Editor,
I appreciate Mike Swire’s call for the city of San Mateo to use its dollars wisely. But the subject of his letter — the Humboldt Street bike lanes — is a case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Mr. Swire should have stood up when the city decided to fund a program that the residents (remember them?) firmly opposed.
Walter Crompton’s actual use observations are spot on: the bike lanes — certainly, adjacent to my block — are not being used. And now that we have exacerbated a well-known residential parking shortage in North Central, we also have bizarre bulbouts forcing bikes into the traffic lanes, a liability that will ultimately make the lawyers rich.
I’ll leave the bike lane fairy tales to others. The mistake was made, and it’s not tolerable. The appropriated North Central residential parking needs to be restored — the city needs to own up and get it done.
Henry Riggs
San Mateo
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(31) comments
Thank you, Henry, I completely agree with you. I was stunned to see how the Bike Coalition has fully taken over this narrative and City Staff’s report to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission lost all sight of what residents have been asking since February 2022 when City Council ignored resident voices and removed parking to put in the bike lanes. The City should have never dragged out this discussion for a year so the Bike Coalition could hijack the discussion and taint surveys. Restore the parking on the Humboldt unused bike lanes now!
Btw. the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition (SVBC) did not get involved in this. This local effort was completely driven out of the Safe-Routes-To-School need many parents have.
SVBC famously claims now that they don't get involved in bicycle policy in Sacramento nor local advocacy projects like keeping Humboldt Street bike lanes for the children. The only thing SVBC is doing these days is asking for donations to raise salaries and planning parties for their "advocates". And of course participating in false advertising about "underfunded public transit" and helping to increase the affordability crisis in this region.
Here is why the Bike Coalition does not get involved anymore: in 2016 SVBC sold out.
They went from all-volunteer to salaried leadership paid for by corporate grants. But paid leadership can also be bought leadership - and that is exactly what happened. SVBC became a YIIMBY-affiliated group that refused to go after YIMBY-endorsed politicians like Amo Lee, Adam Lorraine or Nicole Fernandez.
And of course the "YIMBY-movement" isn't really a grassroots movement anymore either - in San Mateo it's run by several Large Developers, several tech companies, several politicians all run through Singer Associates.
You find most names on their client list: https://singersf.com/our-clients/
It seems obvious these YIMBY companies basically bought NGOs like SVBC, Samaritan House, or Redwood City Education Foundation (RCEF) and turned them into Astroturfing orgs. that support only certain politicians and policies while refusing to do basic bike advocacy these days.
Easygerd, you may very well be making valid points, but Mike Swire spoke on behalf of the Bike Coalition at the S&I meeting. I definitely agree that the YIMBY movement is now developer controlled, but that’s another LTE and battle to fight.
I'm fairly sure he is not the spokesperson for the salaried leadership team of the "Bike Coalition" (there is only one in this area). That is an Astroturfing organization and their job is to collect all these eager advocates and keep them busy with "non-bicycle-advocacy".
SVBC does not speak in front of council and doesn't allow their members to speak for SVBC to any YIMBY politicians.
But there is a local interest group - similar to your 'Ethics San Mateo' group - called Move San Mateo.
San Mateo doesn't really have a bicycle group, but for every Environmental Impact Report (EIR) a city requires input from bike people. So they turn to Move San Mateo for projects like STRIVE or bike/ped plans or climate action plans, etc. to get the input of residents.
This group is mostly focusing on Safe-Routes-To-Schools, but schools are everywhere, so you need a network of bike lanes.
And Humboldt Street bike lanes are a backbone for this network - why the high-density YIMBYs suddenly oppose high-density transportation? clueless.
What evidence do you have that the "Bike Coalition" tainted surveys? (I assume you have some because I can't imagine the Director of Communications for Ethics San Mateo would make such a serious public accusation without proof.)
My understanding from the SIC meeting is that in the most recent round of surveys staff removed "duplicate" responses from the same IP address. Since all devices connected to the same router have the same public IP address, this effectively results in "one household, one vote". If more than one person used a computer in a shared facility to submit the survey (like at the library) their surveys weren't counted.
Per our Housing Element, the North Central neighborhood has the highest rates of overcrowding in the city, with over 20% of households having more than one occupant per room. Why do they get less of a say in this issue than people living in a single person household?
The throwing out of duplicate internet ids is definitely problematic and I believe there are several public records requests into the city so that residents can audit. There were at least 2 in-depth resident studies done on bike lane use that showed no more than 3 bikes on the road during the multiple days recorded. How does that balloon to hundreds when the City does the survey? Like you, I get to have my own individual opinions, but thank you for the free plug for ESM
Connie, thank you for confirming that you have no proof to back up that serious public accusation. Who watches the watchmen? 🤔
Don’t worry, Seema, we not only have guardrails in ESM, but now also have been able to get them instituted on the Planning Commission where several planning commissioners acted so unprofessionally that one didn’t get a renewed term.
I can’t seem to find Ethics San Mateo’s own Code of Conduct or process for submitting a complaint on your website. I know your organization values transparency (it’s in the tagline!) so I assume I’m not looking in the right place. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?
Therefore:
The households that cannot afford individual internet (the government has been, for years worked to solve it with grants, etc.) and must share resources (either public or neighbors) get their responses thrown out.
And the wealthier tech-savvy people could use VPN connections to answer the survey many times using many different IP Addresses.
So your comments are well-taken - the internet survey is so badly flawed it should be thrown out.
Commissioner Patel,
I’m going to respond to your inquiries, as well as provide some fun facts in response to other commenters, a bit above them, so not to be lost in the continuing discussion. First of all your signature diversions are getting old. We have continually stated ESM has not taken a position on ANY bike lanes, we neither support nor oppose them. WE do support residents’ desires having more weight than of those not in the neighborhood. We support a civil discourse on the issue, not divisive attacks on people. ESM issued an Ethics Watch regarding city council’s decision to fix a problem. I suppose it was so long ago you might not recall it. It is on record.
ESM has successfully advocated the adoption of rules, a code of conduct, which is in the hands of the city council. Used wisely, fairly, and not as a political weapon, this places the “Watch” in their hands. However ESM isn’t done with its work. Oh, and ESM does publish its Code of Conduct on our website, along with other commitments. Look under the membership tab and note it’s part of all applications. On the Position Statements tab you will find an explanation of the research and validation of facts when we study a potential breech of ethics. A good example of the extensive proof we insist upon can be found on the Statement of Position regarding some current and past members of the Planning Commission, on which you serve. I suppose you might still be a bit concerned about the verifiable factual information.
As to the comments from easyGerd: San Mateo MOVE is a branch of SVBC. Mike Swire identified himself as a member the SM MOVE leadership as he presented a Group Public Comment Presentation to the SIC a week ago. Max Maurer has spoken many times in front of council. He is listed on the SM MOVE website as its leader. Months ago a member of the SVBC identified himself as one of the officers and made public comment to council. So MOVE is part of SVBC and SVBC does speak before council.
I trust the real facts satisfies your knowledge quest.
Hi Dave, thanks for pointing me to the membership application. I might suggest giving the Code of Conduct its own subsection on your website to make it easier to find.
#4 states, "Dishonesty in any form, whether directly or by omission, is unacceptable." Does Ethics San Mateo consider spreading misinformation a form of dishonesty?
#1 states, "ESM and all members pledge to reject and condemn all forms of unlawful discrimination. Any such action, speech or writing is unacceptable." Does Ethics San Mateo consider hate speech a form of unlawful discrimination?
The Code of Conduct does not specify a process for submitting a complaint about a member who may have violated it. Could you share that information?
Thanks!
Commissioner Patel,
And once again your signature deflection and redirection is n full display . We all can see where you are going with your insinuations. The single track drive to demean individuals and organizations that disagree with you is so much on display. I might suggest you read the ESM
Code of Conduct in full context. You have partially quoted statements previously to support your position. The following from Caltrans rules might jog your memory; “…….and is visible from the highway”. SignGate aside, this kind of rage is channeling some events and newsworthy occurrences on the national level. The twisting of facts you are know for and the persecution of opposition individuals is someone else’s trademark. Residents of San Mateo deserve to hear you address the fact-based and verifiable information regarding your ideologically- based conduct which should raise questions about your ability to serve our whole community with respect and fairness.
I suppose you missed the “Contact Us” function on our website.
Dave, it's complicated. It might be time to explain "Astroturfing" in San Mateo County to the people.
Once a nonprofit organization - run by volunteers - reaches a certain level of success, companies (opposition) would swoop in and convince the volunteers to take on "salaried leadership". These companies or "grant-givers" know very well that going forward these "salaried leaders" care more about their salary and their resume than achieving success. Or in short "advocates that take money can also be bought". In 2016 SVBC was turned from a "bicycle advocacy group" into a YIMBY organization. They clearly have more interest in housing or various "tax measures" than bike lanes these days.
Anyways, these "grant-giver" companies are also "campaign-donners" and they bring certain politicians together with SVBC leaders whenever they need to.
I'm sure you are aware that City Council meetings are merely a form of public theater.
- When the old city manager wanted to follow city plans and add bike lanes on Humboldt, SVBC leaders and members were officially allowed to talk before council.
- When the new city manager (with Amo Lee and Adam Lorraine) wanted to remove these bike lanes again, SVBC leaders and members were discouraged to make Amo Lee, Adam Lorraine or Nicole Fernandez look bad - even though they have been very, very bad to children on bicycles.
That is the power of "Astroturfing", that is why the YIMBY movement is using them this way.
Well written, Mr. Riggs. My take… San Mateo “leaders” at that time wanted to take advantage of use-it-or-lose-it federal grants to reward union labor. And now, after that decision has gone sideways, existing “leaders” are dragging their feet because they’re worried they may have to repay the grant (although this isn’t a sure thing). What is a sure thing is that removing parking in the first place was a mistake and as you’ve stated, the city needs to own up and fix their mistake. Union labor will be happy because after they've "dug a hole" they can now fill it. In the meantime, let’s vote out the folks are not acting in the interests of the neighborhood. For those who do not live in the neighborhood, you should beware because if this debacle occurred in Humboldt, it can occur in your neighborhood.
Where are all these 'Socialist Snowflakes' coming from? It's NOT enough to get Private Car Storage for free - on top of that they CAN'T even be bothered to walk around the block to get something for free? Again it's free - never heard of the phrase 'don't look a gift horse in the mouth'?
Streets are Made for Transportation - the community should not be forced to bail out these people with too many cars (ca. 20%). Make people take care of their own stuff and don't force your "need" on the rest of us. What will these socialist snowflakes come up next? "Free Education" or "Free Healthcare"?
But more seriously, the community wants bike lanes and the city council has voted on them many, many times already. Just recently some 6,000 San Mateans participated in what is called "STRIVE San Mateo" and it included - everyone guessed it - more bike lanes.
If I remember correctly different current council members - if not all of them - participated in that project and should know those. Unless of course they suffer under cognitive impairments like many current top politicians seem to do in this country.
But even with cognitive impairments and selective memory loss - who takes HUD money to create bike lanes for kids in a low-income neighborhood and then spends more money to take them away again?
Let's hope the 'socialist snowflakes' behind "Ethics San Mateo" are looking into this.
easygerd - “socialist snowflakes”??? Thanks for the laugh and providing more exposure to help increase membership in Ethics San Mateo. As a nonprofit nonpartisan public benefit corporation with the mission to promote ethical conduct by our city’s elected and appointed officials, the more members we have, the louder our voice. The voices have been heard, the city council has adopted rules that are enforceable and carry consequences for misbehavior by council members and commissioners. If you oppose that you should have made a public comment when it was adopted. You would have been alone though- there were no comments. If promoting ethical conduct by city officials is a hallmark of “socialist snowflakes” let it snow, let it snow!
Bravo, great article. I was one of the few letter scribes who put this forward BEFORE the vote. Oh well it wasn't followed. I thought that "bikes lanes" (entirely just lines in the roads without any actual protection), would be no real answer. The one factor that escaped the planners was SPEED DIFFERENCIAL. Yes, the prevailing speed between bikers and motorists. That inherently make co-habitation between bikes and cars nonsensical. I actually offered a solution. Keeping bikes on the parallel side streets where the "share the road" concept made far more sense. Further, I suggested the all the side streets be "one way" so there would be more room to breathe for all, so to speak. Leaving the arterials two way and for the faster moving autos exclusively. So, there is the answer according to Mr. Mike C. ha ha ha So now I'm wishing upon a star. Good luck all,
In 1967 the city of Davis, Calf. and Republican Leadership in Sacramento agreed. That separation through bike lanes is the safest way to go. If you can separate through paths, outstanding. They also determined that "sharing the road" - which was the normal situation at the time - cannot work. By the 1970s, there was already 50 years of proof that "sharing the road" doesn't work in America.
In surveys in Davis, virtually ALL car drivers liked and preferred bike lanes, because they felt uncomfortable driving around these bikes.
So what did Democrats do in 1975?
They invented Bike Lane "classes" and brought back "sharing the road" experiments like "Bike Routes", "Bicycle Boulevards", "Slow Streets", "Neighborhood Greenways", and other nonsense with fancy names.
The Republicans had it covered - the Democrats (as usual) messed it up through their "class" systems. They are doing it again with their unenforceable e-bike bans. Pure evil.
Great LTE. Spot on. Those same politicians who wrongly voted for removing resident parking in this Equity Priority Community hurting seniors and those less fortunate are behind the scenes sponsoring bike radicals who don't truly represent the biking community -- who in most part enjoy riding their bikes outside of these wasteful dedicated bike lanes - and hence why you hardly see anyone using them. The City needs to correct the mistake -- at whatever cost.
On the subject of the City's recent surveys of residents living on Fremont and Idaho Streets as to whether they wanted the wasteful and unused bike lanes moved from Humboldt Street to their respective streets -- NO SURPRISE, they all said "we don't want those wasteful bike lanes on our streets - and don't remove our parking either for them. if the only choice is put them on my street or leave as-is where it is? - well, you guessed it -- they said leave on Humboldt. NICE WORK CITY on a the latest survey -- wasting taxpayer money only to hear what everyone has been telling you -- NOBODY WANTS BIKE LANES, and especially if you are to remove resident parking.
6,000 San Mateans participated in Strive San Mateo.
6,000 San Mateans wanted more Quality-of-Live in their city.
6,000 San Mateans wanted more Safe-Routes-To-School.
6,000 San Mateans wanted more support for Equity Focus Areas.
6,000 San Mateans wanted more bike lanes.
Three "middle-aged white men" gave exactly that to North Central and providing the Transportation Equity and Vision Zero focus the predominantly low-income neighborhood deserves.
Who opposed them?
Former Mayor Amo Lee, because she lives here and has too many cars
Former Mayor Diane Papan, because she is all about Sea Level Rise - the more GHG, the more money she gets to fight Sea Level Rise
Former Mayor Clair Mack, because she sells cakes from her curb. She is constantly blocking the curb in front of her house with red cones.
Council Member and BIPOC Nicole Fernandez - who promised to do better than Amo Lee and then continued in her footsteps
Council Member Adam Lorraine and Danielle Cwirko-Godycki - two YIMBY-endorsed candidates who apparently oppose high-density transportation.so much they are willing to take it away from children in this low-income, transportation-equity, vision-zero neighborhood.
Council members Rob Newsom and Lisa Diaz Nash - more NIMBY-endorsed candidates, who seem to love wasting city funding on all kinds of nonsense.
You take that all together and the result is: "Something is really Rotten in the City of San Mateo"
(PS.: Why is mostly Democratic women who oppose Safe-Routes-To-School in San Mateo County?)
Gerd, why is a truck thoroughfare (which is what Humboldt is) a preferred route for children? It makes no sense. Put the bike lanes on quieter streets so children truly have a safe route to school.
If would be great if San Mateo Democrats would put bike lanes for children along quieter streets, but they can't even get that done. Instead they want to mix small children with 6,000 monster trucks on "share-the-road" experiments with weird names like "Bicycle Boulevard" or "Slow Streets" or "Neighborhood Greenways". I think the better names for such contraptions would be "Pathetic" or "Ridiculous" ... if they came to Idaho or Fremont like Nicole Fernandez wants.
Weak local leadership is why Caltrans had to put bike lanes now on their state highways like I-82 and I-84 in Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City. Somebody had to and it's certainly not coming from the kind of city council members we have around here.
eGerd – TBot here. And yet over 700,000 San Mateans wanted nothing of what you allege. Seems to me that not only Democratic women oppose Safe-Routes-To-School in San Mateo County, but 99% of San Mateans also opposed it. Seems to me that the folks you’re attempting to demonize are choosing the option preferred by almost all San Mateans. Bigly.
Patel coming down on Ethics San Mateo. That's rich. Every City Council person and commissioner should be standing alongside ESM and its noble efforts. I can only think of one reason why one wouldn't.
Thanks for your comment, Lisa, regarding ESM and what you feel are its noble efforts. Perhaps you or Mr. Cohen can tell us where ESM stands on people who take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution yet are more interested in the welfare of criminals and terrorists over the American people. Where are efforts to force these oath takers to uphold law and order? If there are no efforts, is ESM emblematic of noble efforts? Should the “E” be stricken from ESM? Perhaps we need an Ethics of ESM group? A belated Merry Christmas to you and wishes for a Happy New Year! One in which so-called SM leaders begin putting the welfare of citizens first.
As usual, unclear what WordSaladGerd is arguing for… or against… but true to form, it’s a whole lot of words bouncing around like free radicals in outer space—going absolutely nowhere.
Thank you. I always know I won the argument when my 'opponents' turn into 'grammar karens' and are reduced to offering insults. The strongest argument that no one has been able to refuse so far:
Streets are Made for Transportation. Bike lanes are part of 'transportation' whereas Private Car Storage certainly is not.
Enforcing the municipal codes would get these car collectors of our public property.
It is absolutely fair to ask why the City Council has not taken action regarding Patel’s continued service on a city commission, particularly given her opposition to adopting clear ethics guidelines for commissioners, a role she herself holds.
When a commissioner resists ethical standards and appears to prioritize outside interests over the voices of San Mateo residents, it raises legitimate concerns about accountability and public trust.
That is not the standard our commissions should be held to.
Thank you, Taso. So perfectly stated.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.