Fremont News of the Day

fremont_news_linkFrom the cops:

Cops tracked down a man Friday they say used a knife to carjacd a man at 9:24 a.m. at SBC Liquors in Fremont. The cops located the stolen car, chased it to a dead-end street and then finally caught the carjacker after he had climbed a wall to elude one officer. During the pursuit for the carjacker, a resident on East Warren Avenue got in the way of two burglars trying to steal stuff from his house. It was bad timing for him. All the cops were dealing with the carjacker, so they had to come later.

A resident on Pennsylvania Avenue opened her front door Saturday to find a male neighbor at the door threatening to break her arms and legs unless she paid up on some bet. Cops arrived, and the man decided to try to break one of the officer’s arms and legs. He got Wrapped after trying to headbutt the window of a patrol car.

Someone invited a known juvenile robber to house party in Ardenwood. The robber punched a 17-year-old in the face and took his cell phone. Officers shut down the party, but couldn’t find the crook.

From Niles:

Vote to get money for the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum

From a Hindu activist in Nevada:
A few months ago some Hindu leader in Nevada sent out a press release to lots of folks that Hindus in Fremont wanted Diwali to a school holiday. I called a couple of local folks, and didn’t sense that there was any local movement for this, but I guess the Mercury News found a big supporter in Sunnyvale. Read the story here.

Fremont sued over officer-involved shooting

Matt Artz


  1. Off topic but good article here –


    Two critical takeaways –

    “. . . the lane is private property owned by adjacent landholders.”

    “..the city to pay for improvements and the commercial property owners to pay for maintenance work and accept legal liability.”

    Aren’t maintenance and legal liability for a property synonymous with what it means to own something ???? If true, then we established who would be responsible for future maintenance and liability when researching ownership.

    If the the first statement is accurate, then just what are property owners giving up ?? The city is forking over to the tune of $2.6m (potentially) in RDA funds. What are property owners doing ????

    Splitting the cost between the City and property owners for this much needed work would have been exceedingly generous.

    If feels like we’re going to make significant upgrades to this privately owned property and will return to the taxpayers of Fremont . . . . . what ?

  2. Holy Cow!!! So you ask what return to the taxpayers of Fremont does this project bring? About as much as taxpayer subsidized Cricket fields for the wealthy engineers would bring. Cal Trans has been running amock today with $35 dollar an hour stop sign holders so go figure. When are we ever going to spend taxpayer money wisely?

  3. Cricket fields would be built on publicly accessible lands. Anyone that wishes to use it could do so.
    In the case of the proposed cricket fields, the property involved is publicly owned.

    By comparison, the alleyway Fremont has agreed to renovate is privately owned.

    I’m not suggesting that this isn’t work that needs to be done (by someone). But, the way the article is written, it suggests that the city is receiving concessions from the existing owners in the form of agreements to maintain and hold harmless – from this date forward. And, I’m feeling that this isn’t much of a concession in light of the fact that it has been established that these same folks OWN this property. If true, then they also OWN the responsbility for any future (existing ??) maintenance and/or liability.

    You might consider these agreements to be a tangible concession if the property rights were still in doubt. But, once again, according to this article, that’s not the case.

    So, as it is written, I’m concluding that private land owners receive a $2.6M renovation of property they’ve ignored for many years and the City of Fremont will receive . . . . . what ??

  4. Tell you what, Charlie.

    If we’re looking for a way to spend $2.6M in RDA funds on some existing business properties how ’bout doin’ a reno on the Centerville Theatre ?

    I’m guessing that the existing owners would appreciate it (as would the surrounding businesses).

    And, in exchange, I’m certain the current owners would ALSO agree to performing all future maintenance and to hold the city hamless on any future liability claims.

  5. Regarding Iron Horse, the city can (in ascending order of cost to the COF):

    1. Do nothing.

    2. Do what they did.

    3. Force the owners to release ownership by eminent domain, improve the road then assume all liability and maintainable cost going forward.

    Box, are you arguing for 1 or 3?

  6. Giving private property owners a gift of tax payers money, if it is not illegal it is unethical.
    Giving $2.6 million dollars for a alley, that is owned by individuals is not right.
    I can see this as a campaign issue. Take care of Niles and the hell with the rest of Fremont.
    Ardenwood are you listening!

  7. You left out a fourth option, Marty –

    1.A (cost to CoF not as low as your suggestion 1. but less than 2.) Negotiate w/owners – only, how ’bout we split the cost of fixing everyone’s private property 50/50 or 60/40 . . . . ????

    I’ll ask again – what did the property owners contribute to this effort ?

  8. The Niles alleys have been a problem for as long as I can recall. Starting with the fact that it is unclear as to who owns them. The title is clouded and finding a responsible owner has been very difficult. I’m sure we would have negotiated with the property owners had we only known for sure who they are.

    Something needed to be done and it is very appropriate that redevelopment is a means to fix the problem. RD money comes from the tax increment (new taxes_) resulting from the improvement of the property, so a connection can be made from the improvement of the alleys to the new tax money generated to pay for the improvement.

    As for putting RD money into the Center theater, it will be appropriate when the city owns it.

  9. Box #7 – Rarely can you get two homeowners to agree on how to share the cost of a simple fence. You really think dozens of owners would agree to pony up their fair share for a road?

    I think the only options were to do nothing, or to do what they did. I’d be inclined to do nothing and keep it a gravel path. But there are residential addresses on Iron Horse that the city receives property taxes on. The least they can do is pave the damn thing, and I suspect that was their reasoning.

    At least it’s pavement. I heard Palo Alto just dropped $2.5M for a mile of dirt singletrack.

  10. “The title is clouded and finding a responsible owner has been very difficult. I’m sure we would have negotiated with the property owners had we only known for sure who they are.”

    – All very interesting and of no consequence since ownership HAS – according to this article – been clearly established AND – we’re now executing agreements with those very same legal owners.

    See Matt’s original article – – – – “. . . the lane is private property owned by adjacent landholders.”

    “As for putting RD money into the Center theater, it will be appropriate when the city owns it.”
    It is an interesting rational that Gus serves up as to why the city CAN’T put money into the Center Theatre – especially given that the city does not own the very alley in Niles that they just agreed to put $2.6M into !

    So, say again, why is it that we couldn’t have put this same $2.6M into the Center Theatre ?

  11. “…there are residential addresses on Iron Horse that the city receives property taxes on . . .”

    Marty – this is no more a reason to give away $2.6M to repair a private roadway then the attempted rationalizations Gus served up.

    THere are all kinds of “private roadways” with legit and tax-paying addresses, sometimes located along their route and sometimes at their terminus. These things have utility right-of-ways in some instances, and are used by postal or other deliery services and are required for access by emergency services if needed. Sometimes, the roadways are gated. sometimes not.

    In ALL cases that I’m aware of, maintenance and upkeep of private roadways is the responsibility of the resident(s).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *