Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site menlo70.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!menlo70!sanders
From: sanders@menlo70.UUCP (Rex Sanders)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Palo Alto & showers (again)
Message-ID: <173@menlo70.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Aug-83 23:01:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: menlo70.173
Posted: Tue Aug 23 23:01:49 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Aug-83 12:33:33 EDT
Organization: USGS, Menlo Park CA
Lines: 25

From The Peninsula Times Tribune, 8/23/83:

  "The City Council voted unanimously Monday to require showers
in medical, educational, and office buildings of at least 10,000
square feet and in restaurants and bars of 25,000 square feet
and larger.
  "In the past, the city has encouraged putting showers in new 
construction by making it a condition of building approval.
That practice was informal, however.
  "[councilwoman Ellen] Fletcher said she hopes the new law will
encourage workers to ride bikes to work to decrease the amount of
car traffic in the city."

  I would like to add another point.  I don't see much difference
between requiring showers and bike lockers in new buildings,
and requiring a certain number of parking spaces per square foot
or whatever.  Requiring parking spaces is a very common practice
(in California, at least), and nearly everyone I know supports
this practice.
  Actually, an argument can be made for *restricting* the number
of parking spaces new buildings may have as a way of encouraging
people to use other ways to get to work.  I believe the EPA
tried to get LA to do something like this in the early 1970's
to help reduce automobile caused air pollution.  You can guess
how popular that idea was!