282 petitions

Update posted 6 days ago

Petition to Ted Wheeler, Amanda Fritz, Nick Fish, Dan Saltzman, Chloe Eudaly, Tom Hughes, Shirley Craddick, Betty Dominguez, Craig Dirksen, Kathryn Harrington, Sam Chase, Bob Stacey

Save the Washington Park and Zoo Railway.

In 1958 the Washington Park and Zoo Railway was born and a regional treasure opened to the public.  I need your help because the Oregon Zoo, a service of Metro, and the City of Portland have decided to destroy this regional treasure and the magic of the Washington Park and Zoo Railway.  In the Washington Park Master Plan they've decided to ignore 60 years of history and countless comments to repair the Washington Park and Zoo Railway by turning it into a café and 12' paved "multi-use" path. As many of you know, in 2013, the main Washington Park route was damaged.  It went from a magical 30 minute ride through the forest to the Rose Garden and back to a sad 6 minute ride that goes straight out, around a trestle, and back.  Over the years hundreds of comment cards have been turned in with complaints asking Oregon Zoo to fix the full route.  Community members continued their outcry to save the Washington Park and Zoo Railway on March 15th, 2018 during City of Portland public testimony, where they overwhelming disapproved with the City's plan to destroy the rail in favor of a 12' paved path.  The community wants the full route repaired so their children and grandchildren can experience the magic they remember from their childhood when they rode the Washington Park and Zoo Railway.  What we have now is a disappointment that does not inspire the hearts and memories of children but instead breaks the hearts of the parents and grandparents who desired a unique opportunity to a shared treasured experience with a different generation. I can tell you with 100% conviction that if the City of Portland and Metro had worked with the staff of the Oregon Zoo, they could have easily raised the money and fixed the full route years ago by simply asking patrons to donate what they could towards the cause.  I can tell you with 100% conviction that if the City of Portland and Metro asked the community to fundraise the money, the community would fund raise the money.  I myself on March 15th, 2018, gave public testimony to the City of Portland Council that I'd be willing to start a Non-profit and do the fundraising for them.  It went ignored but that offer still stands. If you're interested in saving the regional treasure that is the Washington Park and Zoo Railway, please sign this petition, "like" our Facebook Page, and share both far and wide.  A treasure is about to be destroyed but we can still save it.   

Dana Carstensen
24,953 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to California Governor, California State Senate, California State House

NAME IT THE EMPEROR NORTON BRIDGE (Preserve Existing Names — Just Add This One)

NOTEThis petition about the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge does not call for a wholesale re-naming of this bridge system for Emperor Norton. Rather, it highlights a naming solution that simply would add a name like "Emperor Norton Bridge" for the system, which Emperor Norton decreed in 1872. In this scenario, the existing names and signage for the system and its constituent parts ("spans," tunnel, pedestrian/bike path, etc.) would remain in place. The "Emperor Norton" name could be memorialized with a single prominent overhead sign on either end of the bridge and perhaps other such signs at a handful of key bridge approaches around the Bay Area. This solution is consistent with the State of California's precedent and current practice of giving multiple names to certain state-owned bridges. : :    : :    : : August 2013Updated September 2013 to reflect actions by the California State Legislature "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge." It's a name straight out of bureaucratic central casting. A clunky, hyphenated mouthful of a moniker that tries to please everyone — but winds up pleasing few. It's little wonder that, as soon as the bridge opened in 1936, local residents cropped the name down to the handier "Bay Bridge." Still a fundamentally technical, descriptive name that lacks poetry — but two syllables are better than eight. After 80-plus years, though, the original name has earned its place. "The Bay Bridge" is here to stay. And yet... For generations, the Bay Bridge has had a second name — a parallel name, if you like. This second name — which some consider to be the bridge's real name — never has graced any official highway sign. But it lives in the hearts of many.  It's time for the bridge's historical name to share the marquee with a name that has a history of its own. A name that speaks to a deeper history. A name that finally honors the bridge's original 19th-century visionary.   In short: It's time to make the alias official — time for the State of California to add an honorary name for the Bay Area's "workhorse" bridge and, in so doing, to recognize that, before the first survey for the structure was begun in the early 1920s, this bridge was, and shall remain... The Emperor Norton Bridge.  The San Francisco pioneer, Joshua Abraham Norton (c.1818–1880) — the self-styled "Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" — was considered eccentric, and so he was. Some considered him certifiable. But Emperor Norton also was a visionary. He was: an adversary of corruption and fraud of all kinds — political, corporate and personal; a persistent voice for fair treatment and greater legal protections for marginalized and immigrant communities — including Chinese, African-Americans, Native Americans and women; a champion of religious unity who saw the dangers of religious puritanism and sectarianism — and advocated against it; an advocate for fair labor practices; a defender of the people's right to fair taxes and basic services, including well-maintained streets, streetcars, trains and ferries; an exponent of technological innovations that advanced the public welfare; and a general ambassador of his adopted city, who embodied and heralded the values of tolerance and the common good that came to be identified with San Francisco, Oakland and the Bay Area. In January 1872, Emperor Norton issued a proclamation that declared, in part: "Whereas, we observe that certain newspapers are agitating the project of bridging the Bay; and whereas, we are desirous of connecting the cities of San Francisco and Oakland by such means; now, therefore, we, Norton I, Dei gratia Emperor, do hereby...order that the bridge be built from Oakland Point to Telegraph Hill, via Goat Island [now Yerba Buena Island]." In a second proclamation, in March 1872, the Emperor specified that the bridge should be a suspension bridge [emphasis added]: "The following is decreed and ordered to be carried into execution as soon as convenient: That a suspension bridge be built from Oakland Point to Goat Island [now Yerba Buena Island], and then to Telegraph Hill; provided such bridge can be built without injury to the navigable waters of the Bay of San Francisco." He repeated this decree with a third proclamation, in September 1872 "ordering the citizens of San Francisco and Oakland to appropriate funds for the survey of a suspension bridge from Oakland Point via Goat Island; also for a tunnel...." [See the Resources section below for a link to view all three proclamations, as they originally appeared in The Pacific Appeal newspaper. In adding, for consideration, the possibility of a cross-Bay tunnel — something he originally had called for in a separate proclamation in June 1872 — Emperor Norton anticipated by more than a century the 1974 opening of the Transbay Tube, which carries four of the five lines of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system under the Bay.] : :    : :    : : In essence, the Emperor's vision for a cross-Bay bridge came to pass in 1936, with the opening of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. In fact, the "bridge" is a bridge system composed of two bridges "hinged" by a tunnel. The monumental Western crossing, or "span," connecting San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island, is a suspension bridge, as the Emperor specified. The original Eastern crossing, connecting the island to Oakland, was built as a more conventional (at the time of its construction) cantilever-and-truss bridge. The new Eastern crossing that opened in early September 2013 is a different kind of suspension bridge than the Western crossing. But, in its way, the new crossing brings to full flower Emperor Norton's original vision of 1872, and makes it an especially appropriate time to finally name the entire Bay Bridge for him.BUT, WAIT, DIDN'T HALF THE BAY BRIDGE RECENTLY GET NAMED FOR WILLIE BROWN?!!Well, yes and no. It's true that, on 12 September 2013 — following an earlier 68-0-10 vote by the California State Assembly — the California State Senate, on a 26-7-6 vote, passed a non-binding resolution (Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 65,  or ACR 65) to designate the Western crossing of the Bay Bridge — the "San Francisco side" — as the "Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge," for the former California Assembly Speaker and former San Francisco mayor. But the state continues to recognize "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" as the name of the entire bridge system. Indeed, the 2016 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California — the most recent edition of the authoritative listing produced regularly by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (see Resources, below) — has separate and independent listings for both the "Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge" (p.149) and the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" (p.171) The former is listed with a citation for ACR 65; the latter is listed as "Not Officially Named." In other words: For naming purposes, the State of California places these two things — (1) the constituent "spans" of the Bay Bridge and (2) the bridge as a whole — on two separate planes. Which means that the naming of the Western crossing of the Bay Bridge for Willie Brown and the naming of the entire Bay Bridge system for Emperor Norton is not an either-or proposition — it can be both-and. Put another way... In effect, the Willie Brown name now functions as one "subtitle" of the larger landmark. And a future naming of the Eastern crossing would be a second subtitle. But the main title of the landmark — "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" — remains. Addressing this main title is the opportunity and the imperative highlighted in this petition to name the Bay Bridge for Emperor Norton. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A WHOLESALE RE-NAMING OF THE BAY BRIDGE FOR EMPEROR NORTON? Not necessarily. Today, the state of California has at least 30 bridges that have two or more "main titles." Some two-thirds of these bridges have had their additional name(s) authorized by the state legislature 20 to 60 years after the bridge's original name had been in use (see Resources, below).  A number of these multi-named bridges are multi-bridge systems in which — as is being proposed here — the legislature has given component bridges their own names and has given the larger bridge system more than one name. Following these precedents and practices, it should be possible to simply add an official "Emperor Norton" name — say, "Emperor Norton Bridge" — to stand alongside the "Bay Bridge" name. The "Emperor Norton" name could be memorialized with a single prominent overhead highway sign on either end of the bridge and perhaps other such signs at a handful of key bridge approaches around the Bay Area. In this scenario, the existing names for the bridge and its constituent parts, together with all existing highway signs for these names, would be left in place.  A BAY AREA EMPEROR WITH A BAY AREA VISION It's been widely recognized, since the opening of the Bay Bridge system in 1936, that the entire system — both Western and Eastern crossings, connected in the middle by Yerba Buena Tunnel — is a remarkable feat of architecture and engineering. But it's not solely Emperor Norton's 1872 calls for the technological achievement of a Bay-spanning bridge connecting San Francisco with Oakland that warrants the Bay Bridge system's bearing his name. What must be kept firmly in mind is that, in calling for a cross-Bay bridge, Emperor Norton also was planting the seed of inspiration that would enable those after him to water and reap the deeper possibility of what such a bridge could do — namely, to nurture the two-way commerce of goods, ideas and influence between people on both sides of the Bay. From this perspective, the Emperor can be seen as an early, if unwitting, visionary of the whole idea of a local "regional economy." Indeed, whatever the Emperor's specific intentions in calling for a cross-Bay bridge 140-plus years ago, it seems undeniable that a major result of the Bay Bridge system has been to facilitate and nurture such an economy, to the benefit of people on both sides — and that, without a bridge system connecting San Francisco and Oakland, we would not mean the same thing by "Bay Area" as we do today. To be sure, Emperor Norton often is identified as a San Francisco figure. But, the truth is that the Emperor actually spent quite a bit of time and was well-known in the East Bay, making weekly ferry visits to Brooklyn, Calif. — present-day East Oakland, which he is said to have considered his "summer capital" — and to Berkeley, where, at the new University of California, he was warmly received by students; attended (and occasionally gave) public lectures; and routinely reviewed cadets. The Oakland Tribune published Proclamations from Emperor Norton and reported on his participation in meetings of the Oakland City Council and the Alameda Board of Supervisors. Indeed, in a February 1875 editorial, the Tribune wrote approvingly of the Emperor as a political buffer — a kind of mayoral "figurehead...who can reside on both sides of the bay at once, and who would have no insignia of office to procure in case he were elected." It was in May 1872, while staying in Brooklyn — soon to be annexed to Oakland — that the Emperor issued one of his most significant decrees, calling for "the cities of Oakland and San Francisco to make an appropriation for paying the expense of a survey to determine the practicability of a tunnel under water; and if found practicable, that said tunnel be forthwith built for a railroad communication." An early forecast of the Transbay Tube. ::   ::   :: Emperor Norton's prescient proclamations calling for both a bridge and a tunnel across the Bay have blossomed, in the hearts and minds of succeeding generations of Bay Area visionaries, into a profound recognition that Oakland needs San Francisco — and that San Francisco needs Oakland. In particular, the century-and-a-half-old vision for a bay-spanning suspension bridge that unites the people of San Francisco, Oakland and the East Bay via Yerba Buena Island — a vision that has shaped the lives of generations of the area's residents and visitors, and that has been advanced further than ever before with the opening of the new Eastern crossing as a suspension structure... It is Emperor Norton who set out and popularized this vision. In recognition of this — and whatever name(s) might be given to the components of the bridge, i.e., the West Bay Crossing, the East Bay Crossing and Yerba Buena Tunnel...  This petition calls on the State of California to authorize and recognize a second name for the bridge system as a whole — the larger entity known as the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge." Name it the Emperor Norton Bridge. JOHN LUMEASan :    : :    : :To learn much more about this project, visit :   : :   : :This petition is the impetus for a nonprofit launched in September 2013: THE EMPEROR'S BRIDGE CAMPAIGN Web site — http://www.EmperorsBridge.orgFacebook — — :    : :    : :Resources Media coverage of this petitionWALL STREET JOURNAL — — — & & SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN — & FRANCISCO CHRONICLE — & — ANGELES TIMES — SQUID — JOSE MERCURY NEWS (and others) — & DAY SACRAMENTO (local CBS morning show) — ZAWINSKI (Mozilla and Netscape co-founder) — & THE RAW STORY — LOCAL — Emperor Norton's 1872 "Bridge" Proclamations (as originally published)6 January 1872 — March 1872 — September 1872 — Articles on Emperor Norton Short Documentary Film on Emperor Norton Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California (2016) California State Bridges With Multiple Names State Transportation Committee Policies onMeasures Naming Highways or StructuresSenate — (direct download)Assembly — Text of Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 65("Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge") Analysis of ACR 65 by the State of California's nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel

John Lumea
5,957 supporters
Started 2 weeks ago

Petition to Senator Leone

Let New Haven’s Tweed Airport Have More Flights

People across the New Haven region are coming together to demand that the Connecticut State Legislature allow New Haven's Tweed Airport to lengthen its runway.  This move would create 7 more flights per day at the airport, giving New Haven nonstop access to destinations like Chicago, D.C., and Florida.  Expanding the runway at New Haven's Tweed Airport would make it cheaper and easier for people in the New Haven area to fly, and would add 300 jobs and $32 million to the region’s economy. Join us in demanding State Senator Carlo Leone - Chair of the Connecticut Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee - to introduce legislation this January that allows New Haven’s Tweed Airport to expand its runway. *Scroll down for more background information on the issue.* Co-Authors: Anthony Allen Harriet Friedman Sarah Fritchey Andrew Giering Margaret Kellogg Ivan Lima-Bravo Dan McLeggon Lauren Pittman Michael Rady Michelle Lee Rodriguez Ethan Rodriguez-Torrent Thomasive Shaw David Valentino Devon White   Further Background on the Issue: There are only 2 commercial flights that depart from New Haven’s Tweed Airport each day, and both go to Philadelphia. There’s demand for many more flights than this, reaching places like Chicago, D.C., and Florida. Four million travelers live closer to Tweed than any other airport, but have to drive to Hartford, New York, or New Jersey to catch a flight. Expanding Tweed’s runway by 1,000 feet would allow more types of planes to take off from Tweed, and would bring more destinations within our reach. State law needs to be changed to allow Tweed Airport to lengthen its runway. Join us in demanding State Senator Carlo Leone - Chair of the Connecticut Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee - to introduce legislation this January that allows New Haven’s Tweed Airport to expand its runway. Lengthening Tweed’s runway would be a huge stimulus and job-creator for the city. At its current size, the airport supports 500 jobs and $55 million in the Greater New Haven area. The expansion would likely add another 300 jobs and $32 million to the region’s economy. This is no small change. If New Haven had those millions at the start of this year, the widely-abhorred property tax increase it levied would likely have been lower, and less burdensome for homeowners. Moreover, many of the jobs created by a Tweed runway expansion - plane machinists, pilots, baggage carriers - would be airport jobs, which pay decent, middle-class salaries. New York’s area airports have the highest minimum wage in the country: $19 per hour. The base rate for airport workers in a smaller city, Seatac, Washington, is $15 an hour. The airport expansion would spur growth in other New Haven industries as well, such as healthcare, technology, education, and the arts. A New Haven that’s just 90 minutes from Chicago and D.C., and only a few hours from Orlando, would be able to better compete for top talent and investments. A runway expansion would occur entirely within the airport’s current footprint, so the project would not eliminate any New Haven green space. Of the 100+ environmental groups in Connecticut, not one opposes the proposal. An expanded Tweed would make air travel more accessible to New Haveners who don’t have the money or time to reach faraway airports. Those without the funds to pay for a ride to Bradley or LaGuardia, or who can’t leave work early enough to catch a 7pm flight out of JFK, are often stymied from visiting family, attending a funeral, or competing in a weekend sports event. A local airport - with routes to multiple hubs - would make air travel less expensive and time-consuming for many New Haven area residents. Given the many benefits a more active Tweed would have for New Haven, it makes sense that the plan to lengthen the runway has widespread support. New Haven Mayor Harp, Hamden Mayor Leng, West Haven Mayor Heller, and leaders of 8 other neighboring towns voted for a regional council of governments resolution in support of expanding the Tweed runway. The Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce endorsed the plan. Dwight neighborhood Alder Frank Douglass delivered an impassioned plea advocating for the runway expansion earlier this year, and soon afterward a majority of the New Haven Board of Alders voted in favor of a resolution advancing the initiative. Governor-Elect Lamont approves the proposal. And according to New Haven State Representative Roland Lemar, 80 percent of residents within the airport’s vicinity support the expansion of the runway.   Moreover, a quick look at the history of flights at Tweed Airport reveals that we have the capacity to host more flights.  In the mid-90s, before most commercial planes started to require slightly longer runways, New Haven's Tweed Airport served 130,000 passengers annually.  That's over 3 times the number of passengers that currently use the airport. Regardless of the fact that an expanded runway would only be bringing Tweed Airport back to its earlier usage levels, the city has taken steps to ameliorate potential impacts that a runway expansion could have for nearby residents.  As part of “The Good Neighbor Program,” the city is in the process of spending $5 million on installing central air conditioning, heating, and soundproofed doors and windows in over 180 East Shore homes. These upgrades cost $35,000 to $40,000 per house and cut back on noise from incoming and outgoing planes. One East Shore resident was stunned by how silent the upgrades made her home. Kim Makres told Fox 61, "I wasn't able to hear the 6 AM flight, which I usually hear every morning over coffee." Expanding Tweed holds enormous promise for New Haven’s future. A longer runway would mean more flights to places like Chicago, D.C., and Florida, and would bring good-paying jobs to the Elm City. A strong, experienced educator from out-of-state would more likely apply for a teaching position in a city with a reliable airport than one without. Greater access to flights would break down barriers for New Haven public school students to participate in science fairs, athletic tournaments, and Model Congress simulations in cities across the country. Senator Leone: it is time to let New Haven have the 21st-century airport it deserves. Residents support it. Businesses support it. City leaders support it. Now, we ask you to support it. Sign now to demand that State Senator Leone introduce legislation in the State Transportation Committee this January to let Tweed expand its runway.  

New Haveners for More Flights at Tweed
69 supporters
Started 2 weeks ago

Petition to Jurupa Valley City Council members, Brian Berkson, Micheal Goodland, Anthony Kelly, Jr., Lorena Barajas, Chris Barajas

Stop the Jurupa Valley Truck Stop

The town I live in has some of the worst asthma and pollution-related health issues in the country and our city will make the situation even worse if they approve a proposed truck stop. My name is Dania, and I live in Jurupa Valley, California. I attend school next to a road which sees over 800 trucks pass every hour, and our community suffers serious health effects because of it. The Mira Loma community in the city of Jurupa Valley has been fighting against the industrialization of their neighborhoods for years. A once rural-agricultural community has been overrun with warehouses and diesel trucks that pollute the air and lungs of residents and create excess traffic and increasing commute times. Join us in demanding that the Jurupa Valley City Council stop this truck stop before it does more damage to our lungs and our community. On October 24, 2018, the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission voted to approve the “Pilot Flying J Travel Center”, an 11-acre truck stop proposal located less than a mile from the local high school and Mira Loma Village, a community of 101 homes. The proposal was appealed and will now be reviewed by the Jurupa Valley City Council for a final decision. The approval of the truck stop would further increase the diesel particulate pollution in a region that is already overburdened by ozone and PM 2.5 pollution, as well as add additional vehicles to an already over-congested road. Residents and students have shared their stories of asthma, double-lung transplants, and other health issues that they believe is the effect of living next to a road that sees over 800 trucks every hour. The ability to live, work, play, and go to school in healthy, toxic-free communities is made possible by just and equitable planning decisions that prioritize community health over corporate wealth. If the truck stop is approved at the city council meeting 7pm on December 20, 2018 at the Jurupa Valley City Hall, the fate of the health of our community is sealed. It will be obvious that our elected officials do not care about the health and safety of our residents and students. Please add your name to let the Jurupa Valley City Council know that you DO NOT support the “Pilot Flying J Travel Center” proposal so close to schools and homes.

Dania DeRamon
738 supporters