If you want to have a dinner party on Second Saturday in neighborhoods near the galleries, your friends are going to have to park blocks away anyhow--the street parking is completely filled with Second Saturday visitors!

Meanwhile, the revisions to Sacramento's parking codes were reviewed at Planning Commission last night; once passed, most future commercial development in downtown Sacramento, in Midtown, and in neighborhoods like East Sacramento, Land Park, Curtis Park and Oak Park will not require any parking be provided by the business. Where will their customers and employees park? If neighborhood parking is unrestricted, they will park in nearby residential areas.

Why are people so opposed to parking in a city/state/private/beetlejuice owned garage and walking a few blocks?

Burg again, states the reality, is practical and totally right. His second paragraph is something that all should pay attention to and the pilot was intended find out advanced possible consequences.

Boulevard Park's "voting process" re: the pilot was a delaying tactic, a sham, amateurish and intended to obtain as many negative votes as possible. It seems the chair and other opponents who live OUTSIDE the pilot area did not give a hoot about their neighbors to the south of their isolated area as they responsibly should have.

Unlike Washington Park whose members who had the savvy and objectivity to understand what the results of a pilot are intended to show or not show, Jennings and other opponents had the tunnel vision, arrogance and insensitivity to believe that they should have the right to dictate what goes on outside their immediate area. She stated then and states again in the article that THEY MIGHT be affected by any overflow. That was what the pilot was intended to show or not show! These naysayers had no proof of their opinion—just pure speculation. But their minds were made up and did not want to be confused with what facts the pilot could show apparently, thereby reducing their future credibility on any issue.

Worse was that a prior BPNA board had contributed to the parking problems within the pilot area, but she and most of the current board did not want to deal with that either. From the beginning she and cohorts promoted a "sky is falling" hysteria. The "sawhorse" excuse now is grasping at straws, laughable and indefensible since they weren't going to be in front of their houses anyway!! Further, why would they be concerned about the aesthetics OUTSIDE their blocks when they weren’t concerned about the far more serious problems residents WITHIN the pilot were facing?? That makes no sense but then BPNA is far from what it used to be as resident advocates.

The facts are that there was nearly 100% support for the pilot in the original proposed smaller areas. When Fong insisted that it be broadened to such a large area, he was advised that it would fail due to non-affected outsiders’ opposition. He was aware that the original broad area around the Music Circus had failed for the same reasons but when re-voted on a smaller scale, passed overwhelmingly. Apparently, he was unwilling to learn from experience.

BUT in the long run none of the above had any effect on pilot supporters' recommendation to withdraw the pilot.

Dale you got this one wrong, this was a bad idea and a NIMBY idea. Second Saturday improves the quality of life in midtown, it is sad that you and others felt that you could try and take it away from the residents that love it. You don't even have a car and two driveways and you want to limit parking? Shame on you! BPNA stood up for residents and I applaud them!

Bravo!

Has anyone heard what the MBA "Parking Czar"(thats the name he gave himself... Im not kidding) thinks about all of this? It would be nice to hear his non conflict of interest thoughts.....

Yeah those two together have been miraculously leading eachother out of the deserts they have created for others. They probably were able to build such a close almost incestous relationships on their numerous long houred flghts and vacations to Israel the birthplace of their shared religion. If anyone would be capable of convincing UP that they could free themselves from the burden of having to manage their own assets better than this powehouse "Jake and the Fatman" type criminals.... I mean crime fighters; Only Southern Pacific knows and coincidentally were handled right out of biz by some program they called Railway Activation... that really was just a slush fund for future pet development projects. God bless those.... i mean Yaweh(I think) bless those crime fighting felchers( I mean Belchers) . And yes My coments were specifically aimed at offending religion and drinkin beer

Glad to see this is not going to move forward, there are a number of area's where restricted parking makes sense such as by Orphan Restaurant or other area's that have a daily impact to residents. I know my neighborhood association (BPNA) did a full reach out to their residents by both a vote at a General Meeting where Howard Chan spoke on the issue and requests of residents to email their comments and thoughts I compliment BPNA and MSNA for their work on this issue. My biggest concern with this concept is Second Saturday is one Saturday a month and the hours for restricted parking were far outside of the hours of Second Saturday.

Well I live outside the test area (Actually just on the side of the street that would not be enforced) but I don't think that colors my judgment in this case. I would say that I think Second Saturday is a wonderful gift for Midtown. There certainly are some problems that people need to continue to work on but I don't agree that parking restrictions at night are the answer. Overall I think Second Saturday enhances the image of Midtown and Boulevard Park/Marshall School which benefits us all and adds to the livability for those of us who like to trek out and enjoy the show!

Also, I think that some of those who favor the plan might consider less excoriation and more conciliation with the folks who don't to find a consensus on what might be acceptable to the hood as a whole. The tactic of posting long winded, ripping and slashing emails telling everyone who disagrees with you how stupid they are typically is not forwarding.

One last thought...it is only one night a month right?

It was a test for only one night a month for three months, and it had nothing to do with being against SS or restricting that Special Event. And it was not about restricting parking. It would have been a TEST about OPENING up parking for residents who have been SHUT OUT of their street parking when SS special events are held.

My young art neighbors who wanted the pilot, for example, leave the area and stay all night with friends in their old neighborhood because they are unable to park anywhere near when one returns home from work when SS is in progress as well as the partying after. They are now considering moving back and I hate to see them go because they have been great neighbors. One other couple farther away with a little child already left and now the place is rented to noisy trouble makers. They had intended to buy a house in the area but changed their minds due to parking problems and moved back to the suburbs where they will buy there. So there is a lost sale for BP. Who knows how many others have left--I know two day/early evening bartenders/waiters who moved to East Sac.

The silly part of this is that the city has regularly opened up parking for residents for YEARS (and still does) when Special Events are held in Marshall Park and same for other places where Special Events are held that are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. But BPNA board unleashed hysteria like it had never been done before. The only thing different about this was a pilot to obtain data. But like I wrote earlier, their huffing and puffing made no difference in the long run.

It's as if the City Council sees something that makes money for Sacramento merchants and thinks, "How can we kill that?"