Concerns Regarding North San Jose Redevelopment

Signatures 129 total

Page: 1, 2, 3

1. 1
   Name: Juergen Failenschmid on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: McGregor Watson on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Laura Carns on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Vadim Iofis on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Leigh Cagan on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Mark Whittemore on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Sabbir Ahmed on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Todd B. Gerber on Sep 6, 2006

   Comments: This is an ill-conceived development plan and must be amended to accommodate the reasonable requests stated in the petition.

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Paul Keane on Sep 7, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Teresa Christopher on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Tomislav Grcanac on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Andrew Holland on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments: The interests of current residents have virtually been ignored in the proposed development of this neighborhood. This is not simply a business zone but a living community with a diverse population living in real homes.

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Charles Gousha on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments: We are not against development - only poorly planned development. Cramming as many units as will fit into the space is not beneficial to anyone. The area needs a more integrated approach.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Christine Crawford on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Matt York on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Michael Stein on Sep 7, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Yan Stein on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Ying-Ying Chang on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Arthur Chin on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Arthur Fluter on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Jocelyn Chan on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Mildred Low on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments: CIty's plan should include the current tax-payers and should not harm them in their endeavor to attract new tax-payers. Schools, parks and trees should not be a luxury reserved for some communities in the bay area. If there are not enough school-going children in the area, that is entirely city's fault, which is forcing young parents to move out of this lovely area.

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Chee Chung on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Soon Kuek on Sep 9, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments: Like others, I am not opposed to development so long as it is balanced and does not devalue our community in terms of neighborhood charm and economics. In my opinion, the large lot on Zanker and Tasman (next to North Park Apartments) should be zoned for retail services to both North Park and River Oaks Village residents. Any acceptable plan will address each of the concerns listed by this community organization (excellent identification of issues) and I am sure most developers will be happy to incorporate some, if not all, of these concerns into their plans.

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Michael Inerfield on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Scott Zeitler on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Sabrina Zeitler on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Rayne Knudson on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Heather Choi on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Leonid Backer on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Mary Ann Chatelain on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Richard And Laura Salva on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Donna Bisio on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Donna Bisio on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments: The lack of master plan is troublesome. It is one thing for the city of San Jose to figure out how to bring in business and generate tax revenue. It is another thing to blindly build thouands of rental units, and potentially creating an inner city environment. The city of San Jose should learn from the Rivermark development project in the city of Santa Clara.

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: LORRAINE GRIFFIN on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Yardley Lazovsky on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments: Against Northe Jose Development Plans suppoting the above justifications.

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Serguei Bobyr on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Len Goldschmidt on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Andy Radosevich on Sep 10, 2006

    Comments: There will be so much car traffic, River Oaks Parkway will be like an expressway!

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 11, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3