HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/3/2022 Item PC, Schmidt (2)
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda public comment - Anholm
Attachments:council anholm buiders plumbers.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Richard Schmidt
1
April 29, 2022
Dear Council Members,
The people across the street are doing some home improvement construction. The other day a
lumber truck arrived, and I observed as it parked in the parking lane, and unloading of a huge
amount of lumber commenced.
A week or so prior to that I observed as a shingle truck arrived, parked in the same curbside
parking, and unloaded – by hand labor since there was no roof structure yet to which shingles
could be transported by conveyor. The ability to perform such a hand unload was predicated on
a place to park immediately adjacent to the construction site.
As construction has progressed, I observe the workmen daily park their large tool-laden trucks
immediately in front of the worksite, and make frequent trips to those trucks for tools and
equipment.
While these sort of things don’t happen every day, they are a normal part of neighborhood life
and of the economy of a vital, vibrant neighborhood.
But what happens if the city arbitrarily removes the curbside parking, as it plans to do with the
Anholm bikeway? How will neighborhood life continue? I have asked this question repeatedly,
and received no better answer from the city than that parking will be available within 1,000
feet.
Last fall I had major tree trimming performed – a $1600 job – that was predicated on the ability
of the arborist to park his equipment in front of my house, so the distance debris must be
dragged to the chipper was minimized.
Out of curiosity I inquired what would happen if there were no parking in front of my house,
and debris had to be dragged to the other side of busy Broad Street. (Note, this was a
hypothetical because I care not just about myself; parking will remain on our side, though it
may become so parked up by residents from the other side as to be difficult for us to access for
our workmen.) Well, some people I asked said they wouldn’t even bid the job! My guy said he
would but it would cost a lot more: a crew of 5 instead of 3 (to manage traffic and make
workman street-crossings safe) and 2 extra hours due to the complication of so many street
crossings: an extra cost to me of $2,000, bringing my $1,600 tree job to a $3,600 tree job.
Thanks a lot, City of San Luis Obispo!
And it’s also day to day stuff the bikeway parking removal will make more costly to impossible:
gardeners, refrigerator and heating repair people, plumbers, painters and on and on – all have
tool-laden trucks they must park at their job sites, making foot trips back and forth. House-call
physical therapists will have cots and machines to move in and out of their jobsites every time
they come. And then there are moving trucks; is the city really going to take the position it’s
reasonable movers must work from across a busy street from houses they are emptying or
filling? The city’s saying parking will be available within 1,000 feet simply is not a reasonable
response for any of these numerous problems the bike scheme creates.
I am an architect, and one of the things architects like to be good at is problem solving. My
problem-solving motto would be: “A good solution solves more than one problem, and it does
not make new problems.”1
With the Anholm project, the city’s motto appears to be: “A good solution doesn’t actually
solve any problem and creates lots and lots of new problems.”
The Anholm project began not with problem analysis and solution-finding, but with an
ideological position: bike lanes/cycle tracks are a given. The council member who rammed this
through said he knew there were huge inequities and problems created by it, but was
unbothered because ideologically incapable of being bothered. He said in a public hearing, for
example, he knew there would be harm to elderly and disabled Anholm residents, but that was
“a tradeoff worth making.”
1 The quote is attributed to farmer/poet/ecologist Wendell Berry.
A tradeoff! We are not included, considered or respected; our needs don’t count; we are a
tradeoff! But a tradeoff for what? For a flawed, costly, dangerous scheme that solves no
problems at all, and creates lots of new ones.
Four of five of the current council members have never voted for this dreadful over-costly
project, which means right now you don’t yet own it. You could, and should, put it on hold, and
go back to finding actual solutions that are wins for all. You can still do that. But I don’t think
you have the guts, so the $3 million fiasco will go ahead, and when it blows up, you will then
fully own it and have to answer for it. That would be sad since I think the four of you have the
decency and smarts to know the current plan is not a good one, nor is it how an older,
congested, lovely neighborhood and its diverse residents should be treated.
Richard Schmidt