San Carlos Real Estate Agent, San Carlos Realtor

Home » Living in San Carlos »Polls » Currently Reading:

San Carlos at a Crossroads: Public Parks, or Public Safety?

February 7, 2010 Living in San Carlos, Polls 29 Comments

Key Decision on Turf at Highlands.

If things go as everyone expects at the meeting this Monday night, the City Council will vote to award a $1.7M contract to convert Highlands Park to an all-weather turf surface.  The discussion item is already on their agenda, and there is a widespread belief that it will be approved.   If this contract is indeed awarded and the green light is given to begin construction, it will join the infamous decision to sell San Carlos High School as one of the worst moves ever made in the history of the City of San Carlos.    That’s how serious this issue is.

I’m not against all-weather turf.   I referee soccer games up at Highlands and Stadium, so I know how bad these fields have gotten – they’re downright dangerous in places.  And with the likely closure of Arguello and Crestview Parks, the fields at Highlands Park will degrade even more quickly with overflow usage from the closed parks.   So I don’t think anyone can disagree that all of our fields are in need of extensive repair….

But I do think that it’s absolutely ludicrous that we are even considering spending this kind of money on a park right now – at a time when we are also talking about cutting our police force (again) and closing a fire station.

There’s a Public Safety Crisis in San Carlos.

The potential closure of a few our of our parks,  and a reduction in use of the San Carlos Youth Center has grabbed much of the media spotlight — it even made the local TV news broadcast.     But lest we forget, the very same 10%/20% budget reduction exercise that recommended these closures is also calling for additional cuts in our police and fire staffing, including the possible closure Fire Station 16 on the Alameda — the engine company that is the first to respond to your homes in White Oaks, Howard Park, Alder Manor, and parts of Beverly Terrace if you have a fire or medical emergency.  Is this hitting home yet?  It should.

Years of continuous budget cuts have put the public safety of San Carlos on the brink.  Consider the following:

  • Crime in San Carlos: up by 25%.  Police Chief Greg Rothaus released some alarming statistics in this report that shows that crime is on the increase in San Carlos.  But you already know this, because many of you have had your cars broken into this past year, right?    While the proliferation of bars and restaurants downtown has probably helped the city’s coffers, it also places additional stress on our already lean police force as they’re now dealing with an increase in bar fights and DUI’s…instead of patrolling our neighborhoods.  There’s no magical formula here — you can’t stem a rise in crime with fewer police officers.
  • Minimum Fire Coverage.   As it stands today, our fire coverage in San Carlos has been cut to the bare bones.    Our stations are manned by 3-man crews, instead of 4-man crews like most fire districts (more on why this crucial in an upcoming post.)   And get this…Station 13 — our main downtown station — is now only staffed to support the tiller rig, which by definition is NOT equipped with the amount of pumps and hoses required to fight a major structure fire.   I will be writing an extensive article in a few weeks about how the budget cuts have decimated our fire department.
  • Insurance Premiums.  Whether you know it or not, your home fire insurance premiums take into account the proximity of your home to a fire station — the closer you are to a fire station, the cheaper your premium is.  If Station 16 is indeed closed, or even reduced to a “Paramedic-Only” station, fire premiums will rise for many San Carlos residents — significantly.

What Are Our Priorities?

Say what you want about what makes San Carlos a great place to live, and what keeps our home values so high…the schools, parks, weather, etc…   But nothing has a greater impact on the general welfare of a community than PUBLIC SAFETY — which, sadly, is most often taken for granted.   Let us not forget that one of the biggest reasons that people choose to live in San Carlos is that “It’s a safe place to live and raise a family.”     Great schools, location, weather, and our downtown won’t be worth a hill of beans if we can’t maintain a top-notch level of public safety.

Which brings us back to the original premise of this post — should we be spending $1.7M on our parks when our public safety is in crisis?? I fully understand that there are issues that restrict how Measure G funds are to be spent, but ALL options should be fully investigated before this decision is made.

Make Your Opinion Heard.

The Council may make a decision on Highlands Park in Monday night’s meeting.  If you have an opinion either way on this topic, I highly encourage you to attend the Council Meeting and let the members of our Council know how you feel.  Also, register your opinion in the following poll:

Should the San Carlos City Council Approve $1.7M to Install Turf at Highlands Park?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Because once the money is gone, it’s gone….
_____________________________________________________________________________

Are you ready to step up to the most comprehensive data available about the San Carlos Real Estate market? Then subscribe to the White Oaks Blog for free by clicking here. Be sure to follow the White Oaks Blog on Facebook at https://Facebook.com/WhiteOaksBlog , and on Twitter @WhiteOaksBlog.
Get the best coverage on the San Carlos real estate market delivered right to you!
_____________________________________________________________________________

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...

Currently there are "29 comments" on this Article:

  1. Lee says:

    Is it time to propose drastic action here? One thing i’ve often wondered is why San Carlos and Belmont haven’t merged? Its seems like there’s an opportunity for considerable savings there. One could even imagine some sort of join operating agreement were the infrastructure is shared but the political decisions are still separate. For example, you could same # of elected officials, with decisions impacting San Carlos decided by the SC council members (eg, the decision on in-n-out in SC would be made by the SC council members), but all staff would be joint.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. mick says:

    Clearly the lack of money is not always the problem; in this case and most likely many others, it’s the people making the decisions with the money we do have to spend. How many police officers and firefighters could we keep on the job for that sort of cash??

    This is just another reason to question the cries from the city when they ask for money from us and supporting the decision NOT to give it to them.

    They are insane and they must be stopped from these foolish ideas. I’m bringing tea to the meeting!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Lee says:

      Er, in this case the people making the decision about the money were the voters when they passed Measure G, which says “The tax is limited to ten years, with the funds dedicated to long-term capital improvement of parks and recreational park facilities.” (eg, see Omar’s website for an explanation of the problem with this money at http://www.omarahmad.com/?p=387)

      Its exactly the failure of the voters to grant broader spending authority to the people making decisions that result in things like Measure G. More generally the pattern in this state of committing resources through ballot measures rather than electing officials and giving them the ability to actually do stuff has left us in this tattered condition.

      If you want to blame the people making decisions here, start with the voters.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  3. Steve says:

    Thanks for your ambitious and detailed post. Does anyone have any idea how much crime increased in neighboring towns?

    But I digress. I think the decision is easy: PUBLIC SAFETY. News alert: crooks can READ! And they know this City is easy pickin’.

    Now…are these posts a ploy to get us to list with you when we all put our houses up for sale and get the hell out of here?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Ah, you caught my true motivation! I’m trying to scare everyone out of town. Problem is, if everyone sells at the same time, the market will be saturated and none of those listings will sell…so my plan will be foiled ;-)

      No, I’m staying in San Carlos for the long haul, and I’m absolutely terrified at what our police and fire departments may look like in a year. And frankly, if given the choice, I’d close Crestview and Arguello in a heartbeat if it was the difference in keeping Station 16 running.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  4. Gunther says:

    I’d be willing to vote for a parcel tax that funds the safety services, provided the incompetent city manager resigns and provided there is complete transparency over the allocated funds.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • MC says:

      I think just the fact alone, per your survey 85% say we should bail on the Highlands Park fake turf and 14% say move forward says a whole lot about our elected officials… they totally disregard what the PEOPLE of this city want! They do this all of the time. I’ve worked very closely with these people and I’ve seen it over and over again. Extra stimulus money that was supposed to go to safe walking routes to schools… went to pave (at the time, Mayor) Grasilli’s street, Hillcrest, no questions asked. That’s why my family did not vote for “U” and believe me, we know that the money not only would have come from the residents of S.C., but mainly out of town patrons who shop here too. It would have been a good deal for S.C…. that’s if we knew these guys would have used the money how the PEOPLE wish, but they DON’T! Now, they (city govt.) are blasting us with emails every time there is a police report made. Yeah, the power of fear… an old political tactic. I’m not worried. This place is Mayberry. Yes, my car was broken into… but it was my own damn fault for leaving it unlocked. Crime is up everywhere… we are in a recession. Besides, I thought the San Mateo County PD was going to take over for S.C. And yes, they (San Mateo County PD) do call us Mayberry.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • MC says:

        Correction: above

        Some stimulus money awarded to go to safer walking routes to schools, went to pave Crestview Street, (previous Mayor, Grasilli’s street). Not Hillcrest, like previously stated.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  5. bill says:

    Re: allocation of police resources and the impact of new bars/restaurants downtown. They aren’t the problem. A careful reading of the SC daily police log would show consistent police activity at the Jack In The Box and at Home Depot, largely driven by the “day laborer” issue. These frequent nuisance calls waste a tremendous amount of city resources. How about forcing the business owners of these two establishments to provide their own security?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Bill,

      Good point. However, it’s important to know that while the daily police report that is sent out each day is FAR more comprehensive than it used to be, I still don’t think it captures any where near 100% of the calls and incidents that our PD responds to. That’s simply a function of having the manpower to document everything. But from what I have heard, there’s a pretty big problem weekend with DUI’s and drunken behavioral issues. That’s not a unique problem, as cities such as Campbell have lots of bars they have to manage. But when there’s an incident downtown on a weekend evening, it pulls virtually all of our PD resources out of neighborhood patrol, which leaves us very vulnerable.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Chuck

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  6. JJ says:

    The voters reject a tax increase and – viola – the police claim crime is up an astounding 25%. Maybe so. Or maybe the police dept is being extra, extra attentive to its record keeping process, hoping to get a frightened public to open up their wallets.

    I’d love to see a qualified, independent auditor review the records that support this claimed crime wave.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  7. Council Member Andy Klein sent the following letter to out as a reply to the emails the he is receiving on this issue. It is reprinted here in its entirety with Andy’s permission:

    “Dear San Carlos Resident,

    Due to the large amount of emails I am receiving I am unable to reply individually to everyone. I have received emails in support and against turf. I think it is important at this time for everyone to fully understand the issue. As always, there are two sides to every story.

    Let’s start with the facts. San Carlos has a $25 million budget and will be forced to cut $3.6 million this year. San Carlos receives less back in property tax than its neighbors. We collect about 13 cents on the dollar while our neighbors receive 24 cents and more. Our sales tax receipts have fallen during this economy, and we do not have any special taxes like our neighbors. Due to this structural deficit our city services have become unsustainable. Measure U was an attempt to close that hole at the tune of $2-$2.2 million a year for six years. Measure U was not a silver bullet, but it would have helped a great deal in this current unprecedented economic downturn.

    While most of the focus has been our parks, we need to remember that Police and Fire will also be making recommendations for cuts, all of these are still recommendations but cuts will be made in the spring. There is no easy way out of this situation; we are left with the choice of different degrees of bad decisions.

    Now in regard to turf; many have called for the overturning of PAMF and Measure G funds to be used for operational costs. Some have asked to use these funds to keep parks open while some have asked to use these funds for Police and Fire. The legality of changing the use of the funds is questionable, the city has asked PAMF before and has been refused, but for the sake of argument we will pretend that the $2 million can be used for operations. This money would save parks, and help our overworked and understaffed police and fire departments. The City of San Carlos burns over $2 million a month, so this injection of new funds would last roughly 6 months. The question is then what? After 6 months the city would be left with the recommendation to close parks and cut police and fire with very little to show for it. Our sports leagues would have less playing time on fields that cannot hold up to the increase needed to sustain our current rate of play. When debating these issues we all must remember that this is a structural deficit, and that without sustainable new revenue the probability of saving all our parks is very slim. This solution is the popular solution, but does that mean it is the right one?

    The other side of the argument is not much better. If the Council chooses to spend the $1.7 million for turf we would have a new field at Highlands while possibly closing others. The major difference is the recommended closures would happen a little sooner, but with the benefit of having a field that could hold up to an increase of play time. This option, while still impacting our field space, would be the less detrimental decision. The turf would also save us money in operational costs. This new artificial turf requires less water than grass, and does not need to be mowed. Since the Council approved using coconut infill over rubber, there are some maintenance costs but they are much lower than a grass field. These savings would help off-set some costs for parks or safety. The city is collecting user fees from the sports leagues to help replace this and other fields. There are many who say that the city is predicting that this field will only last 8 years. We have amortized the replacement at 8 years, since that is how long the warranty lasts. Our Public Works and Parks and Rec Director both feel that it will last 10-12 years. This field would address a long term problem, with a long term solution. There would also be $400,000 left over for other improvements; trail connections, playground installation, or basketball courts. So while we are in a downward spiral there still can be some positive improvements to our city.

    Something we all must remember and take to heart is that cuts are going to happen. The failure of Measure U guarantees that. It just will be a decision as to where they should happen, and how deep they will be. Due to the Brown Act I cannot tell you how I am going to vote tonight, since most of these emails were sent to all of the Council. I hope you will attend tonight’s meeting and keep an open-mind when listening to the council debate. We need all of our citizens to be informed and committed during this time.

    On a personal note I grew up in San Carlos. These recommendations that are being made by our staff are not something that I take lightly. I grew up above Arguello Park and now live by Crestview. I understand the importance of our parks and safety services; we must make decisions that will benefit our city long term. Our city must become sustainable so we never have to make these decisions again.

    Respectfully,

    Andy Klein

    City Council Member

    San Carlos”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  8. Anonymous says:

    <> I’ve heard this so often, that it’s wort repeating. During the time leading to the closure of San Carlos High, it was felt that young families would not be able to afford to buy houses in San Carlos. There were hardly any new families moving. Hence, the decision was made to sell the property to a housing developer. There wasn’t any negative reaction from the community. Who would have predicted that artificial wealth made possible by exercising stock options would make it possible to put down a large down payment on a house? There were even some that proposed selling the closed Tierra Linda middle school property. Of course, hindsight is always better than foresight !

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • C says:

      Actually there was quite a bit of negative reaction in San Carlos to the sale of San Carlos High School. From the City Council at the time to the residents.

      So much so that the mere mention of the Sequoia High School District and their Board Members evoked some very negative comments in the town for years.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  9. Peter says:

    I can’t make it to the City Council meeting. Is it being carried on cable tv/

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Andy Klein says:

      Peter,
      City Council meetings are carried on Comcast (only) Channel 27 at 7pm.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  10. I attended last night’s City Council meeting, and listened to each of the approximately 35 public speakers — all of whom spoke eloquently on the topic, regardless of which side they were on. My unofficial count showed that 20 voiced opposition while 15 were in favor (57%/43%) On top of that, of the 114 people that voted on this site, 86% voted against the turf proposal.

    Despite what appears to be a majority opposition, the Council voted last night to approve the turf proposal, with Councilman Matt Grocott as the lone dissenter. Even the suggestion of having a discussion with PAMF to loosen the restrictions on how the $1M can be spent was rebuffed by the Council.

    It was agreed to award the contract immediately, with construction delayed for 90 days to allow the outcome of the ongoing lawsuit to be settled. Barring any unforeseen delay with this verdict, it’s a done deal — turf is going in at Highlands.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  11. Nancy says:

    While i’m not a fan of Matt Grocott, he did bring up the most illuminating comment. The biggest beneficiary to this artificial turf field will be the older kids leagues that play soccer year around. This means that the turf field will be overused since some other parks will most likely close. That means there will be late night games that consistently break reasonable night time curfew. Starting spring time, residents are consistently subjected to noise from the sports complex at Highlands. Yes it’s a done deal, so it’s incumbent on the soccer leagues not to test the neighborhood’s patience.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Nancy,

      I agree with you – I thought Matt Grocott’s points were spot on. But it’s not just only the older kids who will benefit, though — it’s ALL organized soccer in San Carlos. If Arguello (used for U8 soccer) and Crestview (U12 and above) both close, they will all be forced to share the 4 remaining fields — Laureola, Burton, Highlands, and Stadium. And that’s both AYSO and CYSA. As such, I especially buy into his point that organized soccer must now start picking up a much bigger tab for the cost of maintaining the field. Heck, they should even consider paying part of the funds back to the city.

      Lest anyone think I’m a soccer snob, I have a daughter who plays club soccer in San Carlos so I still have a vested interest in having as many fields available to play on. But soccer needs to now carry more of the burden of this cost now that the deal has gone through. I can tell you first-hand that youth hockey costs as much as $2,000 per kid each season. Why? Because they have to pay for ice time at the rink. So why shouldn’t soccer pick up some of the tab for the cost of the field and its maintenance? I’m not espousing $2K, but $38 per player is not enough for how much these clubs use the fields. $100 or more per family wouldn’t break the bank. I’ll gladly pay that for my soccer player.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Chuck

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • PM says:

        I completely agree it would not be at all unreasonable nor would it create a hardship to increase player fees and indeed it is the responsible thing to do in this economy (and I too have a child who plays soccer). Whether it is through an increase in taxes or an increase in direct personal financial obligation, and regardless of which method one happens to prefer, we can all agree that we’re being asked to pay more and we will have to respond if there is any hope of supporting the amenities we’ve come to expect and enjoy in our community. And yes, artificial turf for soccer is absolutely an elective amenity to which the city should not be committing millions of dollars that should be better spent elsewhere.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  12. Jim says:

    As I noticed the parents trotting out their kids at last night’s meeting, I realized that these same parents are never at Board of Education meetings, school meetings protesting cuts, etc. It speaks volumes about how organized sports has pervaded society to the level of where people’s passions only get aroused about lost playing space in parks and not about safety services cuts or education cuts. No wonder Measure U lost.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  13. Teresa says:

    Quite frankly, I could care less if Highlands turns into a sports complex, has artificial turf or that Crestview might be closed. But as a resident of 40 years, I care a hell of a lot if the fire/ambulance/police/public works services are drastically reduced. I live on a hill where the city is responsible for the sewer line running along an easment in my and my neighbor’s backyard. Quite often, tree roots clog the line and raw sewage spills out from the overflow pipe. Apparently, it’s too expensive to dig out and replace the cracked pipe. When I call Public Works, it takes them less than hour to respond to clear the line. I’ll take that service over the ability to kick a stupid ball in a park any day. People’s priorities are just backwards nowadays. So, please close Arguello/Laureola or any other park for that matter.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Teresa,

      Thanks for your comment. You should be the specter of losing Fire Station 16, especially if you live in the hills. That seems to be a very real possibility with the budget deficit we’re facing.

      Chuck

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  14. Idea to Raise Funds says:

    First of all, I am not a proponent of artificial turf (it’s hot, dirty and injurious). I am also not a proponent of paying more taxes. And lastly, I am concerned with the cuts to police, fire and parks. Here is my idea on how to raise funds:

    Has anyone thought of limiting some of the parking allowed on the streets?

    Seriously…
    Some of the streets are dangerous with parking on both sides. They are not wide enough for parking and 2 lanes of traffic. How many times have you almost hit someone travelling the opposite way? How many times do you have to pull over and stop to let the approaching car get through a conjested street? These are daily occurances for me.

    A pet peeve of mine is that when the street sweeper comes through my neighborhood once a week, he can’t properly do his job because of all the cars parked along both sides of the street. Then it rains, the leaves (he can’t get to because they are trapped under cars) clog the drain and flood my street (and occasionally the neighbor’s garage).

    Above is reason enough to limit parking, but another reason is that cars on the street make our neighborhoods look trashy. It is hard to see children playing or when they may dart out between the cars and into the street.

    Why not have stronger parking laws and enforcement? Menlo Park is a great example of parking laws that work. Residents who park in the street overnight must pay $100 for a permit and live in San Carlos. All others are ticketed. On street sweeping days, parking in the street is prohibitted in Menlo Park.

    What do you think??

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • JJ says:

      I think it’s something that should be explored, although the business case would have to account for the enforcement costs associated with the program infrastructure and hiring parking cops to monitor streets across San Carlos.

      It will be interesting to see what kind of revenue generators eventually show up in the forms of permits and other costs. In the long run, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if these one-off costs end up surpassing the sacrifices Measure U called for. For comparisons sake, a family would have to spend $20k in sales tax eligible expenses in San Carlos to pay out the $100 parking permit you’re suggesting.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  15. Darryl says:

    Chuck said, “No, I’m staying in San Carlos for the long haul, and I’m absolutely terrified at what our police and fire departments may look like in a year. ”

    Chuck this is my first visit here, thanks for creating the website. But regarding what the police department will look like, we better hope to begin with that it’s even there. How many of the residents here know that when you call 9-1-1 or the San Carlos Police emergency number, it’s answered by the Menlo Park Police? San Carlos PD gave up their own individual communications center several years ago to save money. Now, in light of measure U not passing and required budget cuts, they are considering having the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department take over all of the police services for San Carlos. Do you want to share your patrol officers with the rest of the county? I realize the funds for the turf were specifically budgeted, but to spend that kind of money at a time when our crime rate is indeed raising, and we risk losing a fire station, is just plain ridiculous.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Darryl,

      Welcome to the site, and thanks for taking the time to comment. I have heard the same rumor about the SM County Sheriff taking over responsibility for the San Carlos PD. Nothing against the Sheriff’s office, but this would be a huge mistake for the City of San Carlos. We have a great police department who have formed a bond with the community they serve — a few members of the force live in San Carlos. I’m afraid we would lose that community bond if we relegated this responsibility to the Sheriff’s Dept.

      What’s next — public works? At that point, we almost cease to exist as a “City”, since we would then look much more like an unincorporated part of San Mateo County.

      Thanks again,

      CG

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  16. Bill says:

    Why isn’t the city looking at cutting management positions? We have added some extremely costly management jobs over the last few years that we could look at cutting. The city was able to run without those positions for decades, so why not look at cutting them? In these tough times, I would rather have a few less city managers and save more safety & park positions.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • HJ says:

      I have heard that city employees can spike their last year of pay with overtime and get an elevated pension for their entire retirement. Can someone comment on whether this is true or not and how much this “spiking” might be costing San Carlos each year? If we stopped or limited this practice, could it save police/fire jobs and $$$ for the general fund?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      GD Star Rating
      loading...

Comment on this Article:







What Do You Think?

What Should Be Done to Replace San Carlos Measure B Funding?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Chuck’s Recent Sales

Put my experience to work for you!

I've helped over 50 families make their next move in the City of San Carlos, and many more in the surrounding communities. Click the sign below to see a list of all the homes that I have helped my clients buy or sell!

Chuck's Sales Production

Enter your email address to subscribe to the White Oaks Blog, and receive notifications of new posts by email. No spam....ever. Promise.

San Carlos Home Search


Click the picture below to see ALL of the homes that are currently for sale in San Carlos!

San Carlos Home Search

Open House: San Carlos


Click the Open House sign below to see ALL of the homes, townhomes, and condos that will be open in San Carlos this weekend!

San Carlos Open House

The White Oaks Blog is created by:


Chuck Gillooley
Chuck Gillooley
Realtor, San Carlos Resident

(650) 207-2024
BRE# 01750684
Email: Chuck Gillooley
Website: http://cghomes.net
Facebook: http://facebook.com/WhiteOaksBlog



Chuck Gillooley

Chuck Gilloo…


Top Agent Network


Chuck Gillooley - Real Estate Agent
Top Blogs
Powered By Blogmetrics.org

Testimonials

"My wife and I loved working with Chuck Gilooley. As first time home buyers he was very patient with us, talked us through the whole process and provided us a great education on home buying."

Rob M., San Mateo

San Carlos Weather

On This Day…