Fullerton City Council voted at their August 16, 2022, meeting to establish an outdoor dining “parklet” program on the Walk on Wilshire (WOW) outdoor dining area. The closure sparked much discussion between bicyclists, outdoor dining patrons, and business owners. Several options were put forward, and finally, a compromise was achieved. Council voted 3-1 (Jung “no,” Dunlap absent) to approve the new parklet program.
Participants were directed to complete the Standard Outdoor Dining process, including executing an Encroachment Agreement and parklet installation. The 18-month pilot will commence on January 1, 2023, and be brought back to the council sometime in June or July 2024.
However, it seems that some of the businesses owned by Tony, George, and Al Bushala came late to the information and suddenly realized that the new bicycle paint, bollards, and parklets for diners may be permanent. This prompted Tony Bushala to write a letter threatening to sue the city.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Downtown, Local Business, Local Government, Local News
Lol. Good luck proving safe access to pedestrians and cyclists and outdoor dining has negatively affected their property values. Makes no sense whatsoever.
I personally love the WoW and look forward to enjoying it for many years to come. What a breath of fresh air.
I spend more money here than I would otherwise because there is no car traffic that blocks my access or makes walking unpleasant.
I’m not sure how it can simultaneously favor certain business owners while negatively affecting business/property values.
If the former is true, other business owners are welcome to petition for pedestrianizing their areas in front of their storefronts, too.
It doesn’t make sense to me to remove a good, popular thing out of spite or envy. We should equalize by spreading positive things, not removing them.
I don’t understand why Bushala seems to think his campaign contributions entitle him to control all of Fullerton. He isn’t the king of Fullerton. He’s welcome to run for council if he wants to make decisions on public infrastructure, but he’d still have to answer to the public.
“I’m not sure how it can simultaneously favor certain business owners while negatively affecting business/property values.”
Let me help you out of your confusion. The adjacent restaurants receive the benefit of added seating choice and flexibility. There are 4 of them. The rest of businesses up and down the street suffer from the cut off access and the lack of visibility that through traffic affords. It’s not very complicated. Clearly, one of Tony’s tenants complained. I wouldn’t be surprised if others follow. There is no spite or envy going on, except here in the wonderful comments section of the Fullerton Observer where St. Ahmad has caused the mere mention of the name Bushala to cause cranial aneurysms.
Hope that helps.
Reopening that tiny bit of road will hurt many more people than it would help.
Reduced visibility to cars driving by visibility I guess is the only harm and I doubt that amounts to much of anything. Businesses aren’t hard to find and there is sufficient access due to ample parking all around and easy walkability.
Versus the harm of worse cyclist and pedestrian safety, loss of the outdoor dining access to patrons and reduced revenue to restaurants offering a unique experience, loss of revenue to city.
That street was open for 120 years and everything was absolutely fine. Quit making stuff up. The only reason you’re even bothering to make ridiculous comments is because you hate some loathsome abstraction called Bushala.
This idiocy was just about giving staff something to do. Parklet. Now that’s funny.
It is also hard for the police to get to the disturbances at the bars because they have to go around Wilshire.
Then people will complain that the police arrived late and did not do anything.
Yeah I don’t think his argument holds any water either (hence you inventing some other undercooked reason).
What is the basis of your Bushala cult anyway? What do you get out of it?
The bollards retract to allow emergency vehicles through. Emergency vehicle egress was baked into the design plans for the WoW.
You don’t know what “retract” means, do you?
Amy, the bollards are not retractable. They don’t disappear into the street. They are individually removable, by hand. Imagine waiting for that to happen while an emergency is occurring.
I can imagine it… it’s like having an emergency inside of a building or at a park. First responders have to drive up then walk to the person in need.
But if there’s a fire they can remove the bollards, and move tables if necessary (which it probably isn’t).
Seems in the realm of normal.
Nothing about this idiotic waste of time and money is in the realm of normal.
That’s not really responsive to my point. So I’ll take that as you acknowledging the sense of it.
As to whether it’s a waste of time and money I think things would have gone back to the pre COVID status quo if that was the more popular option.
When did YOU ever respond to anybody’s point?
Most every time. Maybe you cannot tell. Not my fault.
CS w/Math minor…Makes perfect sense. Things like: syntax, chronological order/order of operations, context, and semantics mean something and matter to you.
That sounds OK for now, especially if the fire department okayed it. If it becomes an issue or concern, the bollards could be changed from manually retractable to automatially retractable. The bollard design doesn’t invalidate the benefits of the WoW in general, though.
You are still missing the point Amy, you think 30 feet will be enough room to get to an emergency? A firetruck is 25-35 feet. The firetrucks with extendable ladders are 75-100 feet.
Explain how they would be able to get to the emergency with manually bollards.
By manually removing the bollards. How long does it take?
The width corresponds with the width of the truck, not the length, so the responder vehicles will fit. Also, the minimum width complies with the specific requirements that the fire dept itself imposed on this exact stretch.
Closing the street benefits a few people. The justification for the marginal idea was Covid relief. The street was bought and paid for by everybody.
The public should decide what’s in the public interest. Bushala’s property rights don’t extend to deciding transportation policy and uses of public property.
Maybe he can claim a taking and get compensation but I really don’t see how he’s impacted by one block less of road access when businesses in the area are all easily accessed and there is a lot of public parking.
No harm, no foul. I think the guy just hates any use of public property that doesn’t personally benefit him. Entitlement is not a good look.
The City Council will decide what’s in the public interest not a handful of loudmouths who want to shine a spotlight on their dreary lives.
Or as in this case, a single litigious, selfish Grinch with money to burn buying influence and abusing the court system.
John – Like how Zahra burned through $100k in his last campaign and court system.
Yet lets point fingers at Bushala, away from Zahra’s wrong doing.
Yes let’s. Bushala is not in favor of the public good.
He was supposedly anti tax but you can’t even be that if you’re suing the city / taxpayers.
Zahra is not good for the public. Again, avoiding the wrong doing of Zahra!
Again, if you look this email was sent to STAFF only, how else would The Observer get their hands on this email unless it was not forwarded by someone on this email string. hmmm sounds like a Zahra doing.
Bushala’s done a lot more than you and the other two bloggers on this site ever have.
Litigious? Please list all the lawsuits Tony Bushala has filed against the City. And when you’re done not doing that please explain why defending your self-interest is abusing anything.
You’re not all of Whoville. You’re just a single, annoyed little Who.
Why sue the city when you can buy the council up front? And send legal nastygrams. Definitely cheaper. As to his interaction with the justice system I don’t actually know. I can see you don’t know either even being a full time Bushilla. But given his attitude in this letter I don’t doubt he uses the court system to the fullest extent possible. That’s my feeling.
As to trying to kill parks including these new parklets and better safety for cyclists… asserting your rights to the fullest extent possible when it negatively impacts others is always a choice. “Rights” versus wrongs. This is a community, not Thunderdome.
John must be an experienced small businessman because Mr. Big Brain is always commenting on everything. Nope. He’s just a consultant. California created a consultant economy and this insufferable know it all is the result.
I am sofware consultant. But it doesn’t remotely define my politics or interests. .
As far as being “insufferable” apparently not.
Good for the Bushalas. The whole street closure of West Wilshire is a ridiculous skewing of public benefit to a handful of restaurants, most of whom already had outside dining before COVID. Choosing to close off a block of the only street in the city designated as an official bike boulevard as a haphazard experiment in dining-in-the-street was just icing on the cake of idiocy so often served up to Fullerton residents.
The bike boulevard is still there. The bollards actually make it the safest portion of the bike boulevard so it’s not just diners and restaurants that are benefitting.
How do the bollards make cycling there safer? They are paced perpendicular to the directions of travel.
The bollards are just poles. They keep cars out (which is what makes it safe) but bikes can pass along the bike lanes.
I haven’t been down it yet since they replaced the barricades but that’s what it looked like to me.
I have ridden it. The asphalt “parklets” force cyclists into a center lane, often traversed by unwitting pedestrians because only a small segment of it is painted, ending abruptly at the intersection of Harbor, where the bollards block traffic from hitting diners, not cyclists, who have to emerge from between the bollards to cross Harbor. The bollards do absolutely nothing to protect cyclists.
Dude, don’t argue. As soon as the name Bushala popped up the race to the bottom was on.
Okay, I was willing to take you seriously. But if you seriously are going to say drivers aren’t safer from between the bollards you’re not taking the rest of us seriously and my courtesy ends.
Disagree and courtesy ends. Perfect summation.
Drivers? Sure. Cyclists? No. Talk to me after you’ve ridden it on a bike.
And, cars sometimes park illegally to pick up take out from the restaurants, blocking the west entrance to center bike lane that was supposed to be the solution to having previously banned bike traffic from that segment of the bike blvd. The whole thing is a fustercluck left over from a former city manager—who had his contract terminated— who unilaterally approved the street closure with no official council input during COVID.
Obviously I meant cyclists. And they’re of course safer with the bollards and paint than they were with the pre-COVID status quo. The comparison should be to neighboring streets.
I’ll go and see. But Amy’s actual experience matches up with what already makes sense to me. This area is safer than painted bike lanes on neighboring roads open to traffic. I don’t doubt that there are improvements to make to minimize the possibility of colliding with a daydreaming pedestrian.
Maybe suggest those instead of kissing up to Bushalas. Because what you’re advocating is returning to the pre-COVID status quo.
John (with no last name), I’m not kissing up to anyone and I’m not responsible for understanding your textual errors. My motives are to foster safer travel and to keep the city from wasting money. What are yours? I’ll repeat, go ride it yourself and then comment. Your second hand observations are not worth much to me.
Interruptions in established patterns of travel can be dangerous for cyclists and drivers and lead to accidents. Maintaining consistent conditions where drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians can easily anticipate the actions of one another are best for the safety of all. Closing off a block and forcing cyclists to a central lane are an interruption of the regular patterns of bicycle traffic, and can present a confusing situation for everyone. In my judgment, it isn’t worth it.
Yes, I am advocating a return to a pre-COVID status, where we had a functional street and Bicycle Blvd. in the 100 block of West Wilshire, consistent with the rest of the project.
Reasonable request denied. You have entered the Observer Zone.
I have ridden it countless times as well and haven’t had the problems you describe. It may just be a matter of personal experience, but I don’t have any problem at all getting between the bollards. Bollards are a standard feature at the entrances to bike trails and paths.
The bollards protect both diners and bicyclists. I’m not sure how they make bicyclists more vulnerable and I’m having trouble picturing the problem you describe.
The new traffic light modifications further protect bicyclists, as bicyclists now emerge fully visible from the center of the WoW. Sensors trigger the light change automatically from there, instead of having to press the light off to the side to get a crossing signal. It’s much safer than when the orange blocks were up because those obscured the view of bicyclists from drivers and caused bicyclists to have to make multiple sharp turns to enter. Instead, the bollards allow bicyclists to sail straight through. I have zero issue navigating around parklets as they do not obstruct the bike route in any way.
As for pedestrians, they do meander, but at the low speeds on the WoW, conflicts are very easily avoidable, unlike what would happen if car traffic were to be reintroduced to this area.
Speaking on the unknown!! You never been on it but know it makes it safe?! How does that make sense?!
It’s not “unknown.”
I’ve been on the WBB on a bicycle. I just haven’t been on it with the current bollards. But bicycles can pass through them.
That’s not in dispute. And it is blocked off to cars. That is not in dispute.
There’s really not much that’s in dispute, Matt would just prefer to not have pedestrians using the street for dining. I disagree with him, it’s nice and pedestrians aren’t as dangerous to cyclists as cars, so it’s a win-win. He’s wrong, but he’s entitled to his opinion.
And you Bushillas are entitled to stay puckered up.
The bollards block car traffic, making walking and cycling safer – much safer than before with the orange barriers. It’s easy to bike through between the bollards. The bollards are also retractable to allow emergency vehicles through.
How can emergency vehicles get through if there are people dining outside? There are tables outside for people to sit and dine.. That does not make any sense!!!
The space alloted for parklets allows a specific amount of space for emeegency vehicles. I think it was 30 feet, can’t remember exactly. The fire department mandated it.
Close all of Wilshire down to traffic. Bike and pedestrian access only from Lemon to Highland.
You’d still have the problem of pedestrians haphazardly crossing the bike lane. Try riding the county trail at the beach sometime.
I am not sure how that would be any different because the beach trails (and all the other bike trails in the county) are multi-use paths, shared between bikes and peds.
Ped-bike interactions aren’t really a problem in my opinion because the low speeds make it easy to anticipate and avoid conflicts.
I don’t think this is a good argument against WoW because the WoW allows safe bicyclist flow along the established bike boulevard, and bicyclists and peds would be less safe if the route were to be opened back up to cars.
Amy, how many pedestrians have you seen on the Santa Ana River trail? The Wilshire Bike Blvd. was created to allow cyclists to travel quickly on bikes laterally across town without having to use a major street. The traffic circles were added to allow cyclists to maintain speed without having to stop at intersections. Interrupting the Bike Blvd with pedestrian meandering zones defeats the purpose of the project. Close some other street for public dining.
I encounter a lot of pedestrians on both SART and the WoW. In both cases, they meander in front of bikes, and it’s fine. We just share the path.
I think the roundabouts were added not to allow bicyclists to fly through without yielding, but to improve safety by preventing T-bone collisions. They still require anyone entering the roundabout to slow down and yield.
Again, restoring car access here would make the WoW more unsafe (as cars are obviously more deadly than peds) and would slow bikes down more due to large vehicles obstructing the way and pulling in and out of parking spots. Also, it would eliminate the center travel lane for bikes and force bikes to mingle with cars in shared lanes.
I quite like it the way it is, and those 200 feet don’t slow me down at all, even considering that I share the space with peds. I perceive that a lot of people like it because I always see people dining out there and walking around. It’s nice to see people strolling about and enjoying themselves.
“how many pedestrians have you seen on the Santa Ana River trail?”
It happens. A lot. Less with the encampments cleared. But particularly adjacent to parks like Yorba Regional where you get joggers and walkers sharing the trail. And yet riders are expected to yield to pedestrians, because we go faster and pedestrians are generally clueless and in their own world.
“The Wilshire Bike Blvd. was created to allow cyclists to travel quickly on bikes”
I have been on the WBB before and during lockdown and if that’s the bar it was always a failure. It’s not comparable to the SART. It does not accommodate traveling quickly. It’s too narrow with too many cars and sharrow roads to really support that. If you take the roundabouts at speed on either a bicycle or car you’re endangering everyone and just plain doing it wrong.
“pedestrian meandering zones”
We don’t really have a choice about that anywhere. Pedestrians enter the quiet streets like Wilshire at will… to cross, to get to their vehicle, etc. Cyclists have to deal with it.
Miles better than dealing with cars and trucks.
Maybe suggest ways to get the pedestrians on that one block to better respect riders. That’s always nice. Signage, clearer demarcation of the bikeway all the way through with a single area to properly cross, etc. But removing the bollards would be a step backward in rider safety.
To add: the WoW allows for the public to enjoy public infrastructure. Restaurants lease their own parklet spaces, meaning they pay for that real estate.
Parking cars there would allow people to store their private property on a public road, for significantly less money than the land is actually worth. Instead, currently the parklets generate a lot of money for the city, in the form of sales tax revenue. Car travel without parking would cost the city money due to the cost of maintenance – road maintenance is insanely costly.
The idiotic idea to close off a public street was conceived as a make-work project for City Staff under the guise of Covid relief, and now, no doubt, enjoys rationalization under the specious rubric of “economic development.” In reality, the revenue probably wouldn’t pay for half a bureaucrat.
Supporting your position by claiming road maintenance for this couple hundred feet of paving would be “insanely expensive” is pure nonsense.
different when it’s a bike vs a car – i can go 30mph on a bike and swerve around pedestrians just fine, none of us ever in fear – but a car can’t swerve around a group of 20 pedestrians the way a bike can
I agree. Lemon to Malden at least would be great.
Earth to Amy. Earth to Amy.
Amy – is that fact or your opinion that Bushalas think their campaign contributions entitle him to control all of Fullerton.?? If it is fact then please show me proof!!
Anybody can make a legal threat. You have to be able to back it up, which Bushala won’t be able to do. He would also have to spend an arm and a leg doing it. This letter just makes him look like a petulant child, “Mommy, but MY business doesn’t benefit from this.”
Looks like St. Ahmad Zahra is also a notorious leaker!
Leak? Is this a secret? And prove it.
Anyway, do you want Bushala to be able to threaten us all in secret?
Who is Bushala threatening? Who is “us”?
The city of Fullerton. I live here so that includes me.
When the city goes to court who do you think lays out the dough?
Our tax dollars.
Like when our $60k went to the blogger who hurt Zahra’s feelings? What a waste!
Bushillas – `Zahra, Zahra, Zahra!`
This new event is about Bushalla
Jeff, it was a helluva lot more than that. The total cost was probably more like $700,000 when the total settlement and Dick Jones fees are thrown in. Funny how nobody ever heard the Zahra parrots chirping about that unnecessary waste. Bushala just wants to open up the street for everybody to use.
Yea it’s understandable but these goons are so contradicting it’s crazy!
Of course Zahra leaked it. He’s the obvious source of all the Observerites misinformation.
Bushala is looking out for his business interests. What’s wrong with that? Maybe if you natterers here had any real business interests they (you) would understand. How threatening! Scary!
“Bushala is looking out for his business interests. What’s wrong with that?”
Nothing necessarily. But every grinchy self-centered thing can be excused in that manner.
Responsible business owners take a wider view understanding that there are many stakeholders. They should be good neighbors. Not every perceived “right” needs to be pressed to the fullest extent of litigation.
And at least you’d expect a cost/benefit analysis of wasting everyone’s time litigating rights he doesn’t have.
At this point it’s mean letters. That doesn’t cost much. We’ll see where it goes (probably nowhere).
Oh, brother. The “responsible business owner” – someone who wants what you (now pretending) he wants. Are you suddenly a lawyer to opine on whop has what rights? Do you know what a taking is?
Stakeholders? Now that’s funny.
I’m not a lawyer, never claimed to be, not offering qualified legal advice or opinions. We’re all just talking. I’m a software engineer (BS in CS with Math minor). I do have an MBA and we get a little legal training in contract law, understanding of torts versus crimes. I don’t recall getting any training in torts between government and citizens or businesses so this is folk knowledge at best.
Regardless, we are taught to see a business in context of a society of many stakeholders. It’s not a joke, it’s an actual thing.
Political science will teach you exactly the same thing.
Bushala’s letter is clearly threatening legal action on the basis of a claim that the city through its actions has impaired the value of his property, or his property and other business if he’s threatening a class action. So as I understand it he’s claiming damage, on the basis of encroachment on his property due to the city reducing access to the road immediately in front of it.
Can you think of some other basis for a claim on his part for compensation than encroachment on his property (a form of taking)?
“I’m not a lawyer, never claimed to be, not offering qualified legal advice or opinions.”
Glad that’s settled.
Happy to correct you.
you people are contradict yourselves every time!! It is so sad but hilarious at the same time.
This is such a ridiculous claim as this has literally been talked about openly. There are so many ways that this information could become known. In fact, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone given what a particular business owner has been has been saying around town to anyone who will listen. All one had to do is make a public records request to ascertain the veracity of the rumor.
It’s like DC political nonsense has leaked into Fullerton.
If news is bad and embarrassing about one side, they often try to make the controversy about the leaker not the leaked information, to distract.
It only really makes sense though if disclosing the information was improper/illegal. Like with classified information.
Which this ain’t.
Entirely, John. It’s bonkers that the CouncilMajority (ESPECIALLY Bruce) doesn’t understand how PublicRecords works. Their M.O. of: distracting, blaming others, and shrugging accountability can be repeatedly found on PublicRecords.
When trying to have a discussion and their argument seizes, they resort to the CouncilMajority’s tactics.
It’s great that they feign concern for the youth; but the CouncilMajority perpetually ignores the youth that come to speak; and if :their: kids behaved the way :they: do, I’m certain they’d find it UNacceptable.
Then when the Public speaks up about it, they boohoo and bellyache that it’s not fair what they have to endure. Pobrecitos…
You have the nerve to use the word boohoo? That’s: hilarious. You should do stand up.
Hey, Ben. Knot 2 brite are you? This email deliberately included Zahra because its sender knew he would leak it! Good God you folks are slow.
It’s bright, and I think you are talking about yourself (brite—to become overripe). And yes, I am bright enough to see with my own eyes that Bush’s email includes every single council member—which you seem to conveniently overlook—and 500 other people. Any one of these people could have “leaked” such an email. Could have been leaked by Bush himself. Could have been leaked by Jung to try to pin it on Zahra. Coulda, coulda, coulda. You can go down a million unverified rabbit holes. This email was also sent a month ago, in November. As I already said, a rumor was already circulating around town, purportedly perpetuated by none other than Bush himself. It wasn’t a secret. All you need to do is submit a public record request and because everyone and their brother in the city was Cc’d on this email you easily obtain confirmation. Good goddesses wise up.
Bravo :clap, clap: Rather than cherry-pick “proof” and take it fully out of context, to support the CouncilMajority’s nonsense, you properly parse pertinent information. Gives me more confidence in the moniker, “City of Education.”
Ben Oh Ben! You obviously do not know the history of Zahra and The observer!! Try to keep up!!
you could CPRA these emails, yknow…
Seriously? The rhetoric from everyone here is pretty intolerant. It might be of value for everyone to think through why you believe what you believe. There are weak points to all of your arguments so all of you may be right and wrong. It doesn’t help the discourse that the Observer has become clearly editorially influenced in some stories. I don’t know what it says about Fullerton, but a story about some guy named Tony Bushala should not be getting nearly 100 comments in one day.
” story about some guy named Tony Bushala should not be getting nearly 100 comments in one day.”
And yet there is. Maybe there’s a reason.
It’s becoming an Ahab-like obsession.
He sometimes does things that anger a lot of people and that threaten beloved community resources. He also has an outsized influence on city council. That is why he attracts so much attention and causes so much outrage.
Beloved? Like what? A useless Trail to Nowhere and an outdoor dining court in a public street? Heaven forfend!!
Calling a class 1 bike trail a “trail to nowhere” is a framing lie.
Unless it runs in a circle or heads to a place with no connecting trails or roads it’s simply a lie.
It really is a trail to no where because it looks like the trail is not happening!!
What do other business owners on Wilshire say? Are there comps between their revenues pre-closure and now?
This is an excellent point, probably the most relevant point. Would be interesting to know, barring confounding factors.
Well that begs the question of how easily you are confounded. Looks pretty easy to do.
Open it back up.
They are closing public roads so people can dine out?
“They are closing public roads so people can dine out?”
One, and the world continued to rotate, and the sun continued to both rise and set.
Yes and the world rotated happily for 100 years when the street was open to the people who paid for it.
It still is open to the people who paid for it.
No it isn’t.
Yes, it is. You can walk there, roll there, jog there, skip there if you want. Just because you can’t drive on a tiny segment of Wilshire doesn’t mean it isn’t open. The segment is open for public use, just not to cars and trucks.
Maybe you could take the hint your community is making to you and try some other way. Or just use a street that runs parallel if that’s a bridge too far for you.
It’s closed to traffic, ergo it isn’t open to the vast majority of people who paid/pay for it.
You might want to look up “ergo” then.
No need. I know what it means. And I know cogito ergo sum doesn’t apply to you.
They closed a 200-ft stretch of road to cars. It is still open to bicyclists and pedestrians. Now it’s more of a plaza. It is a small but very nice area, and peaceful to dine in.
I went down to Santa Ana recently, and it was beautiful – because some of the roads (especially Santa Ana Blvd.) were closed off due to OC Streetcar construction, the city was safe and walkable. Nowhere else in OC have I felt that comfort (I haven’t gone to WoW yet). Having more bike-and-pedestrian-only areas helps fight back against car culture, makes everyone safer, and makes for a better city. Let’s keep things like this coming…
And as for the legal side of this, this claim would fall under rational basis review, which the City Council would likely be able to survive… and if they really want to hedge their bets, they could just make this part of a program to close off more Fullerton streets to promote cycling/walking, pedestrian safety, and crack down on car culture. Doubt that’ll pass anyone on the current Council, but…
I totally agree. It’s hard to appreciate how great ped/bike-safe areas are until you’ve been there and felt them. Pasadena is a joy to walk around in. Downtown Fullerton could be so much better.
This is the way of the future, and the longer the city of Fullerton, and this Council majority in particular, pushes back against safer and more pleasant ped/bike infra, the more we will be left behind as the cities around us progress.
DTF. We had to kill it to make it safe for bicyclists. You Amies carry a real one-two punch of nonsense.
Crack down on car culture. What a odd perspective. Vapid commentary is generally directed at cracking down on crime. How interesting, Amy #2.
Yes yes and yes. Thank you, Amy. The big problem with feeling the benefits of planing for bike/ped(estrian) planning is that it happens in little bits. They got bike share to set up a few years ago and guess what? No one used them. Haters say “see, no one wants to ride bikes in fullerton”. The real reason is that no one wanted to die: you can’t implement a bike share program when there is no bicycle infrastructure! Towns all over the country are kicking cars off certain streets- see the one in Lancaster?- and amazing things happen to business and happiness- they all thrive. It’s been proven over and over that closing to cars and making towns bike and ped safe boost the local economy in a huge way! I think people need to realize that the insane number of bars and mess that happens downtown is why people don’t go there. If there were safe bike routes and no barf on the streets more restaurants would survive- even flourish!!
As a business owner in the area, the street closure has caused significant damage. I’m also not the only business owner in the area that wants to see it open. Without their permission to name them publicly, I know of 6 other businesses that want the street open.
Mike, you’ve come to the wrong place. Here you vent your grievances against Mr. Tony Bushala, evil scourge of Fullerton.
Damage… what kind of damage?
“In the area”… sounds like something you should expand on too.
Business in the area is down dramatically. Think of Wilshire like an arm or a leg, if you cut off circulation, what happens to that arm or leg? It dies. I am not alone, many other businesses in the area are feeling the same pain.
“Business in the area is down dramatically. ”
OK. Say that’s true, it could be for other reasons. Why do you zero in on WoW?
“Think of Wilshire like an arm or a leg, if you cut off circulation, what happens to that arm or leg?”
I understand your analogy.
But there are parallel streets (including the rest of Wilshire) and plenty of public parking… why do you say that circulation is cut off when it doesn’t seem like it would be?
The WoW effectively repurposes that area as a small plaza which seems completely accessible to cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. It is not obvious to me how it could be creating a problem.
Are you going to tell the fire department when they are trying to get to an emergency “hey there are parallel streets and plenty of public parking”?
Didn’t think so!
First, your point is kind of off-topic to Mike’s post and so, poor netiquette.
Second, actually, yes, for a health emergency on WoW, emergency workers absolutely can access WoW from parallel streets. Park and walk up, just like if an emergency happened in a mall or a park.
For access to store fronts on WoW in case of a fire, they are well aware of and would expeditiously remove the bollards to enter.
As far as simply routing around it to get somewhere else, they are aware of it and there’s no actual problem there either.
You act like this is a issue, and I don’t agree that it is. FPD was kept in the loop in the planning process. Had that not been the case, it would be a reasonable concern. But they were, so it isn’t…
you’ve been told but you keep bringing it up.
It is not accessible to cars. The street is CLOSED and gives the impression the whole street is CLOSED.
There are no amenities there to attract people to the area. When you look at it on any given day, it is EMPTY. There is nothing going on there. Even the restaurants that have parklets don’t have people there the majority of the time.
My solution is to let the restaurants keep their parklets as they don’t enter any traffic lane, and open the street back up like how Pasadena, Brea, Long Beach, San Diego, and Los Angeles have done.
Everyone wins.
I don’t agree with any of that… but i am interested in what and where your business is and how you feel WoW as if currently is directly affects you.
John, I’d like to suggest you go to WoW and hang out for a few days and count the number of people that actually go to WoW because it’s there. Not just cross the street, walk through, or ride their bike through. Tell me how many people go there just to be there. It’s not the Piazza San Marco. If it was bringing hundreds of people to the area everyday, I’d be thrilled, but it brings zero.
Mike- I agree with you. I have walked during the day and on weekends.. even the people that are doing nightlife are not in “WoW” area to just be there to hang out or party.
John- You had even said you haven’t been in that WoW area! So honestly your opinion is invalid!!
It’s not my fault you cannot follow a conversation Jeff. I was very clear that I have been to WoW, ridden to and through there, dined there, rode there, during COVID. And ridden through with the roundabouts before COVID.
I just haven’t ridden through with the current painted green cycling lanes and the current bollards.
I’ve been there and I’ve seen it’s plenty lively when I’ve gone. And apparently there are enough people that the concern has been raised of pedestrians meandering into the cycling lanes.
@Mike ok, I’ve been there. Without numbers as to visitors and the experience of businesses in WoW neither of us is going to convince the other. I was more interested in your comments about impacts on your business but maybe there aren’t any and I was confused.
Stick with confused.
I go to WoW almost everyday and I see just as much business there as before the pandemic. Businesses have been slowly recovering and many are still suffering. There are so many factors that go into getting the patrons to love you. The ads, the socials, the word of mouth, etc can tilt in your favor or not.
According to Experian, “Around 4% of new businesses have ceased trading by the end of the first year of operations, the analysis found. But the failure rate rises significantly to more than a third (34%) by the end of the second and to half (50%) within just three years of opening.” It is not easy to follow a dream. I have had a few businesses, so I know that it is a science of sorts.
Kennedy, that’s a good argument for giving ALL businesses in the 100 W block of Wilshire Ave. the same official City seal of love, and an equal playing field?
BTW, what sort of businesses have you had? Sort of curious.
The street closure has now stopped a lot of circulation that helped keep the area alive. Everyday that I’m there, I see an empty street, empty tables, and nothing that attracts customers to the businesses that aren’t right there on WoW. The closed street is a deterrent stopping our customers from accessing our businesses.
My suggested compromise would solve that problem and no one loses anything.
Everyone can keep their parklets, sidewalk dining, the street gets reopened, problem solved.
Everyone wins
WOW doesn’t stop circulation. Congestion stops circulation and the area isn’t congested.
I don’t see how what you are saying or proposing makes any sense at all.
I can follow a conversation just fine.. I think it’s you that cannot follow what the real issue is… WoW should be open and not closed to have empty table and chairs!
I’m curious, what did the Bushalas have to say about a potential lawsuit when the Observer contacted them for this story?
When WoW first started it was great fun going downtown with the outdoor dining. and it drew a lot of people. Then the ugly orange barriers went up and the city started charging businesses for use of the public space. That put a damper on the area as only a few businesses joined in. Now there is an effort to make the area better looking which is good. Some cities, like Costa Mesa (around the museum), have made such attractions a feature with permanent outdoor tables, benches, and shade structures provided by the city. The public space not only benefits the surrounding businesses but also draws the community to the area. In Fullerton, I would be jealous if I had a business on a different street without that feature. Maybe we should shut down the first block of all streets off Harbor in downtown so all businesses could benefit from a pleasant walking/outdoor dining area.
“…the city started charging businesses for use of the public space. That put a damper on the area as only a few businesses joined in,” because most weren’t interested in the first place? At least, not if they actually have to pay to use the public street? These businesses already had outdoor dining, courtesy of the public sidewalk or their own outdoor spaces, prior to the pandemic. How about we just open a restaurant in the Museum Center and use the adjacent underutilized plaza for outdoor dining instead of closing down a public street (that hosts the only outdoor bike blvd. in the city)?
The bike boulevard is fully open. I would like the green path painted all the way through.
I think it would be great if additional parts of the bike blvd could be car free but it’s impossible in the neighborhoods. You take what you can get.
John, “…if you build it, they will come.” We are SEVERELY lacking: Bicycle infrastructure. ESPECIALLY in the “City of Education.” This CouncilMajority likes to bellyache that “no one uses the bike paths,” and use that nonsense as justification to shelf BicycleInfrastructure planning/development.
But I’d argue that, rather, it’s because there is NO infrastructure to support bike riders. Bicyclists WANT safety and quite frankly, it’s absurd that we DON’T even provide safety to the students/kids…I repeat, in the “City of Education.” :face_palm:
John, I strongly agree that the green paint needs to be extended the entire length of the lane on that block in order to alert pedestrians/diners to its presence. Enough complaints got the lane installed in the first place, so maybe if enough of us speak out we can get it painted.