Put your money where your mouth is. If you want to save the bowling alley, then buy it and do what you want with it. A tax payer bailout is unfair to programs that really need the money, like public schools.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Interesting

As for the first comment, an argument we've all heard before ... and all I can say is ... 1487 supporters in two months and growing every day can't be wrong. :)

The signers of the petition ought to be prepared to be rejected. I have witnessed several petitions being presented to the City Council, and then I've seen the City Council ignore them.

This property has already been sold to a developer. The petition would have been more appropriate had the signatures been collected and presented to Council BEFORE the sale of the property to the developer of the hotel.

Right now the developer is investing a lot of money in architectural drawings for the site and the City nearly always supports developers particularly when money has already been invested. It is the developer's site, the balls in his Court.

Daniel

You have hit the local headlines and made yourself heard. That is a great way to go. Good Luck.

Thanks, people. I am kinda dissapointed that the final story doesn't have most of my interviewed comments, but hey, that's newspapers ... only so much space is allowed.

And PJ, the status quo must change; that is the main underlying point here :)

1500 people can't be wrong.

What makes the Palo Alto Bowl a "landmark"?? Is it historic (not by Palo Alto standards, since everything is historic here according to some, but by real historic standards).
Does the property owner have any rights? Can he do what he wishes with his property since he got the go ahead from the city?
Why didn't the people that were opposed to this speak up earlier? Why didn't they try to buy the property?
Sounds to me like these people want to control the property without any financial risk on their part

Sounds like another Alma Plaza brewing here, in which case the developer will ultimately win. I wonder if this Mountain View resident is prepared to file a law suite like the neighbors of Edgewood Plaza?

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"No comment ... once again, don't reply if you don't support us; you're in the vast minority, and this debate is useless. If nobody every attempted to alter the status quo and mindsets, where would we be today?"

Seems to me that Mr Mart needs a lesson in democracy--why should people who only support your point of view be allowed to post on a forum? Is this the policy of Town Square--I doubt it--sounds to me like Mr Mart has trouble with opinions that differ from his own.

Are private property rights now decided by a majority vote now? That what it sounds like Mr Mart is proposing and where does he get his numbers for claiming that those that do not support him are in the vast minority.

I don't wanna debate ... if you don't support the cause, don't get involved. I'm not down with forcing anybody to support anything.

Palo Alto Bowl has been sold. The developer already has complex architectural drawings. And there is nothing historic about a run down bowling alley.

I still enjoy going to PA Bowl too--but this latch ditch effort is far too late. Start looking for vacant properties to purchase instead.

Ummm ... no?

lol .. I dunno what else to say ... same argument by naysayers .. again, for the tenth time, if you don't agree with the cause, if you go to the FB page and still don't see why this place is historic, don't support us. All there is to it.

There are 2 separate threads on this issue....? So here are my comments from the other one:

#1.
Consider organizing to save Casa Olga, which involves disadvantaged lives, instead of the Bowling Alley.

AND...#2.
Consider this: The bowling alley wasn't making a decent profit, despite its loyal but limited clientele and lots of memories among citizens who actually did NOT bowl regularly anymore. I bowled there and have wonderful memories too.

However...the owner could not operate at a loss out of nostalgia and probably could not afford the millions (yes--million$, folks) to relocate or build a new smaller bowling alley elsewhere in Palo Alto.

Nevertheless, he could retire on the incredible profits from a sale. So he decided to close his unprofitable business and sell his property. (Or if he rented, just substitute "unable to pay his rent." Is the property owner required to subsidize him with a below-market rent?)

A bowling alley on El Camino was simply not feasible anymore. End of story.

As for the developer....he is not spending millions in a vacuum. The zoning plan supports his project and he -- and the bank who is financing the project -- did some marketing analysis to see if redevelopment was feasible.

The community's role is to ensure that the design and density are not outrageous and do not have a deleterious effect. Palo Alto: go for the increased traffic on El Camino argument.

What's the extent? I mean, if these man-made rules were to be followed by the letter for all landmarks, would it be perfectly alright to just tear down the Creamery, Stanford Theatre, the 100+ year-old brick building in Downtown, and the Aquarius? So much has been destroyed over the years ... what ever happened to a real sense of community? Of character?

The status quo has to change ... for the good of ourselves, our communities, and ultimately, of society.

Save Casa Olga