I was hoping this idea of closing Burlingame Ave. to all cars would quietly disappear as things slowly re-open and people get used to mingling a bit. But the City has apparently asked merchants for their opinions so it's an active idea and we have a Guest Perspective in today's Daily Journal that espouses the closure. The author comes from a great B'game family and has done a stint on the Planning Commission, but he might have benefited from serving on Traffic, Safety and Parking instead. I'm sort of glad he broached the topic. Here's bit of that piece
With summer weather approaching and business attendance at an all-time low, now is an incredible, once-in-a-generation time to experiment with what Burlingame Avenue could be like if it were more pedestrian-oriented, and less vehicle-dependent.
The city needs to take strong actions to make sure the heart of its downtown, its restaurants and bars, are positioned as well as possible to succeed in a prolonged sure-to-be-tough environment. The best way the city can do this, in my opinion, is to allow them to operate at normal capacity (while adhering to strict distancing guidelines), through the expansion of temporary seating zones. Of course, the only way to accomplish this would be to follow the example set by Oakland and numerous other cities, and close Burlingame Avenue to cars.
There's an old debate tactic called the Straw Man argument that says you refute an argument that your opponent hasn't actually made. A corollary to that is to refute one argument and omit the others. That's what is going on in this piece:
Now, the obvious contrarian opinion is that there won’t be enough parking (a particularly Burlingame classic!). Well, my response would be: Good! Let’s finally put our environmental policy and action where our mouths are and create paths for people to safely travel, and park, via bicycle.
Allow me to note some better arguments against a full closure. First, there are many other businesses on the Avenue besides restaurants. All of them rely on out-of-towners and B'gamers who live far away and won't walk or bike to their stores. Convenient parking may be over rated by some store owners, but it's not a non-issue. Some of them sell (or would like to sell) more product than one can easily carry for blocks. Second, what about the disabled customers? We have handicap spaces for a reason and it's a good one. No "TSPoon" commissioner would ever think of taking them all out, but a full closure does exactly that. Third, it seems unfair to advantage some restaurants at the expense of others not on the Avenue. Should Park & Howard, Narin, Coconut Bay, Stella Osteria, Il Fornaio, et al just figure it out themselves? I don't think so. How about Broadway? I won't play Straw Man and suggest we close all of downtown, but fair would be fair. Fourth, police and fire access is still required and required fast. How do you do that with tables and diners in the street? Lastly, the realpolitik of the City's situation is a major budget problem as noted here. We are definitely better off than many cities, but with the hotel tax and sales taxes taking a major hit, the revenue from the meters should not be ignored. As the City seems intent on giving away money, perhaps taking some in would be wise.
So what to do? Doing nothing is anathema to government. We've seen that across the board during the corona crisis. Here's a middle position that might work for restaurants all over town. The space in front of the restaurant can become a parklet. I broached the idea eight years ago here. As you can read from 2012 it got no attention--not one comment, but now might be the time. Parklets are big in EssEff and a few sprouted in San Mateo. One space (10' x 20' if memory serves) could hold 2 four tops. Turned twice a night, that would be 16 more diners. Added to sidewalk dining, it would help. Closing the whole street is unfair, may be unsafe and likely costly.

Recent Comments