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

Re: [LVNA90004] Digest Number 66

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.