David says Wo'O would go away if left alone? So much for being in touch with Mountain View! The guy is everywhere, bringing blight and danger with him. He's lived a block from David's home, in the intersection of Castro & El Camino, and would continue to do so if left to his own devices. He needs to follow the same rules the rest of us do.

"Candidates Aaron Jabbari and Dan Waylonis, both Google employees, were not familiar with the property"

They need to get out and learn a little more about the city, I think.

Ideafarm has been around for a few years. If "police were looking for a convenient way to put him jail" they would have done so long ago.

@resident

Next time he is incarcerated for code violations, be sure to let us know where to send you the bill. My tax money is better spent locking up violent criminals, not pesky homeless libertarians.

It's the last remaining orchard in the city....shouldn't that history be preserved? Maybe it could be opened up as a historical site, used for a pumpkin patch, other ideas that don't remove the orchard trees?

If the property does come up for sale or the city could convince the owner to sell it for the greater good, I see no reason the park couldn't save many of the orchard tress and incorporate a community garden as part of a new model for community parks in the city.

Mr. Wo'O should be left alone as long as he is not violent or a threat to anyone.

The Francia orchard is a narrow but deep lot which is not ideal for a park because of it's minimal street frontage (poor access, visibility, security, etc.). The City's Municipal Operations Center (M.O.C.), where City vehicles are maintained, is located right next to the orchard and is also a narrow but deep lot.

If the Francia property ever comes up for consideration as a park perhaps the City should look into merging the two properties together, locating the park at the front of the now-larger combined site, and relocating the M.O.C. to the rear of the property since frontage is not crucial for those services. If available, the M.O.C. could even be moved to another, more industrial, location in the city and more residential and commercial zones could be built towards the rear of the new "Francia" park.

So, when that "pesky homelss libertarian" causes a middle or high school student to be killed, we will send the parents to you.

I would rather that the police keep our children safe even if it causes using tax payer money.

I like Liz's interesting idea about merging the two properties and realigning them!

I guess the six candidates were approached by business developer to fund their campaigns in return for awarding a contract to build a park for a nice chunk of money. more contracts for him down the pipeline once they get elected.

"I would never consider eminent domain, ever," said incumbent Jac Siegel. "But would you bring bond measure to the people? Absolutely."

My sources tell me a majority of the council will support zoning the Franzia property as AGR in the general plan as opposed to the same zoning of the contingent properties (residential/retail). Maybe not ED but this restrictive zoning will limit the price the city will have to pay to purchase an orchard of dead trees, assuming the owners are interested in selling the land to the city for a park, which they are not.

Incredible arrogance of the city council.

"We have to protect the children" is one of the new fascist slogans that get my attention. Bad drivers abound in this area. Deal with that, don't trample on the town kook to do it.

Maybe that guy is Al Qaeda. Try that.

We already have Whisman and Creekside parks. We can also easily walk or bike to Shoreline Park via the Stevens Creek Trail. Hell, the Stevens Creek Trail is itself a park of sorts. Not sure we really need even more parks.

What we really lack is a grocery store beyond just the 7-11.

But I suspect not one candidate lives in this neighborhood or has a good feeling for our needs and concerns.

Let's not be so quick to call him "harmless" or merely "pesky." Ideafarm has a long history of distracting drivers and parking his contraption at corners and driveways where it blocks the view of drivers, and now he seems to need to insert himself physically into the comings and going of other citizens at the office in question. These public nuisance/hazardous behaviors have nothing to do with his right to his ideas or our well-defined free speech rights. Assuming that he might be clear on what he thinks he is doing (he thinks he is remarkably smart in all matters, if you read any of his manifestos), he seems to be deliberate in his recent escalations of confrontation with the authorities. That is his choice, and certainly has myriad precedents in civil disobedience (see Wikipedia, please), peaceful and otherwise, all of which is a step beyond free speech. No one should intervene with him for being different or outspoken, but free speech it does not give him a free pass for civil disobedience. He can be "the town kook" all he wants, but at the same time he must stay out of situations that interfere with the rights of others to go safely about their business, or he must accept the liability that comes with crossing that line. He chooses to cross that line to challenge the status quo and/or gain attention, and after a lot of expensive patience and alternative efforts he insists on leaving the police with no real choice. Civil disobedience is not the same as free speech.

Let's see here. We have Cuesta park which is always mostly deserted. We have Rengstorff park where you can go and expect to see trouble most days. We havve parks. I swear this council reminds me of a bunch of children that have money buring a hole in their pockets. Someone needs to remind them that it is always need over want. We don't need another park. Whisman at Middlefield. Such a rush to tear down the Wagonwheel and it (the land) sits stirring dust and a basic eye sore. KFC wanted to move into the property. Your council denied them stating something like they'd(KFC) cause too much of a traffic hazard. Ever been to the current location? Like 6 places to park, and you almost have to close your eyes and jump into traffic because you can't see a dang thing.

Council - find a way to fill the empty buildings. Find more space for youth sports. Create something to keep the gangs out of this fine city. Or, better yet. Hire more police since there are so many break-ins and robberies lately.

Sorry, but I'm wondering how many of these council people actually live in Mountain View?

I agree we need a grocery store beyond the 7-11. However, there are just not enough people living in the Whisman area to make a large grocery store such as a Safeway feasible/profitable (a lot of people work in the offices in the area but they leave to go home and presumably shop for groceries after work hours outside of the area).

The City Council cannot really mandate that a grocery store be located in the area anyway. What they can do though is vote for smart growth developments in the neighborhood such as the "South Whisman" development proposed for the area behind the Francia orchard which is in the works.

Web Link

Not that I ever said "large grocery store such as a Safeway". You wouldn't be putting words in my mouth, would you? (Hate Safeway to tell the truth.)

If the Council really wanted a grocery store they could do a lot to make it happen, the same way that they moved heaven and earth to make Starbucks on Castro and Walmart on San Antonio happen. Yes, that's right; it was your Council that deliberately invited those evil institutions into our fair city.

I really don't know the history of Starbucks on Castro and Walmart on San Antonio. They might have been "invited" in by the council but I'm sure profitability is what makes them stick around. Starbucks makes money because of their high profit margin products. Walmart makes money because of volume sales on low margin products. A grocery store in the Whisman area would have neither high profit margins nor high volume and wouldn't last.

Safeway, Lucky, Nob Hill, Trader Joe's, Fresh 'N' Easy, Ranch 99, The Milk Pail, Mi Pueblo, whoever, could be invited into the neighborhood by the council. Short of some sort of continued city subsidy though it wouldn't be profitable for a grocery store to open up in our neighborhood without a sizeable influx of people to add to their customer base.

"If the Council really wanted a grocery store they could do a lot to make it happen, the same way that they moved heaven and earth to make Starbucks on Castro and Walmart on San Antonio happen. Yes, that's right; it was your Council that deliberately invited those evil institutions into our fair city."

------------

I'm with Liz on this, I don't believe the City Council has many direct options for mandating what gets built, but can influence by zoning and other indirect methods. Businesses come when there's money to be made, its not a public service. You vote with your dollars the kinds of stores you want.

Not sure how you are characterizing some businesses as "evil", though I would admit that Peet's really does a better cup of Joe than Starbuck's any day of the week.

And you reach this conclusion that a grocery wouldn't work because why? Without data to back you up you might as well just shut up because you have no credibility.

And if neither of you know anything of the history of what happened, what business do you have sounding like authorities at all? Instead of doing that why don't you spend your time going into the back issues of the VOICE and learn what's been going on?

Finally, if you need to learn about Walmart, go rent The Walmart Movie.

Maybe you should read the back issues of the Voice more carefully, Bernie. There are several stories that mention how the council is having trouble getting a grocery store to locate downtown - which has more homes, more residents, higher incomes, way more car, bicycle, and foot traffic than the Whisman neighborhood, and is the home of the current mayor who is well aware of how desperate downtown is for a grocery store. Unlike at Whisman, the City even already owns the lot downtown where they would like a grocery store to be developed. Yet for all of their supposed power the council cannot get anyone to take them up on their offer. Why? For the same reason as Whisman... Because it wouldn't be profitable.

Here's some quotes from the Voice:

"Abe-Koga said she hoped that someday there would be 4,000 to 5,000 residences in the downtown, a number which consultants recently said would support a long-sought-after grocery store in the area. There are currently 3,400 homes downtown, Abe-Koga said, and "My hope is we will eventually get there and be able to sustain a grocery store.""

Web Link

"At Landels elementary school Monday night the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association asked the candidates what they would do if an "anonymous wealthy benefactor" gave Mountain View $10 million for downtown improvements.

"Well, we have tried for years to get a grocery store downtown," said mayor and incumbent Ronit Bryant. "If we could use the interest on the $10 million to open a grocery store, I would be interested.""

Web Link

"City manager Kevin Duggan said the city may soon have a hard time paying for downtown maintenance without the revitalization district, and suggested the city also study the possibility of a downtown "maintenance district." Such districts impose taxes on property owners or businesses.

The money approved Tuesday includes a $150,000 study examining the economic feasibility of a downtown grocery store while studying the factors that support downtown grocery stores in Menlo Park, Los Altos and San Carlos. Siegel opposed it.

"I don't expect much beneficial out of this," he said. "If there were an economically viable grocery store that would be in there they would be knocking on our doors.""

Web Link

+1

With a deep family history in Mountain View I was saddened and disappointed to hear all the disparaging remarks in locating the Mountain View History Museum in Cuesta Park - especially this late in the process since the discussion occurred several years ago. If Cuesta Park is not the appropriate location, then please suggest a more suitable location rather than continuing to make erroneous remarks.

This location is the most suitable because it is served by public transit, within easy walking and riding distance and has other amenities that together form a synergy for an extraordinary experience.

I strongly support the Mountain View History Museum and its location in Cuesta Park. Mr. Robert Weaver and his committee have invested countless hours and resources in bring this project one-step closer to reality and in addressing community concerns. It’s now time to stand behind this project or re-open the entire discussion as to the use of Cuesta Park Annex, including sport fields with lighting.

The Adobe House on Moffett and Central Expressway would be an ideal location for a history museum.