Acknowledging a shift in the legal landscape, Palo Alto officials agreed on Monday night to repeal the city’s controversial ban on car camping.
By an 7-1 vote, with Councilman Larry Klein dissenting and Councilwoman Karen Holman absent, the City Council voted to repeal the ban on vehicle habitation that it adopted in August 2013 in response to complaints from residents about people sleeping in cars and occasionally causing disturbances in front of their homes.
The council adopted in the face of vehement criticism from homeless advocates, vehicle dwellers and attorneys who argued that the ban is unconstitutional. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit struck down a similar law in Los Angeles, placing Palo Alto’s newly adopted ban on a shakier legal footing.
Before striking down the ban, the council heard from several residents who live in vehicles. Each asked the council to eliminate the law, which would leave them subject to fines. Oliver Terry, who currently lives in a van with his mother and who is studying to be a dental hygienist at Foothill College, said he is doing everything he can to get out of his current situation, furthering his education and working with the Downtown Streets Team.
“I just don’t want this whole vehicle-dwelling thing to put a mark on my legal record and offset my entire life,” Terry said.
Diane Elizabeth Jones said both she and her son have been vehicle dwellers, a fact that did not stop her son from going to college.
“This winter we have no winter shelter,” Jones said. “We will freeze in our vehicle. But we would die without a vehicle. And without a vehicle we lose our place to sleep safely.”
City Attorney Molly Stump characterized the council’s decision as one that requires the council “to weigh policy issues with strongly held views on both sides.”
Yet only one side showed up Monday night. Every member of the public who spoke on the subject urged the council to repeal the ban. Wayne Douglass, who ran for the City Council this year with the sole focus of fighting the car-camping ban and bringing attention to the homeless community, didn’t mince words in articulating his feelings about the car-camping ban.
“If you need help in killing this ordinance, I’d cheerfully drive a stake through its heart when you’re done,” Douglass said.
As it turned out, the council didn’t need much help. With the exception of Klein, members had few reservations about striking down the ban, which has been suspended pending the Desertrain vs. Los Angeles case and has never been enforced. City Manager James Keene joined Stump in recommending the repeal.
Councilwoman Gail Price, one of the council’s leading proponent of providing more social services to the homeless, called the process “extremely challenging” because of the large number of different stakeholders and interests. But she was quick to support Councilman Marc Berman’s motion to repeal the ban.
“I feel it’s an honor to second this motion,” Price said. “This is the right thing to do and this is the compassionate thing to do.”
Berman said that “regardless of whether or not you disagree with merits of the ordinance,” it’s important to recognize that “the legal landscape has changed dramatically and enforcing the ordinance would lead to a large waste of money by the city.” The end result, he said, should be the repeal.
He also pointed to the “one good thing” that has come out of the ordinance: the discussion that the city had about homeless issues. In adopting the ban, the council allocated $250,000 for housing and case management for homeless residents.
On Monday night, the council supported a request by Price to schedule a discussion at a future meeting in which the council would direct staff to explore other partnerships and programs to support the homeless.
Klein wasn’t convinced that the ordinance should be scrapped entirely. It’s not rare for the city to be threatened with lawsuits, he said, and the city’s record in defending its laws is pretty good. Though he said he supports “to some degree” having additional programs for people who need housing, this is not the city’s responsibility but Santa Clara County’s.
“The social welfare agency in our area is the county, not the city,” Klein said. “That’s not where our money should be going. To think we can solve the homeless problem just doesn’t make sense. I don’t think we should take the lead in abolishing this ordinance.”
His colleagues, however, voted for appeal, even as some acknowledged the reports they have long been receiving from residents about vehicle dwellers occasionally causing disturbances. Vice Mayor Liz Kniss found it puzzling that none of the people who pushed for the car-camping ban showed up at the meeting.
“We really want to be humanitarian. We really want to support those who are homeless,” Kniss said. “At the same time, some people feel very uncomfortable with the entire issue.”
>>Vice Mayor Liz Kniss found it puzzling that none of the people who pushed for the car-camping ban showed up at the Monday meeting.
That’s what happens when you leave less than a week for people to find out about this, and people like me who have jobs and families have pre-existing work conflicts. I wrote to the City Council to ask that the meeting be rescheduled. In any case, I hope they’re serious about ongoing efforts to explore alternative solutions. There are lots of places for vehicle dwellers to dwell that aren’t in residential neighborhoods.
Imagine your across the street neighbor subdivides her property into parcels ten times the density that zoning allows. The dense development is allowed to go forward without any architectual, environmental, health & safety code, or any other review. No permits are required, setback rules are not enforced, off-street parking requirements are waived, and you are given no notice or opportunity to object. And your new neighbors pay no parcel or property taxes. This development is far worse than any version of the Maybell project that residents so vehemently rejected. If these are dwellings, they need to follow the rules of dwellings for all of the reasons those rules have been in place and enforced for years.
My hope for this is that if they decide that car camping is a problem, that problem with be defined, understood and targeted appropriately if there is need for any new ordinance or change in the way Palo Alto does business.
There are some legitimate gripes here, but without knowing what they all are, how prevalent they all are, and what the existing responses to them are now .. how can a really valid discussion be had. What has taken its place is lots of nasty accusations about certain groups of people that are not backed up or qualified.
Probably the correct thing happened here.
I’d still really like to hear a police officer or representative of the PAPD talk about homeless , car campers or others and crimes to bring some light to this issue. The overwhelming reports of crimes I see here have almost nothing to do with car campers or homeless, and those that do are often minor.
There is not a consensus about sleeping overnight in vehicles in residential areas. I think doing so is fine with some minor regulation. Dispersal throughout town is preferable to concentration in 1 area. The streets are public, and a person sleeping in a vehicle pays highway taxes via gas purchases and owns them as much as anyone. We have RV’s on the street a couple of weeks or more. Big deal. The priority is affordable housing, jobs and a safety net which would lesson the need to discuss this .
I am a business owner in the small industrial zone bound by Industrial-Transit-Commercial streets. This neighborhood is across from the Orchard Supply store on Charleston.
The neighborhood is populated with an interesting mix of industrial, technology and service firms. The neighborhood is nearly fully occupied and there is nearly no open commercial space. Recently, Google moved into the meat packing plant that has been abandoned for at least 20 years. In short, the neighborhood is an important incubator of local employers.
Approximately 12 months ago, the City of Mountain View instituted an overnight parking ban in the neighborhood behind the COSTCO big box retail development. Subsequent to the overnight parking ban (9PM to 5AM), there has been an explosion of large RVs permanently camping on the streets of our neighborhood. These are permanent campers who actually drop orange cones around their RVs to prevent others from parking in “their” spaces.
On Saturday morning, a quick walk around counted 8 RVs and an additional 12 vehicles clearly associated with the RV. The combination of RVs and associated vehicles equates to taking about 26 parking spaces from our small neighborhood.
This is a HUGE problem for the neighborhood. Our clients constantly complain that they have difficulty finding parking. Our staff is forced to park in the Bed Bath Beyond parking lot for lack of on-street parking.
Is there anyway that the City can provide a safe parking situation for these campers in a location that minimizes impact on our neighborhood? Perhaps using a parking area near the airport that is currently used for sand bag distribution during the rainy season.
We are acutely aware that these folks need to live in their vehicles and it is an unfortunate situation. But we are equally concerned that these permanent overnight campers have an adverse and measurable impact on the neighborhood.
Thanks to Carrie Leroy, Michele Dauber, Bill Abrams, and Alan Schlosser of the ACLU of Northern California for challenging the Palo Alto ordinance. Their volunteer efforts resulted in last night’s repeal.
We are not Los Angeles! This is a long stretch for finding a just reason to ban the ordinance.
Seriously,
It doesn’t matter that we are not Los Angeles, that case was legal precedent. I wish this article would discuss the implications to one of the biggest reasons for enacting the ordinace – that neighboring communities all had bans. Now those neighboring bans won’t stand legal challenge either, so hopefully the region has more incentive to help solve the problem by better understanding the range of needs.of people who end up vehicle dwelling, and targeting services. This article did not make clear if the money/services that was set aside with the ban ordinance also went away with the ordinance, or if it was separate.
has mountain view changed their policy ?
Boy Greenmeadow is not going to like this.
Thank you, Councilman Klein for your dissent on this railroad repeal. When the residential parking permits come into force the car campers will not be able to reside downtown. My neighborhood, adjacent to the Lucie Stern Community Center, will be impacted by both these conditions. The parking permits stop a block away, whereas previously they encompassed a wider area.
We are already hosting a permanent car camper who leaves his van on the street and uses a bicycle for daytime use.
We do still have the protection of the 72-hour time limit for leaving a vehicle in one place without moving it but that is only enforced by complaints.
I have sympathy for Conundrum I’ve seen all the campers and RV parked on Commercial, Industrial etc in Palo Alto. Meanwhile, many RVs and campers used to be parked on Leghorn and the side streets of Mountain View in that area, they are now gone and all those vehicles are now parked in Palo Alto. If Mountain View can get them to move on why can’t Palo Alto?
I love camping. I do it a lot. Is this what the people in the cars are really doing though? Camping? I guess the kids eating at the soup kitchen are excited about “Restaurant dining” too.
1) Thank you city council for leaving < 1 week for anyone to get your ear about this. I see you are really thinking of your constituents. Oh wait, no, you were just worried that someone would take youth court over this ban because in LA it’s deem unconsitiutional.
2) Wayne Douglass…. really, has anyone looked IN he is car? Just curious.
3) PA should pass a ban on overnight parking without permits just as Menlo Park has. MP housing is as expensive as PA’s and the houses are just as small. If they can figure this out, so can we. And hey, extra income to the city & parking ticketing crew!
4) FootHill college is in Los Altos Hills. Why are you not “camping” there? It’s closer to school and would cut down your commute.
Let’s face it, these vehicle dwellers aren’t living in front to Steve Job’s or Larry Paige’s home. They’re living in the less affluent area of PA that isn’t littered with Teslas and Porche SUVs
I’m so looking forward to having an > half million $ mortgage, paying ridiculous property taxes while essentially living in a mobile park.
Simply put, “If you cannot afford to live in Palo Alto — and that does not mean living in a car — find somewhere more affordable. I do not want someone living in his/her car on my street, nor my neighborhood. I do not want my taxes going to fund Cubberly’s homeless community, which now will become even larger. Safety and sanitation are big issues.
Where are the churches in all this? They supposedly are there to help people in need, thus their tax free status. Let’s tax all the churches who do not want to help with this homeless issue and use those taxes to fund housing for the homeless.
I have posted (below) a response I wrote on the other car camping thread:
It would have been 8-1 if Karen Holman was there. This does not surprise me, since our city council is full of liberal guilt-laden types. They never intended to enforce their own law, any more than they intend the leaf blower ban to be enforced.
The surprise and ironic vote was Larry Klein. He was the one dissenting vote. This is a complete turn around for Klein, since he initially pooh-poohed the idea that there was any issue of concern. His remarks last night exactly mirror my own. For example, he said that many people he talks to initially think that car campers should be allowed, but when he asks them if they want them on their own streets, the immediate answer is “no!”. Klein also dismissed the idea of being worried about lawsuits…nothing new for the city, and PA does quite well in such suits, typically. He also expressed his view that PA has become a refuge for car campers, and it will now get worse.
There wasn’t one mention of Ventura neighborhood, only one brief mention of Boulware Park. There were a few mentions of large RVs. A couple of council members mentioned emails that were sent to them, who want to keep the ban.
There was a persistent patter that the ban was unconstitutional, even though our own city attorney said it was constitutional.
Only a city-wide referendum will get to the truth of what our citizens want. Our city council, with the exception of Klein, aren’t up to the job. If and when the car campers start showing up in the elite neighborhoods, our council members will be singing a different tune.
Personally, I think anyone who isn’t for the car camping ban should offer their driveways and street fronts of their homes up to the campers. I don’t want them at my house. Just my opinion – don’t hate!
Dear Concerned Retiree,
Please look up Hotel de Zink, which has been in operation in local churches for 16 years with almost no problems.
I would like to see dispersion to all neighborhoods, & enforcement of environmental concerns. For example, perhaps the Bay Area Air Quality Management District could regulate the use of generators. City monitoring near parks could be stepped up.
How many of these “if you can’t afford to live here, move somewhere else” types are themselves only able to live here due to being a Prop 13 beneficiary?
@KP
I think the complaints from the neighbors would be just the same, need me to link you to the comments on that women’s shelter article?
Thanks to Craig Laughton for boldly speaking out against car dwelling while the rest of us hide behind our aliases. It’s easy to be sympathetic when the homeless aren’t in front of one’s own house. These people don’t belong in our city. And for those appalled by that statement, I dare you to invite them to your driveway and curb to live.
Michelle Dauber lives in Barron Park. If she fought for their rights, I’d like to see the car dwellers in front of her house.
In answer to above poster, the churches were asked to volunteer their parking lots and only one church did. But not sure if it’s being used.
We can’t ban street parking because too many have packed garages.
>Please look up Hotel de Zink, which has been in operation in local churches for 16 years with almost no problems.
If you ignore that murder at the Lutheran church, and the various conflicts that don’t get reported, and the magnet effect among the homeless who live outside the churches (and thus populate the neighborhoods)…you can probably make that statement. However, if you want to acknowledge reality, then your statement does not pass the truth test.
A residential permit for overnight parking, like we have around Edgewood now, would be very clean way to get rid of car campers without the legal ambiguity. HaxF4
@Mr.Recycle
But what about guests? I mean the goal here isn’t to stop car camping obviously; its how to effectively keep *those people* out of Palo Alto, you have to structure any law so it wouldn’t apply to any behavior you or your neighbors might engage in.
I simply don’t agree with this. Public safety/health and the right to transit through areas, walk safely through trump the “right” to set up a “private” camp/car residence on a public street. Palo Alto officials go out of their way to attract out of area persons with extreme problems here. Persons residing here can face adverse circumstances and request help from government and charities or move to far less costly environs. However, actually advertising and attracting out of area persons with financial, personal disabilities such as mental health issues or alcoholism TO any particular city, Palo Alto or not, seems wacky and inappropriate. This is a suburban area filled with families and school children; San Francisco is an urban city filled with services for unhoused and mentally challenged and has far more public transit. Inviting random persons to car camp on various streets of Palo Alto is ridiculous and will not benefit anyone, including the persons with unfortunate circumstances.
Thank you, city council, for repealing the ban.
Parking restrictions are probably the way this issue is going to be resolved. The city attorney was asked (by Liz Kniss), last night, if parking restrictions would be a possible constitutional challenge…she said no (parking restrictions are not seen in the same light as bans on car camping, even if they have that effect). Menlo Park does this.
Parking restrictions can be similar to College Terrace, where they apply 8AM – 5 PM, M-F. The critical thing is that such restrictions be enforced, and NOT based on complaints (which is city council code for non-enforcement).
I think our city council just doesn’t have the right stuff to stand up for our citizens. However, if they can hide behind parking restrictions, they will probably go for it.
To the persistent question of, “Well then that means that no guests are allowed over for a short period”: Just allow residents to purchase guest permits, along with their regular permits. Better yet, just get over the purchased permits, and give them to residents…our tax base and fines for scofflaws will pay for them. Car campers need not apply, because they are not legal residents.
Los Gatos has a parking permit program that works just fine. Residents can purchase temporary permits that guests can hang on their rear view mirror.
In Menlo Park, there is no overnight street parking. But residents can request a permit when necessary.
With all of the parking lot space going to waste on the PAUSD school sites–there is no reason that these parking lots should not be made available to these homeless to live in their cars.
Time to use all of Palo Alto’s resources to make like more accommodating to these people.
Thank you for repealing the ban. It criminalization of the homeless being less fortunate the ban was and is discriminating racism segregation and profiling the poor
Palo Alto Native,
“These people don’t belong in “our city” (Kind of bigoted)
Question: Does your child or grandchild attend school in Palo Alto, if so,I was a Crossing Guard on a major street there who kept the school children safe while getting to school. The reason I could accept this job is that I was living in a vehicle, the pay is not enough to rent anywhere around
“your city”, so , now, who else don’t you want in “your city”???????
I find it utterly amazing of the irrational hysteria surrounding homeless people using their vehicles as housing, all 30 to 50 of them in a city of 67,000 residents.
I see house cleaners, gardeners, construction workers and other home service providers urinate in public, litter their lunch, ash trays and other debris onto residential streets; I see workers from the restaurant industry taking naps during the day in their cars on residential streets and having sex in those cars late at night; I see real estate agents and other professionals working on their computers out of their cars on a daily basis; I see teenyboppers and college kids home from break drinking alcohol and smoking pot in their cars on residential streets far away from where mommy and daddy can see them.
Why isn’t there a concerted outcry about these issues as there is for homeless people sleeping in their cars?
Travelingman, you could add to “Palo Alto Native” the following:
“This is our state you don’t belong here because you cannot afford to live in California.”
“This is our country, you don’t belong here because you cannot afford to live in the United States.”
You don’t hear a peep out of these people about the millions of people brought into our country to drive down wages by creating a surplus of cheap labor while simultaneously driving up housing costs by creating a shortage.
I am a California native and my family ancestry goes back to before the civil war. My seniority and service to nation trumps any caste system proponents.
Study: More Homeless Children Now Than Any Point in US History
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/17/study-more-homeless-children-now-any-point-us-history
Craig Laughten, Crescent Park Dad and others want to make it illegal for a class of people to use a specific kind of structure for their housing even though their is no other housing available, affordable or otherwise.
Me thinks that a law should be enacted that forces every city and town to provide and maintain a supply of housing that is 5% greater than all of the jobs that exist in every city and town.
Instead of setting up a big magnet for yet more homeless people, why doesn’t our wimpy and arrogant city government ask the other Bay Area cities about the wording of their car camping bans? If they can do it, why can’t supposedly educated Palo Alto? Why is Palo alto the only city which can’t write a law correctly, especially with all the lawyers who live here?
Also, if the city government wants car campers, they MUST invite them to park on THEIR streets, rather than putting the problems onto less affluent and powerful residents. A very good place for campers would be the City Hall garage. Nice and safe, with police protection right there. If the City Council members have to park and walk near them, too bad, because they invited them to our city.
@ Wondering: I park in front of City Manager James Keene’s house. Is that good enough for you.
@native wrote: “Michelle Dauber lives in Barron Park. If she fought for their rights, I’d like to see the car dwellers in front of her house.”
Stay classy, Palo Alto.
Darn. It has been a pleasant year without car and van and RV camping in my neighborhood. I do not want to see these vehicles return to my block or just around the corner.
I’m sorry, but there has to be a bigger solution to this problem.
@ Phil. You’re not reading my posts thoroughly. I have stated here and on other threads that the city should set up an area for the campers. Complete with bathrooms and showers. Monitored/security with behavior rules. Check in, check out. Social or Red Cross services or counseling as well. Instead of the city, perhaps it should be a county-level effort.
My ancestors arrived New England in the mid-1600s. Every generation of my family has served in the military. I’m 5th generation Californian. I’m no better than you and vice-versa.
@Crescent Park Dad – the second you sanction it, it will be oversubscribed by 10 times. Look at the opportunity center, it didn;t reduce the number of homeless, it magnified it.
To y’all.
I am a southerner and married to a paly man.
Oliver and I struggle to be ok. We have no pot to piss in and at night we sleep in our van.
We used to live in college terrace, Fernando and professorville where I was married and conceived my son Oliver. Daryll Terry was an admin at paly and lived in paly for 50 plus years. She is a native Cali girl. We all were priced out of the the Bay Area. Me and Oliver are the only ones left and now homeless and not by choice. I became disabled and my income is not enough to exist.
The we don’t belong here crapola is just down right mean.
If I had a choice I’d take you by your ear back to mama.
There was much mention of the Santa Barbara ‘solution’ at the council meeting. Of course, this was much discussed prior to ban, too…it was rejected for many reasons. Here is a link that provides an overview:
http://www.missionandstate.org/policy/when-home-is-where-you-can-park-it/
Santa Barbara allowed itself to become a magnet for the car campers and other homeless people. Once it, inevitably, got swamped, it was forced to get some sense, and take a hard stand. Its Safe Parking program is limited, and the lots are kept secret from public knowledge, in some cases, so the neighbors won’t know about them.
To those who whine about not being able to afford to live here: Well then move to a much less expensive area. When I cannot afford to live here, I will move. Palo Alto does not owe you anything. The limo-libs who suggest otherwise should take you into their own homes.
@ Crescent Park Dad: You don’t need an ordinance that prohibits the use of the streets to create an RV site.
Are you willing to have an RV park next to your house? If not then why are trying to impose what you don’t want to be subjected to onto other Palo Alto residents and not yourself?
The city of Palo Alto doesn’t even want to retain its last mobile home park,
the last thing the city would do is build an RV park.
Right now there are about 30 to 50 vehicle dwellers in a city of 67,000 residents. What’s the problem?
For the most part these 30 to 50 vehicles are spread through-out the city and would probably be even more thinly dispersed if the police would allow them to. Which would you rather have, 30 vehicles parked next to your house are 1 to 3 vehicles?
As far as laying down a guilt trip about serving in the military, let me ask you did you serve so that America can create two sets of laws, one for the wealty and one for the poor because based upon your position in denying the poor the right to use public streets just like yourself that is what you want?
Oh, here comes your response, “I don’t live in a vehicle on the public street and neither should you or anyone else.” CPD
Then no one should be allowed to eat fast food in their car. Then no one should be able to put make-up on in a car or shave in a car on their way to work. Then no one should be able to change their clothes prior to working out at the baseball, soccer or softball fields. Then no one should be able to change a diaper in a car. Then no one should be able to sit in their car at 3:00 in the morning. Then no one should be allowed to take a nap in their car for any period of time at any time of day.
@ Craig Laughten: If you don’t like living in an urban enviornment, and there is no disputing that Palo Alto has become an urban enviornment, then I suggest you move because ABAG is a coming and the population is going to increse 30 to 50% over the next 10 years. This means more cars, more people and more homeless people.
ABAG report says number of jobs and people will increase through 2035, but region’s housing stock may not keep pace
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BAY-AREA-Population-expected-to-swell-by-2-2465462.php
If you want Palo Alto to return to “Shady Acres” then I suggest you direct City Council to eliminate about 30 to 40 percent of the businesses in Palo Alto. Dozens of Start ups are craming 20 to 30 people into 10ft by 30ft former retail spaces that formerly maintained 2 to 3 employees.
Take a deep breath and repeat after me, “there is a huge shortage of housing relative to jobs in Palo Alto and the entire bay area, and it is this reason and this reason alone why people are forced to live in their cars.”
There are only two options to solve this problem.
Solution One: Build a surplus of housing.
Solution Two: Force the businesses that have created too many jobs for the available housing to move to other regions of California where there is plenty of housing or at least cheap land enabling the creation of more housing.
This shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out, for tens of thousands of people commute to the bay area from Tracy, Modesto and Manteca every day. Force Yahoo, Google, Twitter, Face Book, AOL and the others to relocate 5o,000+ jobs to Manteca and Modesto.
This will result in more locale retail businesses springing up in Manteca and Modesto producing a number of service oriented jobs compelling thousands more workers to relocate to Manteca and Modesta.
The cost of housing will drop and the homeless will simply disappear back into the housing market.
The added benefit will be the reduction of green house emissions by taking thousands of cars off the roads every day.
CPD, your solution to build a service center for the homeless will not solve the problem it will only exacerbate the problem by refusing to deal with the root cause of the problem and thereby prolong the problem.
CL, if you’re not willing to implement one of the two solutions above then you need to stop talking about it because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The government spends more on homeless services than ever before yet homelessness is at an all time high. Obviously the solutions currently being applied do not work.
What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
When did America experience the least amount of poverty and homelessness in its history? In the 1950s and 1960s when there was a huge housing boom creating a giant surplus of affordable housing.
>CL, if you’re not willing to implement one of the two solutions above then you need to stop talking about it because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Palo Alto is, and should be, an elite town, where elite brains produce the high tech approaches of the future (hear about Stanford working on an artificial hear built from natural cells?). Service sector workers should not be expected to afford to live here…they should commute, using commute buses (with dedicated commute lanes), trains, vans, etc. After all, Manhattan is viable, with commute workers.
Here we are again.
Its Wednesday afternoon and there are nearly 28 street parking spaces in front of our businesses taken up by RV campers. (see neighborhood description in prior post).
These campers are really homeless folks who have been able to consolidate into old RVs. Its a great solution for them to deal with the issue of homelessness…and incredibly sad. The RVs are in poor repair, have various associated decrepit vehicles parked around them, have orange traffic cones to “claim” parking spaces and have not moved more than 10-20 feet in months.
I truly feel for these folks. They don’t live in RVs by choice.
I’m equally conflicted as our staff does not have on-street parking, our clients complain that they can’t park close and we have had continuing issues of RVs emptying their holding tanks into the storm drains.
HELP! We need these folks to move to another more appropriate location. And by “appropriate” I just don’t mean “out of sight out of mind”. They need to be located in a place that’s safe, has suitable RV support services, and can accommodate RVs and car camping without adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Its not so much to ask for the unfortunate who need to camp here and the businesses that exist here.
PLEASE! Help!!!
CPA DO YOU HEAR US???
anonymous,
Nobody is “trumping” your rights. What about you? do you trump my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness? Perhaps some people are homeless because most of the homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods hire illegals to mow their lawns, trim the trees, wash the windows, wash the car,
be a “nanny” or even do semi-skilled home repair, just because they work for
little pay, while getting government benefits. You trumped my rights, because you are guilty of this very thing. So, now I can’t earn a dollar for doing home repair work. I have been “replaced” by your illegal slave labor, so now I’ll camp out in front of your home, its simply pay back for what YOU caused in the first place!
So, if you don’t like MY behavior, better change YOUR behavior!
> Then no one should be allowed to eat fast food in their car
Sure they should be able to eat fast food in their car–but this is not the issue.
But too often the wrappers, bags and drink cups from these in-car dining experiences end up on the street, outside our homes–forcing the home owners to bus the trash from those whose rights you seem to be so ready to champion.
Why should people be able to throw their trash on the street, or other people’s yards? Got a good answer for us? And if you agree that they shouldn’t–what should we homeowners do when we see this sort of thing about to happen?
Are vehicles parked on El Camino regulated by the City of Palo Alto or Caltrans or some other entity? I see more and more campers parked along El Camino. Do the County or Caltrans have rules or laws about camping on the street?
Come on down…Palo Alto is open for business. Bring campers, vans, cars, tents, sleeping bags and let’s party. I think the new Mitchell Park library would be a wonderful solace for long term overnight stay.
Just make sure to look where you step in the morning when you leave your house folks!This is unbelievable!
Wow Craig! Such bad behavior for a man. So you believe you are an elite part of this so called Palo Alto? Huh.
What do you do when your sister mother or brother or father or friend fall to illness and can not wipe their own posterior? Do you oust them because they can no longer contribute?
One of the homeless ladies in Palo Alto had a Nobel peace prize. Her SSA fixed income was not enough to live in her city.
May I suggest a movie it’s called:”A day without Mexicans”.
May I also suggest a book by Dr. Suess called: “The Sneeches”.
The Queen
Really shallow palo alto residents?
I would like to thank the lawyers, homeless advocate’s this ban is criminalizing the homeless its profiling the poor, discrimination segregation all over again instead of Americans hating different races now its the homeless
You all sound like whining petty people
do the right thing that’s helping solve the problem advocate housing or a rental control areas it’s the greedy landlords driving prices up
in 1968 a three bedroom you could rent for 350.00 dollars a month.
When city government allocates funding to non-profits, and don’t require these non-profits to report back every 3 months with actual results from the funding being allocated, we have a endless “poverty pimp” service industry on “Encina Avenue”. Where there is “plenty of opportunity”.
The name even is a fat lie! This Innvision has no track record of actually
helping anybody out of homelessness. What they run there is a merry-go-round
of poverty. They don’t want impoverished people to “recover” or their
job will end!
Allocating another $250,000 to the same endless “merry-go-round” does nothing to help the problem, it just perpetuates the problem.
What will solve this homeless problem then?
1) Re-educate the wealthy investors on basic economics
2) institute another WPA program, which pulled our country out of the great depression.
3) do not use a band-aid approach, which is what our city council is doing.
4) treat the root cause of homelessness, and that is unemployment
and the non-existence of affordable housing.
5) Do not let Non-profits run the show, instead hire those who have actually been homeless. Somebody who has been through hardship and
managed to pull themself out of it knows something that some college grad
will NEVER know, that is, how to survive when the odds are against you.
All the book learning in the world can not teach you these things.
For those who dis-agree with what I’ve written, thats fine, its your right.
For those who agree, but excuse the wrongs perpetrated upon the poor,
where is YOUR voice during city council meetings?
For Phil: I agree with your great ideas, and glad that there are a few good veterans who fought for my rights, I thank you and honor you for it!
I live in the Ventura neighborhood. I support parking restrictions, which only allow legal residents to get them. I am so tired of these car campers being allowed over here. Why can’t we get some help? Is it because we have too many minority people living here?
@ Craig Laughton:
1) When did you move to Palo Alto?
2) What year did you buy your house?
3) How much did you pay for your house?
4) What was your yearly income when bought your house?
@ Free-For-All: As I previously pointed out there are a number of housekeepers, home service providers, construction workers, gardeners and delivery personel who litter the streets.
@ Teresa: There is a shortage of housing relative to the number of jobs and people. The solution to the problem is to build more housing and force businesses to move to areas where there is more housing.
@ Craig Laughton: I would like to thank you agreeing with me that businesses need to move out of town for there is not enough room for them here. When will you be putting a referendum on the ballot to force businesses to move?
Just the Facts:
Daytime population change due to commuting: +63,878 (+96.3%)
Workers who live and work in this city: 9,718 (32.0%)
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Palo-Alto-California.html#ixzz3JZ7ntA00
Out of about 30,000 Palo Alto workers, 20,000 leave town to work in another town and over 60,000 workers already commute on a dialy basis to Palo Alto to work. Most people, including those with, ‘elite brains’ according to Craig Laughton already live elswhere because palo alto is overly saturated with jobs.
Wait. For years craig has been complaining about “ elite” neighborhoods in Palo Alto. But now he says that Palo Alto should be an elite town. An elite town would have elite neighborhoods, craig.
Also craig if you want a city wide referendum, get the ball rolling and start collecting signatures. But remember just because a majority voted for it does not make it legal. Ask Pete Wilson and measure 8 supporters
As a tax payer in PA, I am appalled that portion of my comment was removed just because I stated the fact.
The fact is campers parking in front of homes and businesses lack the basic facilities needed when they need to use the bathroom in the middle of the night.
It’s incredible that as a property owner and a tax payer that I have to put up with this nonsense.
>Wait. For years craig has been complaining about “ elite” neighborhoods in Palo Alto. But now he says that Palo Alto should be an elite town.
No contradiction on my part. The current elite neighborhoods want nothing to do with car campers in their own neighborhoods, although they are fine with dumping the problem on non-elite neighborhoods (I feel for you, Teresa). Palo Alto will inexorably become elite throughout, because that is what the market demands.
If and when the time comes for me to sell my house, I want to get a maximum return. Most honest home owners would tell you the same thing, including the city council members who currently own their homes.
Well in the future we will have tee pees in Silicon Valley for the homeless and me and my son will start that non profit because someone needs to offer some creative solutions for the housing problems.
Palo Alto used to have tee pees….
All 7,000 of us will have no choice but to leave or fight to stay in a place we used to and still call home. The Bay Area is our home. I do not want to be a prisoner of hope but fight to make it a place where we can live not just survive.
Please join me in the future.
Peace and Love,
Diane
Oh well turns out the federal law applies in the special special land of Palo Alto. Whaddya know! Now if the school board would get the memo we could declare the end of the secession movement.
> One of the homeless ladies in Palo Alto had a Nobel peace prize.
Really? What happened to the one million dollar prize that goes with that prize?
Really interested in knowing how someone with the intellectual capacity to win a Nobel can not apply herself to earn enough money to live in an apartment somewhere in the US–but not on the streets of Palo Alto.
@ Craig Laughton:
“If and when the time comes for me to sell my house, I want to get a maximum return. Most honest home owners would tell you the same thing, including the city council members who currently own their homes.” Craig Laughton.
Please answer the following questions:
1) When did you move to Palo Alto?
2) What year did you buy your house?
3) How much did you pay for your house?
4) What was your yearly income when bought your house?
> Please answer the following questions:
Why?
> As I previously pointed out there are a number of housekeepers, home
> service providers, construction workers, gardeners and delivery personel
> who litter the streets.
And you know this, how?
The entitled attitudes here are appalling. Growing up in Palo Alto or having lived here prior to having to resort to car camping isn’t a rational reason for living in a car in Palo Alto. At best, it’s selfish, entitled, arrogant, delusional, irrational, and most of all, complacent.
I am in my 50s and attended my 30th reunion recently and only a handful of Paly alums live in Palo Alto. Yes, those rich kids from Old Palo Alto and Crescent Park mansions are now living elsewhere because they couldn’t afford to move back. They aren’t living in their cars defiantly due to wishful thinking and childhood memories.
The pro-car camping liberals are most likely those who bought their Palo Alto houses before the prices topped $200,000. The rest of us who have paid overblown house prices with our blood, sweat and tears and $20,000+ in property taxes each year want car camping banned.
Could culture be attributed to the homeless attitudes? Who are these homeless people? Are they entitled 4, 5th, 6th generation Americans who don’t take advantage of the opportunities in America or are they immigrants? How is it that immigrants who speak no English come to America and one generation later, they aren’t living in their cars?
@ Free-For-All: It will be self-explanatory once Mr. Laughton answers the question. People answer these types of questions all the time so why wouldn’t he want to answer the questions unless he has something to hide.
Paly alum….well put. I too paid overblown price for my home with overblown property taxes to go with it. Do I cry about it? Of course not. I just don’t get this idea that I have to just put up with Rvs and cars camping in front if my property.
Next election I will be reading more carefully each bio of every city council members before voting. It is very upsetting that this issue us being forced down on everyone’s throat like it or not.
Agree with Paly Alum. Immigrants view America as a gold mine while Americans are too prideful to work lower end jobs. I couldn’t wait to turn 15 so I could start earning money.
> It will be self-explanatory once Mr. Laughton answers the question.
This is really too personal, and no one should be expected to produce this sort of information. Of course, most of this information is in the public domain, and some of it even on-line.
But what about yourself–care to give Mr. Laughton a nudge and provide us your name, and particulars–such as you are demanding from him?
>Please answer the following questions:
1) When did you move to Palo Alto?
2) What year did you buy your house?
3) How much did you pay for your house?
4) What was your yearly income when bought your house?
Phil, it’s none of your business, but I will play along:
1. I bought my house in 1977 (in College Terrace). It was, and still is, mostly a shack, but I fixed it up myself, and I am comfortable living in it. The property would be worth more in the marketplace, if I would scrape it, and sell it as a vacant lot.
2. I paid about $77K (Zillow says it is now worth about $1.7M…wish it was more.
3. When I bought my house, my yearly income was $8,400. I couldn’t afford it, but I figured out a way to hang in there. I rented out rooms. It was an interesting experience.
I have refinanced several times, in order to stay afloat, and to pay for my kids college education. I have about $700k that I still owe, but I can make the monthly payment, as long as I keep working. I am 64 years old.
Does this help you?
Now let me ask you, Phil:
1. What did you do to buy a house, anywhere?
2. Are you a trust fund baby?
3. Why are you stuck on the tit of Palo Alto? Why not move to where you could afford to exist, possibly Salinas, Soledad (where I was raised) or Henderson, NV? Plenty of work in those places, if you are willing to do it.
4. I did a bunch of field labor in my life. Please explain your own experience in the fields. I don’t complain about it…just a fact that helps to explain my work ethic.
5. Who taught you how to whine so much? When did you start to blame others for your own plight?
If someone is working or going to school, but they don’t have enough money to afford a house or apartment in Palo Alto or a particular city, then they look in a different city or town which they can afford. They shouldn’t feel entitled to camp at someone’s home.
Also, while some homelessness is due to the economy, for many it is because of mental illness or drugs or alcohol. Allowing people to camp at people’s homes isn’t going to fix that, and if the City is so afraid or lawsuits, they should consider possible suits the first time a child is harmed trying to walk to our wonderful schools because the City government invited sick people to live at the kids’ homes.
Craig Laughton – you hit the nail right on the head! The operative word here is “entitlement” . Other than trust fund babies, and lotto winners, every PA homeowners work extremely hard to keep their home in this area. I chose to struggle and work very hard so that I can afford a decent home for my family vs being homeless or living out of a car or rv. Nothing comes easy unless you win the super lotto.
The same entitlement attitude I also hear when it comes to the subject of Buena Vista Mobile home issue.
To Craig Laughton, thank you so much! You understand that hard work should be expected, and some these whiners are not be respected. I also worked in the fields, and it brings tears to my eyes to hear your own experience in the fields. Also, thank you so much for supporting the Ventura neighborhood. We get so very little respect from our city council.
@ Craig Laughton: I don’t blame anybody for my plight Craig for I don’t even have a plight. And I certainly do not live off the tit of Palo Alto or any other charity. I work to support myself and the day I cannot is the day that I will die.
I did my fare share of work in the fields too when I was younger, and you could say that I still do to some degree.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/19/236506/immigration-crisis-at-border-afflicts.html
So you paid for your kids’ education, lucky them. In 1977 a person could work at Palo Alto Hardware Store and pay for their rent while also paying
their educational costs at Foothill and a state college.
In 1975 a 3 bedroom house cost as low as $61,000.00
In 1975 a Delivery Driver earned $7,200.00
Source: Palo Alto Times
You paid $77,000 for your house in 1977 and were earning $8,400.00 a year, not much more than a delivery driver.
Your house was about 9.16 times your yearly income when you bought it.
According to the “westegg” inflation calculator $8,400.00 in 1977 would be equivalent to $31,848.73 in 2013.
According to the “westegg” inflation calculator $77,000 in 1977 would be equivalent to $291,946.71 in 2013.
Your house is now worth $1.7 million. Why is your house worth 5.8 times the inflation rate?
If you were to buy your house today based upon your earning power in 1977 your house would be 53.37 times your yearly income.
Based upon your own criteria you cannot afford to live in Palo Alto through your own ability but are only able to because the standard to live here was lowered for you. Talk about living off the tit of a charitable economy, look at you.
Craig, in 1977 it was acceptable to you for the grocery store and hardware store clerks to live next door to you yet in 2014 they are not acceptable to you. What changed?
Homeless are people human beings
Someone child
Sum members dont remember what learned in us history
I grew up here and know dozen or so homeless living in vehicles
I have been on affordable housing lists for here
Went to school here worked here rented here
Now homeless here
Stop all the ranting and start to think about ideas of how to help solve the problems think outside the box
Camino inn closed how bout having the homeless live there
How bout being progressive and not stuck in races thinking
I have bigger problems than sit here and read you ranting
I lost a large amount of friends cuz I have the toxic flu of homelessness
Just one person helped he wrote me a check never heard from my friend
@ Phil: > What changed?
In 1626 the Dutch bought the island of Manhattan from the Lenape Indians for about $24 (or so the story goes). Manhattan now goes for over $1K per square foot. Your argument seems to be that Manhattan should still be worth $24 and that small farmers should still be able to live there.
Supply and demand determined that Manhattan is now worth what it is currently worth. Same for Palo Alto. We don’t live in a static world.
Maybe when I sell, I will buy an RV. But you won’t see me demanding to park it on PA streets. I will go to where I can afford to go, and park my RV in a legal RV park.
>> Posted by Craig Laughton
>> @ Phil: > What changed?
>> In 1626 the Dutch bought the island of Manhattan from the Lenape Indians for about $24
>> (or so the story goes). Manhattan now goes for over $1K per square foot.
That comment doesn’t portray you as so sincere about discussing this issue.
I’ll bet at the time the Indian who got the $24 by taking the whole island away from his fellow Indians when he did not have the right to do that, defended the market system too, in his own way.
We all see where it got the Indians too to play that game … now. Seems you, Craig, did not quite understand the moral lesson even though you like to express your self-righteous judgmental tone.
>> Your argument seems to be that Manhattan should still be worth $24 and that small farmers should still be able to live there.
How did you infer that about Phil’s argument? Your statements even if they were correct do not imply that? But in a distorted way, the “Indians” did get their way, just not in the exact places they wanted or used to exist, so there is a recognized legal precedent which you want to joke about to dismiss.
>> Supply and demand determined that Manhattan is now worth what it is currently worth.
>> Same for Palo Alto. We don’t live in a static world.
That was MORE true back in the 1970’s than it is today, most markets are bid up by global investors that interfere with markets a lot more now than they did them because there was not the ability then to corner markets or dismiss the concerns of the people. So, in a very similar way the “natives” of an area, the people who were born and live here and are tied to the area are just dismissed and have no rights because someone decided under force of arms to create their own rules about land ownership. The group has changed in ownership and nature a bit, but it is still just as arbitary, except for the force of arms part.
So when the global speculative economy is all in the hands of just a few people and they want to toss everybody else off “their” land, you will be fine with it, and to be consistent would not want to have even a reservative to exist on, right Craig? 😉
>> Maybe when I sell, I will buy an RV. But you won’t see me demanding to park it on PA streets.
>> I will go to where I can afford to go, and park my RV in a legal RV park.
You seem to like and care about Palo Alto, in your own way … do you really think you are not going to have a problem moving away from an area you have lived in for over 40 years?
>You seem to like and care about Palo Alto, in your own way … do you really think you are not going to have a problem moving away from an area you have lived in for over 40 years?
Why should that matter? Emotional infantilism is not a basis upon which to make public policies.
@one of those peoples: Why don’t your parents or relatives help you? Why are you waiting for someone to bail you out? Why not get a job and live in the East Bay or San Jose where prices aren’t outrageous like Palo Alto? Why do you HAVE to live in Palo Alto? Because you like the people? Do you talk with us all the time or keep to yourself? I couldn’t wait to turn 15 so I could get a work permit and start earning money at McDonald’s. And yet, people love to simply exist and watch others work instead of lifting a finger. And they complain there is no sympathy.
I had a friend from Paly who has been unemployed for at least a decade. He’s intelligent but simply lazy. Many alums have tried to help him without success. His parents give him money because he has no desire to work. I tried to get him a simple job but he’d rather shoot the breeze.
iSez, you have no call to make a pile of assumptions/accusations about other people like that, despite the fact that you think you know someone who is lazy.
Did you just turn 15 a few weeks ago … maybe that might make it understandable why you have no clue about life on planet Earth for the non-Palo Alto entitled 0.1%’ers. Sheesh, we are lucky here, some people should realize how lucky, and there but for the grace of God ….