Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 66

Expand Messages
  • athein@comcast.net
    Fellow LVNA members, From the posted and unposted letters I have received so far, 3 residents want those bumps and 3 don’t. It seems to me that the sentiment
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 14, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Fellow LVNA members,
      From the posted and unposted letters I have received so far, 3 residents want those bumps and 3 don�t.
      It seems to me that the sentiment for and against those bumps are evenly divided.
      Rather than make claims to the contrary, I think it behooves on those who want it, to put the matter to a public debate and a public vote or alternately, produce the evidence that 85% of us wished to have those bumps.
      ~Aard

      -------------- Original message --------------

      > There are 3 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. RE: Digest Number 65
      > From: gia0084@...
      > 2. RE: Digest Number 65
      > From: "George Plato"
      > 3. Re: Digest Number 65
      > From: athein@...
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:56:34 -0400
      > From: gia0084@...
      > Subject: RE: Digest Number 65
      >
      > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      > >There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >
      > >Topics in this digest:
      > >
      > > 1. Re: Digest Number 64
      > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > >
      > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > >Message: 1
      > > Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:02:09 -0700
      > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > >Subject: Re: Digest Number 64
      > >
      > >Aard-
      > >
      > >Are you saying that you don't think the intersection of Rosewood and
      > >Plymouth is hazardous? I've seen nearly a dozen close calls there
      > >and witnessed two accidents there since moving here 6 years ago, not
      > >including an overturned car this past February. In addition to
      > >Bronson Ave, Plymouth is the only street between Larchmont Blvd and
      > >Van Ness Ave that is a straight shot from Clinton to Beverly, allowing
      > >drivers to get going very fast. The goal here is to try to discourage
      > >drivers from using our streets as short-cuts between Rossmore and
      > >Western. If we slow them down, with either stop-signs or speed
      > >humps, I believe it may help. If you don't mind the traffic flow on
      > >your street than I can understand you opposition. But if you don't
      > >like the flow, how would you propose we discourage it?
      > >And I'm also curious to hear that you question Josh's signatures.
      > >Sounds to me that he has 85% of those residences in the affected area.
      > > I'd say that's more than enough of a consensus.
      > >
      > >Thanks,
      > >Charlie Hutchinson
      > >Bronson Ave
      > >
      > >On 12 Jun 2005 12:20:43 -0000, LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com
      > > wrote:
      > >> There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >>
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Regarding Traffic Issues
      > Date: June 13,2005
      > From: Georgea Fenady
      >
      > ALL WAY STOP signs were are first choice to help with the traffic problems.DOT
      > and Young Gi Kim said NOT an option at the corner of Plymouth and Rosewood. So
      > the next best thing are Speed Humps, of course it seems more logical to
      > residents but if the street and intersection do not meet the standards conducted
      > by the city, what is the next step? Speed Humps do help detour the unwanted
      > speeding traffic. Cars do avoid streets with humps because they have to drive
      > slower.If you drive the proper speed the noise level is not a problem. The
      > residents want to stop the number of speeding cars that cut through our
      > nieghborhood Speed Humps will make a difference. Safer streets are the most
      > important issue.
      >
      > Thanks, Georgea
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >> Topics in this digest:
      > >>
      > >> 1. Re: Digest Number 63
      > >> From: athein@...
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> ________________________________________________________________________
      > >>
      > >> Message: 1
      > >> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:48:32 +0000
      > >> From: athein@...
      > >> Subject: Re: Digest Number 63
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> I too attended the meeting.
      > >> I was opposed to the speed bumps.
      > >> Speed bumps I thought were too drastic a measure.
      > >> I thought surely the Plymouth residents would find these bumps to be too much
      > of an unwarranted inconvenience to driving day in and day out.
      > >> I heard claims made by the two proponents that I felt were not supported.
      > >> I saw the signature sheet that Josh from Plymouth Blvd was offering it as
      > evidence that more than 85% on our block wanted those bumps. Frankly I saw no
      > where near 85% of signatures there.
      > >>
      > >> The other proponent from Gower Street claimed there was a sudden surge of
      > families with children on our two blocks. That may be but nowhere near to
      > warrant this measure.
      > >> The City Traffic engineer did not think this measure was warranted at those
      > intersections. He noted that the traffic on Plymouth was no different than
      > hundreds of other intersections in the area that did not have nor merit those
      > bumps.
      > >> There were questions in my mind.
      > >> Speed bumps cost money. I imagine they could cost $3,000 each.
      > >> Who's going to pay for those? Us or the City?
      > >> Are those who wish them willing to assume that cost?
      > >>
      > >> ~Aard
      > >> Aard V. Atheian, 560 N Plymouth Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90004-1411, Ph&Fx
      > 323.465.2695, Email: Athein@....
      > >>
      > >> -------------- Original message --------------
      > >>
      > >> > There are 3 messages in this issue.
      > >> >
      > >> > Topics in this digest:
      > >> >
      > >> > 1. RE: Digest Number 62
      > >> > From: "George Plato"
      > >> > 2. Plymouth traffic
      > >> > From: michele montgomery
      > >> > 3. Traffic.....
      > >> > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> >
      > >> > Message: 1
      > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:21:56 -0700
      > >> > From: "George Plato"
      > >> > Subject: RE: Digest Number 62
      > >> >
      > >> > I would rather see 4 way stops.at one or more of
      > >> > the intersections.Less wear and tear on our cars and
      > >> > more effective.
      > >> > George Plato
      > >> > > From:
      > >> > > To:
      > >> > > Date: 6/10/2005 5:30:43 AM
      > >> > > Subject: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 62
      > >> > >
      > >> > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Topics in this digest:
      > >> > >
      > >> > > 1. RE: Digest Number 61
      > >> > > From: gia0084@...
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Message: 1
      > >> > > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:53 -0400
      > >> > > From: gia0084@...
      > >> > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 61
      > >> > >
      > >> > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > >> > >
      > >> > > >There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >Topics in this digest:
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > > 1. Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > >> > > > From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > >> >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >Message: 1
      > >> > > > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:41:58 -0000
      > >> > > > From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > >> >
      > >> > > >Subject: Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >Neighbors-
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >This Thursday June 9th Tom La Bonge will be hosting a meeting at the
      > >> > > >Hollywood Field Office (6501 Fountain Ave) at 11.30 am. This meeting
      > >> > > >will cover neighborhood traffic issues regarding Plymouth Blvd between
      > >> > > >Clinton and Beverly Blvd. An engineer from the DOT will be in
      > >> > > >attendance with Tom, and Young-Gi Kim. If your schedule permits,
      > >> > > >please try to attend. We need to voice our concerns about excessive
      > >> > > >speed and congestion in our area, in addition to the difficulty
      > >> > > >neighbors have had in getting speed humps and stop-signs for that
      > >> > > >street. Please call Young-Gi if you have questions, 213-485-3337.
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >Regards,
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >Charlie Hutchinson
      > >> > > >LVNA President
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >PS. Don't Forget to Vote in the GWNC election on June 15th!
      > >> > > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Message 2:
      > >> > > Date: June 9, 2005
      > >> > > From: Georgea Fenady
      > >> > > Subject: Traffic Meeting
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Neighbors,
      > >> > > Todays traffic meeting with DOT, Young-Gi Kim and Tom LaBonge(who was not
      > >> > present)again got no real positive answers.Thanks to Josh who lives on
      > >> > Plymouth I think Speed Humps can happen. Please help support him in getting
      > >> > more petitions signed to make this happen! My issue at todays meeting was
      > >> > for Speed Humps on Rosewood between Gower and Plymouth, all my petitions
      > >> > are in the right hands.Wish more people came to the meeting besides Josh &
      > >> > I.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Georgea Fenady
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > __________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
      > >> > > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
      > >> > http://isp.netscape.com/register
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
      > >> > > Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
      > >> > > Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> >
      > >> > Message: 2
      > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:31:41 -0700
      > >> > From: michele montgomery
      > >> > Subject: Plymouth traffic
      > >> >
      > >> > > I would rather see 4 way stops.at one or more of
      > >> > > the intersections.Less wear and tear on our cars and
      > >> > > more effective.
      > >> > > George Plato
      > >> >
      > >> > I agree with this. The speed humps don't deter the SUVs - and many
      > >> > cars. Also, if you're one of the houses near the humps you have to
      > >> > listen to "bump" all day/night long. And... I don't know if this is
      > >> > true... but someone told me they reduce your property value.
      > >> >
      > >> > It seems like stop signs could achieve the safety we need without the
      > >> > obstacle course.
      > >> >
      > >> > Michele Montgomery
      > >> >
      > >> > > From:
      > >> > > To:
      > >> > > Date: 6/10/2005 5:30:43 AM
      > >> > > Subject: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 62
      > >> > >
      > >> > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Topics in this digest:
      > >> > >
      > >> > > 1. RE: Digest Number 61
      > >> > > From: gia0084@...
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > _______________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > _
      > >> > > _______________________________________________________________________
      > >> > > _
      > >> > >
      > >> > > Message: 1
      > >> > > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:53 -0400
      > >> > > From: gia0084@...
      > >> > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 61
      > >> > >
      > >> > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > >> > >
      > >> > >> There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >> Topics in this digest:
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >> 1. Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > >> > >> From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > >> >
      > >> > >>
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> >
      > >> > Message: 3
      > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:36:13 -0700
      > >> > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > >> > Subject: Traffic.....
      > >> >
      > >> > The problem is that 4-way stop signs can't be used for slowing traffic
      > >> > down. I was rejected in applying for one on bronson ave and here is
      > >> > the reason the city engineer sited,
      > >> >
      > >> > "all-way stop sign control is installed for the purpose of assigning
      > >> > right-of-way in a reasonable and efficient manner, at locations having
      > >> > large volumes of traffic on both streets and there is a need for more
      > >> > restricitve control of right-of-way assignment or at locations where
      > >> > an unusual degree of hazard has been demonstrated."
      > >> >
      > >> > I agree about the stop-signs, but the city is very reluctant to
      > >> > install all-way stop signs because of various legal reasons. I suspect
      > >> > if they don't find that corner hazardous, I don't know what qualify to
      > >> > them I find this ironic, as it would cost much more money to install
      > >> > speed humps than to hammer in a few metal posts with signs on them.
      > >> >
      > >> > Speed Humps do work, ask some of your friends on Van Ness and Arden.
      > >> > we know several people that live near those newer humps and they tell
      > >> > me that it has slowed down traffic. If anyone lives near those areas,
      > >> > could you tell us your reaction to the humps on your street?
      > >> >
      > >> > Charlie Hutchinson
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ________________________________________________________________________
      > >> ________________________________________________________________________
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > __________________________________________________________________
      > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
      > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
      >
      > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
      >
      > New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
      > Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
      > Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:50:11 -0700
      > From: "George Plato"
      > Subject: RE: Digest Number 65
      >
      > I know now when I signed the petition I did not know all
      > the details.As per e-mails there seems to be the need for
      > a meeting on this issue with the streets in the area involved
      > so we can hear all the information and come to a consenus as
      > as a organization not indivuals. If possible I would like my name
      > taken off the petition.
      > George Plato
      > >
      > > Topics in this digest:
      > >
      > > 1. Re: Digest Number 64
      > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > > Message: 1
      > > Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:02:09 -0700
      > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > > Subject: Re: Digest Number 64
      > >
      > > Aard-
      > >
      > > Are you saying that you don't think the intersection of Rosewood and
      > > Plymouth is hazardous? I've seen nearly a dozen close calls there
      > > and witnessed two accidents there since moving here 6 years ago, not
      > > including an overturned car this past February. In addition to
      > > Bronson Ave, Plymouth is the only street between Larchmont Blvd and
      > > Van Ness Ave that is a straight shot from Clinton to Beverly, allowing
      > > drivers to get going very fast. The goal here is to try to discourage
      > > drivers from using our streets as short-cuts between Rossmore and
      > > Western. If we slow them down, with either stop-signs or speed
      > > humps, I believe it may help. If you don't mind the traffic flow on
      > > your street than I can understand you opposition. But if you don't
      > > like the flow, how would you propose we discourage it?
      > > And I'm also curious to hear that you question Josh's signatures.
      > > Sounds to me that he has 85% of those residences in the affected area.
      > > I'd say that's more than enough of a consensus.
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Charlie Hutchinson
      > > Bronson Ave
      > >
      > > On 12 Jun 2005 12:20:43 -0000, LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com
      > > wrote:
      > > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > >
      > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > >
      > > > 1. Re: Digest Number 63
      > > > From: athein@...
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > >
      > > > Message: 1
      > > > Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:48:32 +0000
      > > > From: athein@...
      > > > Subject: Re: Digest Number 63
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I too attended the meeting.
      > > > I was opposed to the speed bumps.
      > > > Speed bumps I thought were too drastic a measure.
      > > > I thought surely the Plymouth residents would find these bumps to be
      > too much of an unwarranted inconvenience to driving day in and day out.
      > > > I heard claims made by the two proponents that I felt were not
      > supported.
      > > > I saw the signature sheet that Josh from Plymouth Blvd was offering it
      > as evidence that more than 85% on our block wanted those bumps. Frankly I
      > saw no where near 85% of signatures there.
      > > >
      > > > The other proponent from Gower Street claimed there was a sudden surge
      > of families with children on our two blocks. That may be but nowhere near
      > to warrant this measure.
      > > > The City Traffic engineer did not think this measure was warranted at
      > those intersections. He noted that the traffic on Plymouth was no different
      > than hundreds of other intersections in the area that did not have nor
      > merit those bumps.
      > > > There were questions in my mind.
      > > > Speed bumps cost money. I imagine they could cost $3,000 each.
      > > > Who's going to pay for those? Us or the City?
      > > > Are those who wish them willing to assume that cost?
      > > >
      > > > ~Aard
      > > > Aard V. Atheian, 560 N Plymouth Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90004-1411, Ph&Fx
      > 323.465.2695, Email: Athein@....
      > > >
      > > > -------------- Original message --------------
      > > >
      > > > > There are 3 messages in this issue.
      > > > >
      > > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > > >
      > > > > 1. RE: Digest Number 62
      > > > > From: "George Plato"
      > > > > 2. Plymouth traffic
      > > > > From: michele montgomery
      > > > > 3. Traffic.....
      > > > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > > Message: 1
      > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:21:56 -0700
      > > > > From: "George Plato"
      > > > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 62
      > > > >
      > > > > I would rather see 4 way stops.at one or more of
      > > > > the intersections.Less wear and tear on our cars and
      > > > > more effective.
      > > > > George Plato
      > > > > > From:
      > > > > > To:
      > > > > > Date: 6/10/2005 5:30:43 AM
      > > > > > Subject: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 62
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1. RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Message: 1
      > > > > > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:53 -0400
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > >
      > > > > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Topics in this digest:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1. Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > > > > > > From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Message: 1
      > > > > > > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:41:58 -0000
      > > > > > > From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > > > >
      > > > > > >Subject: Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Neighbors-
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >This Thursday June 9th Tom La Bonge will be hosting a meeting at
      > the
      > > > > > >Hollywood Field Office (6501 Fountain Ave) at 11.30 am. This
      > meeting
      > > > > > >will cover neighborhood traffic issues regarding Plymouth Blvd
      > between
      > > > > > >Clinton and Beverly Blvd. An engineer from the DOT will be in
      > > > > > >attendance with Tom, and Young-Gi Kim. If your schedule permits,
      > > > > > >please try to attend. We need to voice our concerns about excessive
      > > > > > >speed and congestion in our area, in addition to the difficulty
      > > > > > >neighbors have had in getting speed humps and stop-signs for that
      > > > > > >street. Please call Young-Gi if you have questions, 213-485-3337.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Regards,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > > > >LVNA President
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >PS. Don't Forget to Vote in the GWNC election on June 15th!
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Message 2:
      > > > > > Date: June 9, 2005
      > > > > > From: Georgea Fenady
      > > > > > Subject: Traffic Meeting
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Neighbors,
      > > > > > Todays traffic meeting with DOT, Young-Gi Kim and Tom LaBonge(who
      > was not
      > > > > present)again got no real positive answers.Thanks to Josh who lives on
      > > > > Plymouth I think Speed Humps can happen. Please help support him in
      > getting
      > > > > more petitions signed to make this happen! My issue at todays meeting
      > was
      > > > > for Speed Humps on Rosewood between Gower and Plymouth, all my
      > petitions
      > > > > are in the right hands.Wish more people came to the meeting besides
      > Josh &
      > > > > I.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Georgea Fenady
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > __________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
      > > > > > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
      > > > > http://isp.netscape.com/register
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
      > > > > > Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
      > > > > > Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > > Message: 2
      > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:31:41 -0700
      > > > > From: michele montgomery
      > > > > Subject: Plymouth traffic
      > > > >
      > > > > > I would rather see 4 way stops.at one or more of
      > > > > > the intersections.Less wear and tear on our cars and
      > > > > > more effective.
      > > > > > George Plato
      > > > >
      > > > > I agree with this. The speed humps don't deter the SUVs - and many
      > > > > cars. Also, if you're one of the houses near the humps you have to
      > > > > listen to "bump" all day/night long. And... I don't know if this is
      > > > > true... but someone told me they reduce your property value.
      > > > >
      > > > > It seems like stop signs could achieve the safety we need without the
      > > > > obstacle course.
      > > > >
      > > > > Michele Montgomery
      > > > >
      > > > > > From:
      > > > > > To:
      > > > > > Date: 6/10/2005 5:30:43 AM
      > > > > > Subject: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 62
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1. RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > _______________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > _
      > > > > >
      > _______________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > _
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Message: 1
      > > > > > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:53 -0400
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > >
      > > > > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >> There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> Topics in this digest:
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> 1. Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > > > > >> From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > > > >
      > > > > >>
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > > Message: 3
      > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:36:13 -0700
      > > > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > > Subject: Traffic.....
      > > > >
      > > > > The problem is that 4-way stop signs can't be used for slowing traffic
      > > > > down. I was rejected in applying for one on bronson ave and here is
      > > > > the reason the city engineer sited,
      > > > >
      > > > > "all-way stop sign control is installed for the purpose of assigning
      > > > > right-of-way in a reasonable and efficient manner, at locations having
      > > > > large volumes of traffic on both streets and there is a need for more
      > > > > restricitve control of right-of-way assignment or at locations where
      > > > > an unusual degree of hazard has been demonstrated."
      > > > >
      > > > > I agree about the stop-signs, but the city is very reluctant to
      > > > > install all-way stop signs because of various legal reasons. I suspect
      > > > > if they don't find that corner hazardous, I don't know what qualify to
      > > > > them I find this ironic, as it would cost much more money to install
      > > > > speed humps than to hammer in a few metal posts with signs on them.
      > > > >
      > > > > Speed Humps do work, ask some of your friends on Van Ness and Arden.
      > > > > we know several people that live near those newer humps and they tell
      > > > > me that it has slowed down traffic. If anyone lives near those areas,
      > > > > could you tell us your reaction to the humps on your street?
      > > > >
      > > > > Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 3
      > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:38:13 +0000
      > From: athein@...
      > Subject: Re: Digest Number 65
      >
      > Charlie,
      > I was echoing George Plato�s sentiment.
      > Like George, I don�t like speed bumps. Like him, I favor all-way stops.
      > Will we all be stuck with the tab of paying for those speed bumps? Has that
      > aspect been examined?
      >
      > I�ve lived on this block for 32 years. I don�t see this sudden jump in traffic
      > that you describe. For the sake of solidarity and empathy with my neighbors I do
      > not oppose their sentiment of slowing down the traffic.
      >
      > I carefully examined the sign-on sheet that Josh gave Young-Gi. I concede that
      > two minutes was not enough time to make a definitive determination. I�ll be glad
      > to revise my estimate if Josh gave me a copy of his sign-on sheet. Until then my
      > impression stands that it was more like 70%, not 85%.
      >
      > I must emphasize that there has been no antagonism on my part towards the
      > proponents of this measure.
      >
      > Aard
      >
      > -------------- Original message --------------
      >
      > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > >
      > > Topics in this digest:
      > >
      > > 1. Re: Digest Number 64
      > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > > Message: 1
      > > Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:02:09 -0700
      > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > > Subject: Re: Digest Number 64
      > >
      > > Aard-
      > >
      > > Are you saying that you don't think the intersection of Rosewood and
      > > Plymouth is hazardous? I've seen nearly a dozen close calls there
      > > and witnessed two accidents there since moving here 6 years ago, not
      > > including an overturned car this past February. In addition to
      > > Bronson Ave, Plymouth is the only street between Larchmont Blvd and
      > > Van Ness Ave that is a straight shot from Clinton to Beverly, allowing
      > > drivers to get going very fast. The goal here is to try to discourage
      > > drivers from using our streets as short-cuts between Rossmore and
      > > Western. If we slow them down, with either stop-signs or speed
      > > humps, I believe it may help. If you don't mind the traffic flow on
      > > your street than I can understand you opposition. But if you don't
      > > like the flow, how would you propose we discourage it?
      > > And I'm also curious to hear that you question Josh's signatures.
      > > Sounds to me that he has 85% of those residences in the affected area.
      > > I'd say that's more than enough of a consensus.
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Charlie Hutchinson
      > > Bronson Ave
      > >
      > > On 12 Jun 2005 12:20:43 -0000, LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com
      > > wrote:
      > > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > >
      > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > >
      > > > 1. Re: Digest Number 63
      > > > From: athein@...
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > >
      > > > Message: 1
      > > > Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:48:32 +0000
      > > > From: athein@...
      > > > Subject: Re: Digest Number 63
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I too attended the meeting.
      > > > I was opposed to the speed bumps.
      > > > Speed bumps I thought were too drastic a measure.
      > > > I thought surely the Plymouth residents would find these bumps to be too
      > much
      > > of an unwarranted inconvenience to driving day in and day out.
      > > > I heard claims made by the two proponents that I felt were not supported.
      > > > I saw the signature sheet that Josh from Plymouth Blvd was offering it as
      > > evidence that more than 85% on our block wanted those bumps. Frankly I saw no
      > > where near 85% of signatures there.
      > > >
      > > > The other proponent from Gower Street claimed there was a sudden surge of
      > > families with children on our two blocks. That may be but nowhere near to
      > > warrant this measure.
      > > > The City Traffic engineer did not think this measure was warranted at those
      > > intersections. He noted that the traffic on Plymouth was no different than
      > > hundreds of other intersections in the area that did not have nor merit those
      > > bumps.
      > > > There were questions in my mind.
      > > > Speed bumps cost money. I imagine they could cost $3,000 each.
      > > > Who's going to pay for those? Us or the City?
      > > > Are those who wish them willing to assume that cost?
      > > >
      > > > ~Aard
      > > > Aard V. Atheian, 560 N Plymouth Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90004-1411, Ph&Fx
      > > 323.465.2695, Email: Athein@....
      > > >
      > > > -------------- Original message --------------
      > > >
      > > > > There are 3 messages in this issue.
      > > > >
      > > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > > >
      > > > > 1. RE: Digest Number 62
      > > > > From: "George Plato"
      > > > > 2. Plymouth traffic
      > > > > From: michele montgomery
      > > > > 3. Traffic.....
      > > > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > > Message: 1
      > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:21:56 -0700
      > > > > From: "George Plato"
      > > > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 62
      > > > >
      > > > > I would rather see 4 way stops.at one or more of
      > > > > the intersections.Less wear and tear on our cars and
      > > > > more effective.
      > > > > George Plato
      > > > > > From:
      > > > > > To:
      > > > > > Date: 6/10/2005 5:30:43 AM
      > > > > > Subject: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 62
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1. RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Message: 1
      > > > > > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:53 -0400
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > >
      > > > > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Topics in this digest:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1. Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > > > > > > From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Message: 1
      > > > > > > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:41:58 -0000
      > > > > > > From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > > > >
      > > > > > >Subject: Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Neighbors-
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >This Thursday June 9th Tom La Bonge will be hosting a meeting at the
      > > > > > >Hollywood Field Office (6501 Fountain Ave) at 11.30 am. This meeting
      > > > > > >will cover neighborhood traffic issues regarding Plymouth Blvd between
      > > > > > >Clinton and Beverly Blvd. An engineer from the DOT will be in
      > > > > > >attendance with Tom, and Young-Gi Kim. If your schedule permits,
      > > > > > >please try to attend. We need to voice our concerns about excessive
      > > > > > >speed and congestion in our area, in addition to the difficulty
      > > > > > >neighbors have had in getting speed humps and stop-signs for that
      > > > > > >street. Please call Young-Gi if you have questions, 213-485-3337.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Regards,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > > > >LVNA President
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >PS. Don't Forget to Vote in the GWNC election on June 15th!
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Message 2:
      > > > > > Date: June 9, 2005
      > > > > > From: Georgea Fenady
      > > > > > Subject: Traffic Meeting
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Neighbors,
      > > > > > Todays traffic meeting with DOT, Young-Gi Kim and Tom LaBonge(who was
      > not
      > > > > present)again got no real positive answers.Thanks to Josh who lives on
      > > > > Plymouth I think Speed Humps can happen. Please help support him in
      > getting
      > > > > more petitions signed to make this happen! My issue at todays meeting was
      > > > > for Speed Humps on Rosewood between Gower and Plymouth, all my petitions
      > > > > are in the right hands.Wish more people came to the meeting besides Josh &
      > > > > I.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Georgea Fenady
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > __________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
      > > > > > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
      > > > > http://isp.netscape.com/register
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
      > > > > > Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
      > > > > > Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > > Message: 2
      > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:31:41 -0700
      > > > > From: michele montgomery
      > > > > Subject: Plymouth traffic
      > > > >
      > > > > > I would rather see 4 way stops.at one or more of
      > > > > > the intersections.Less wear and tear on our cars and
      > > > > > more effective.
      > > > > > George Plato
      > > > >
      > > > > I agree with this. The speed humps don't deter the SUVs - and many
      > > > > cars. Also, if you're one of the houses near the humps you have to
      > > > > listen to "bump" all day/night long. And... I don't know if this is
      > > > > true... but someone told me they reduce your property value.
      > > > >
      > > > > It seems like stop signs could achieve the safety we need without the
      > > > > obstacle course.
      > > > >
      > > > > Michele Montgomery
      > > > >
      > > > > > From:
      > > > > > To:
      > > > > > Date: 6/10/2005 5:30:43 AM
      > > > > > Subject: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 62
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Topics in this digest:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1. RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > _
      > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________
      > > > > > _
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Message: 1
      > > > > > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:53 -0400
      > > > > > From: gia0084@...
      > > > > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 61
      > > > > >
      > > > > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >> There is 1 message in this issue.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> Topics in this digest:
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> 1. Plymouth Traffic Meeting on June 9th
      > > > > >> From: "larchmontvillageneighborhood"
      > > > >
      > > > > >>
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > > Message: 3
      > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:36:13 -0700
      > > > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > > Subject: Traffic.....
      > > > >
      > > > > The problem is that 4-way stop signs can't be used for slowing traffic
      > > > > down. I was rejected in applying for one on bronson ave and here is
      > > > > the reason the city engineer sited,
      > > > >
      > > > > "all-way stop sign control is installed for the purpose of assigning
      > > > > right-of-way in a reasonable and efficient manner, at locations having
      > > > > large volumes of traffic on both streets and there is a need for more
      > > > > restricitve control of right-of-way assignment or at locations where
      > > > > an unusual degree of hazard has been demonstrated."
      > > > >
      > > > > I agree about the stop-signs, but the city is very reluctant to
      > > > > install all-way stop signs because of various legal reasons. I suspect
      > > > > if they don't find that corner hazardous, I don't know what qualify to
      > > > > them I find this ironic, as it would cost much more money to install
      > > > > speed humps than to hammer in a few metal posts with signs on them.
      > > > >
      > > > > Speed Humps do work, ask some of your friends on Van Ness and Arden.
      > > > > we know several people that live near those newer humps and they tell
      > > > > me that it has slowed down traffic. If anyone lives near those areas,
      > > > > could you tell us your reaction to the humps on your street?
      > > > >
      > > > > Charlie Hutchinson
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > > ________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • josh brooks
      Just to clarify to the group, the city requires a 75% majority not 85% as you stated. As far as your concern about cost, the city of Los Angeles has numerous
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Just to clarify to the group, the city requires a 75%
        majority not 85% as you stated.
        As far as your concern about cost, the city of Los
        Angeles has numerous street "funds" from where they
        pull the money to pay for this. The streets of Los
        Angeles are covered by public works money.




        --- athein@... wrote:

        > Fellow LVNA members,
        > From the posted and unposted letters I have received
        > so far, 3 residents want those bumps and 3 don’t.
        > It seems to me that the sentiment for and against
        > those bumps are evenly divided.
        > Rather than make claims to the contrary, I think it
        > behooves on those who want it, to put the matter to
        > a public debate and a public vote or alternately,
        > produce the evidence that 85% of us wished to have
        > those bumps.
        > ~Aard
        >
        > -------------- Original message --------------
        >
        > > There are 3 messages in this issue.
        > >
        > > Topics in this digest:
        > >
        > > 1. RE: Digest Number 65
        > > From: gia0084@...
        > > 2. RE: Digest Number 65
        > > From: "George Plato"
        > > 3. Re: Digest Number 65
        > > From: athein@...
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > >
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > >
        > > Message: 1
        > > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:56:34 -0400
        > > From: gia0084@...
        > > Subject: RE: Digest Number 65
        > >
        > > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        > >
        > > >There is 1 message in this issue.
        > > >
        > > >Topics in this digest:
        > > >
        > > > 1. Re: Digest Number 64
        > > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > >
        >
        >________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > > >
        > > >Message: 1
        > > > Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:02:09 -0700
        > > > From: Charlie Hutchinson
        > > >Subject: Re: Digest Number 64
        > > >
        > > >Aard-
        > > >
        > > >Are you saying that you don't think the
        > intersection of Rosewood and
        > > >Plymouth is hazardous? I've seen nearly a dozen
        > close calls there
        > > >and witnessed two accidents there since moving
        > here 6 years ago, not
        > > >including an overturned car this past February.
        > In addition to
        > > >Bronson Ave, Plymouth is the only street between
        > Larchmont Blvd and
        > > >Van Ness Ave that is a straight shot from Clinton
        > to Beverly, allowing
        > > >drivers to get going very fast. The goal here is
        > to try to discourage
        > > >drivers from using our streets as short-cuts
        > between Rossmore and
        > > >Western. If we slow them down, with either
        > stop-signs or speed
        > > >humps, I believe it may help. If you don't mind
        > the traffic flow on
        > > >your street than I can understand you opposition.
        > But if you don't
        > > >like the flow, how would you propose we
        > discourage it?
        > > >And I'm also curious to hear that you question
        > Josh's signatures.
        > > >Sounds to me that he has 85% of those residences
        > in the affected area.
        > > > I'd say that's more than enough of a consensus.
        > > >
        > > >Thanks,
        > > >Charlie Hutchinson
        > > >Bronson Ave
        > > >
        > > >On 12 Jun 2005 12:20:43 -0000,
        > LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com
        > > > wrote:
        > > >> There is 1 message in this issue.
        > > >>
        > >
        > > Message: 2
        > > Regarding Traffic Issues
        > > Date: June 13,2005
        > > From: Georgea Fenady
        > >
        > > ALL WAY STOP signs were are first choice to help
        > with the traffic problems.DOT
        > > and Young Gi Kim said NOT an option at the corner
        > of Plymouth and Rosewood. So
        > > the next best thing are Speed Humps, of course it
        > seems more logical to
        > > residents but if the street and intersection do
        > not meet the standards conducted
        > > by the city, what is the next step? Speed Humps do
        > help detour the unwanted
        > > speeding traffic. Cars do avoid streets with humps
        > because they have to drive
        > > slower.If you drive the proper speed the noise
        > level is not a problem. The
        > > residents want to stop the number of speeding cars
        > that cut through our
        > > nieghborhood Speed Humps will make a difference.
        > Safer streets are the most
        > > important issue.
        > >
        > > Thanks, Georgea
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > >> Topics in this digest:
        > > >>
        > > >> 1. Re: Digest Number 63
        > > >> From: athein@...
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > > >>
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > > >>
        > > >> Message: 1
        > > >> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:48:32 +0000
        > > >> From: athein@...
        > > >> Subject: Re: Digest Number 63
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >> I too attended the meeting.
        > > >> I was opposed to the speed bumps.
        > > >> Speed bumps I thought were too drastic a
        > measure.
        > > >> I thought surely the Plymouth residents would
        > find these bumps to be too much
        > > of an unwarranted inconvenience to driving day in
        > and day out.
        > > >> I heard claims made by the two proponents that
        > I felt were not supported.
        > > >> I saw the signature sheet that Josh from
        > Plymouth Blvd was offering it as
        > > evidence that more than 85% on our block wanted
        > those bumps. Frankly I saw no
        > > where near 85% of signatures there.
        > > >>
        > > >> The other proponent from Gower Street claimed
        > there was a sudden surge of
        > > families with children on our two blocks. That may
        > be but nowhere near to
        > > warrant this measure.
        > > >> The City Traffic engineer did not think this
        > measure was warranted at those
        > > intersections. He noted that the traffic on
        > Plymouth was no different than
        > > hundreds of other intersections in the area that
        > did not have nor merit those
        > > bumps.
        > > >> There were questions in my mind.
        > > >> Speed bumps cost money. I imagine they could
        > cost $3,000 each.
        > > >> Who's going to pay for those? Us or the City?
        > > >> Are those who wish them willing to assume that
        > cost?
        > > >>
        > > >> ~Aard
        > > >> Aard V. Atheian, 560 N Plymouth Blvd, Los
        > Angeles, CA 90004-1411, Ph&Fx
        > > 323.465.2695, Email: Athein@....
        > > >>
        > > >> -------------- Original message --------------
        > > >>
        > > >> > There are 3 messages in this issue.
        > > >> >
        > > >> > Topics in this digest:
        > > >> >
        >
        === message truncated ===




        __________________________________
        Discover Yahoo!
        Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
        http://discover.yahoo.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.