It's Amo, Trina and her friends. That is a big fat red flag and a question of character and priorities.

Let's see if Mayor Rob Newsom Jr., Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine, Lisa Diaz Nash, Nicole Fernandez, Danielle Cwirko-Godycki know what it means to ratify an Equity Framework or if they go back to San Mateo's old and rotten ways.

Ray Fowler Jan 23, 2025 3:40pm

Gerd

You're seeing red flags waving around Diane and Amourence... it's an illusion. They have no votes in the matter re: where to put bike lanes in San Mateo. Charging like a bull at those red flags will not get you want you want. You see another red flag in Trina... it's also an illusion. She has no vote in the matter. Do you think people in North Central who prefer parking to bike lanes are bad people? Do you think they are the only folks on the peninsula who want accessible parking in their neighborhood? Perhaps you could submit your own LTE in favor of bike lanes and run it up the flagpole... just be careful not to run a red flag up that pole.

easygerd Jan 23, 2025 4:28pm

I did say the votes are coming from Mayor Rob Newsom Jr., Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine, Lisa Diaz Nash, Nicole Fernandez, Danielle Cwirko-Godycki. And I'm looking forward to their reasoning when they take away bike lanes from children and give the space to this landlord - who apparently does not live on the street - and Amo Lee, who said she does live on the street.

And the rest of the facts are fairly clear and straightforward as well:

- Diane Papan was part of the team that developed and ratified the Equity Framework.

- Lee and Papan did have a vote and they did vote against those bike lanes in a low-income neighborhood and against he county's Equity Framework three years ago.

- This landlord and Amo Lee were lobbying against the bike lanes ever since.

So the question is should tax payer money be used to subsidize private car storage or should street space be used for transportation, as one would expect from the city and its municipal code?

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!