Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 11:48 PM

Affordable-housing project divides neighbors
Most residents cite parking, traffic as major concerns while some support the project as needed for lower-income workers

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Build it for all of us, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 12:56 am

I think it is terrible that housing is still being built "for the Service Workers for the City of Palo Alto's people" in such a tiny~ NO space ~crowded unit.

Those "service workers" work their tails off at work ( for you and I) to pay their rents, then go "home" to a tiny hole in the wall. What kind of existence and for how long do you think these "service workers" can endure those cramped living conditions???

I do not understand why a larger accomodation unit can not be upgraded for those workers and give them a little better outlook on life. It would seem to be like living in a chicken cage. One way in and one way out. No room to have company, any social life in a private setting. Walk in the front door, there is the bed. Just like a motel. I think someone needs to go back to the drawing board and rearrange. Also, most workers are probably single. Most would probably be taking a bus to their jobs as they can not afford gas, insurance,car payment~ thus eliminating crowded parking...

Umm, two in a crowded room. (Would that be allowed?) Probably not. Just room enough for one uniform in the small closet.

Can not believe that this wealthy City cannot afford it. Grateful, of course, politics, yes....SPREAD THE CRUMBS AROUND...Wouldn't it be nice to have YOUR service worker smiling and actually not TRYING to smile??? Working would be better all the way around. Happy worker, faster service, better day for all. Think about it. And don't say it cannot be done. If that means rearranging this upcoming project, so be it. Build another one, this City always is in need for pampering and having theirselves serviced. We need two. We need three. But where to put them, and who is going to donate the land to the Palo Alto Housing Corp is another few light years away I'm afraid.

Posted by fight it on principle!!, a resident of Menlo Park, on Oct 30, 2008 at 5:53 am

Those who oppose..prepare yourself to be called mean, greedy, racist, selfish, NIMBYs, and whatever else is possible in labeling.

But, have the courage to fight it. Until we stop giving into this type of intimidation, we will continue to slide to the point of more people receiving than giving into our tax system, then we collapse.

I am not a Palo Alto resident, so have no say. BUT, this type of ridiculous thinking of "affordable housing", meaning "paid for by others" must stop. It is leading to "affordable cars" paid for by others, "affordable mortgages" paid for by others, "affordable insurance" paid for by others...

what is that called again?

Posted by fight it on principle!!, a resident of Menlo Park, on Oct 30, 2008 at 5:54 am

Oh yes, it also leads to "it isn't enough" thinking. No matter how much, it is never enough. As my mother used to say to us kids "give you an inch, and you want a mile". Example, see first post.

Just say "no".

Posted by Too Much, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 8:16 am

BMR units have been built to excess on the Ricky's Hyatt site. There were six sales of BMR units listed one week; 1,700 sq. ft. units selling for $275,000. Now they want to build 35 studio apartments on one small lot. This is all happening in the same neighborhood.

Posted by Mary G, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:37 am

For those who are afraid that low-income housing run by the Housing Corporation could be a blight on their neighborhood, please take a trip past the Webster Wood development at Channing, Middlefield, Addison and Webster streets downtown. It was built 30 years ago and is a lovely addition to downtown. We need to house our workers.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54 am

I am just asking the question as to who is really going to live in these units. A studio apartment is for a single person who spends little time there, basically sleeps, showers, eats breakfast and then returns possibly for an evening meal, watching a little tv and then bed.

Most of the workers I see working for me are family folk. They work hard for long hours, but they want to return to their family when they finish. They are married, with children and they have extended family they like to spend free time with. These units would not suit them.

So, I ask the question, who will live in these units?

Posted by Concerned Retiree, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:03 am

From what I have seen, the salaries, pensions, and other benefits for city workers and teachers, firefighters and policemen for the City of PA certainly would not classify them as "low-income workers." Many of us who lived in Palo Alto for decades and then retired here are having our own struggles to continue living here.

Enough of this push for "low-income" of other BMR housing. We cannot afford to further compromise our already strained infrastructure and resources.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:10 am

Public funding would be better spent on improved public transportation that would allow people to live in more affordable places and move around freely to work where they wish.

Also, Palo Alto is having a very hard time with many overcrowded services (schools, fields, roadways, lack of grocery shopping, come to mind immediately). Why is the city council not putting a moratorium on new building until they come up with planning solutions for city services that would enable us to keep our city infrastructure up to par with all the people they want to stuff in here? BEFORE they stuff them all in here?

city council - step up to the plate here.

Posted by belowmarketeer, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:30 am

I am going to work my butt off to make this project come alive and the good thing is that there is nothing you can do about it you bunch of money hungry isolasonists!

Posted by stretch, a resident of another community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:46 am

Good old Palo Alto - always the same old tired arguments. What's going to happen when a big quake hits and the workers can't get in to shut off the gas, clean debris from the streets, and keep the City running. You wouldn't want your houses to lose value because of a low cost development nearby? Especially after you've paid inflated prices to live there! sheesh

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:47 am

Well, at least if it's one-bedrooms and studios, it's unlikely to add to the school overcrowding issue.

Though the people who want one bedrooms don't tend to be city workers.

I suppose this is all part of PA trying to make ABAG happy.

Posted by South PA Rez, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:54 am

It's time to put some of these projects in the area east of Middlefield and North of Embarcadero. Other parts of the city have borne the brunt of recent development with the area south of Meadow and east of El Camino bearing a reiduculous amount of the growth.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 12:19 pm

South PA Rez,

I agree that South PA has been bearing the brunt of this. But apart from Edgewood, where do you put anything in north Palo Alto? Seriously. There's been the High St. project which is huge and a whole bunch of townhouses replaced the old PAMF site. There are already several apartment buildings in the downtown and Addison's had some of the worst overcrowding in the district.

So where? Apartments over Town and Country maybe?

Posted by Jesse, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Why is it that service workers need to live in the town they work in? I live in Palo Alto but commute to work in Cupertino.

Posted by Only special people for Palo Alto, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 30, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Yes, Jesse, service workers are not the kind of people we want living in PA. They are fine for washing dishes and serving us coffee and doing all the grunt work, but they will not provide anything positive for our city.

We need the kind of people living Palo Alto like the ones the control the city now--look at our city council, our former city manager, the people that ran the Children's Theatre--those are the kind of people that should be allowed to live in Palo Alto

Posted by Jeff Rensch, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Hi Jesse and others -

I am the one quoted in the article in support, (though they spelled my name wrong). In regard to your good question, it is an enormous help in combatting global warming if workers can also *live* in the city where they work or on good economical transit to it. Commuting to Cupertino isn't bad but most service workers here have to commute from much farther away. Their commuting adds to congestion, etc and greatly affects their own quality of life. If we want "walkable" neighborhoods, and we do, this housing is a good step. The tenants will have bus 22 and lots of other transit options for getting to work.

Somebody talked about this housing straining infrastructure but tenants at this income level will not be driving all that much and won't have school-age children... their living here will not harm our infrastructure compared to a long expensive polluting commute.

Jeff

Posted by B.O., a resident of another community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Three words dude-"spread the wealth"

Posted by zanon, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 pm

As a long time Palo Alto resident, I am appalled at this.

Instead of building more units, we should be tearing units down! That way we will not need as many service workers, so don't need to worry about polluting commutes. We will also reduce crowding in our schools and on our streets.

If we build parks instead, it will be even better for global warming.

Just say NO to this terrible project!

Posted by concerned citizen, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm

The parking and traffice issue is huge. Although some claim that these are workers who will be taking public transportation, there is no proof they will, nor is there proof they won't. You can visit many "affordable housing" and low-income housing areas and see cars that are much more expensive than my old subaru. Low-income housing doesn't always equate to no car -- depends on personal priorities.

This project creates an entire area of high-density, low-income housing. South Palo Alto IS being asked to take on more than their fair share of crowding and traffic problems. The townhouses on the old PAMC site can't be compared to small, high-density studio housing.

This is a BAD idea. What would everyone recommend as the best way to fight this? Is there a chance it will be vetoed?

Posted by An Observer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Who exactly is going to live in these units? Is it lower paid city workers? Or is it low paid privately employed workers or retired people? This is important.

I suspect that many or most of the low cost units here are filled with retired, elderly people from other parts of this country or other countries even. I would challenge those running the program to publish information, not personal,so that we know what is going on.

The other issue it that the developers, contractors can make millions in profits from these $1000/sq ft project. If it's not tax money going into it thats fine, but it appears many millions of the equivalent of tax money is going into the new Alma St. project downtown area and these appear to be for low paid private workers in the downtown area. It is equivalent of a subsidy for the employers. If they paid a living wage they wouldn't be necessary.

A Living Wage could be a big new issue for Palo Alto. It would probably be in the $30 to $40/ hr range.

Also Rent Control could be coming here as more rentals are built and more voters for it!!

Posted by Steve, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 9:22 am

There are several affordable housing developments in my neighborhood. I can say authoritatively that the fears on this thread are unfounded. There are not very many of Those People living in them.

Posted by Mike S, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 11:17 am

This place is used as a transition stop for young teens graduating from foster care homes. Thats why the rooms are singles.

Posted by Concerned Neighbor, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm

According to the publicly filed documents, these homes are for people earning between $14,000 and $42,000 and it is specically mentioned that one of the target groups for these units are young adults who can no longer stay in their foster homes. It is obvious that given the target audience and the income thresholds that most of the people who will move into these units will be already living off "the system". They are not likely to be hard working Palo Alto "service providers". In fact, any service provider who is hard working will have an income exceeding these thresholds and will not qualify to live in these units. Senior citizens, teachers, police officers or fire fighters would be most welcome, however, the influx of 35 new residents that meet the City's requirements for living in these 400-500 sq ft units will only serve to increase the congestion and crime in this neighborhood. Neighbors in this area would be well-advised to install security systems or other security measures before this project is completed.

It goes without saying that traffic and parking are already out of control in this area. We can expect longer rush hours and more traffic accidents along W. Charleston if this project is approved.

If it is not too late to go to the polls, I would recommend voting out all of the City Councilmembers who have allowed this project to progress to its current stage.