Town Square

Post a New Topic

City sued over Monroe Park development

Original post made on Jan 22, 2014

A developer building a housing complex at the former site of Palo Alto Bowl, has filed a lawsuit against the city, challenging its requirement for affordable housing.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 22, 2014, 9:59 AM

Comments (16)

Posted by Melinda , a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:32 am

First they get the approval to build and then they sue. This is what's wrong with the judicial system. Job security I guess.


Posted by TimH, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:52 am

Perhaps it's more about the company I keep, but I only hear the term "capricious" from legal counsel or Seinfeld reruns. Precisely what is "unfair" about a city placing strict requirements on developers (a label that has become an obscenity in Palo Alto discussions) to address community concerns, and how are concerns such as affordability "unrelated to the project". Oh, I see. The actual people of the city are not related to the concerns of the developer. All right, good thing we cleared that up.


Posted by enough!, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:53 am

Oh goody! More people. More traffic! Can't wait!


Posted by John Wu, a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:10 am

Why is the developer suing now? Didn't the developer enter into an agreement with the City on BMR in exchange for permission to build this complex?

If so, is it fair to really "change your mind" and say that quid pro quo isn't acceptable to the developer?


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:29 am

This is worth watching


Posted by resident, a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:55 pm

I'd rather have the bowling alley than 2 dozen more condos. More legal fees, blah, blah, blah. If only the City Council had said 'no' in the first place....
- Perhaps they will get the message and say 'no' the next time they get a proposal from a developer who just wants to get rich with no regard for the community...


Posted by jerry99, a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm

No more "affordable housing" in Palo Alto. [Portion removed.]
When these were sold at 40% below market rate the additional cost was added to the remaining houses in the usual Palo Alto wealth redistribution scheme. And now, forever, we have to pay 40% of the monthly dues for these 4 houses or another $10,000/year subsidy.
Thanks for nothing ,City Council and other socialists promoting these schemes.


Posted by Zayda, a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:39 pm

The sheer greed of our local developers rears its ugly head again. While it might be argued that the burden of providing affordable housing (and parking) should be on the shoulders of those building more office space to lure more workers to Palo Alto, this does smack a bit of 'biting the hand that fed you'.


Posted by Zayda, a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:42 pm

The sheer greed of our local developers rears its ugly head again. While it might be argued that the burden of providing affordable housing (and parking) should fall mostly on the shoulders of the developers building more office space to lure more workers to Palo Alto, this smacks a bit of 'biting the hand that fed you'.


Posted by Stretch, a resident of another community
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Let nothing stand in the way of unbounded greed! They agreed in 2009 in order to get their permits, but now it's too much to ask. I hope the judge reams them out.....again.


Posted by wondering, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Did this builder get density or other concessions as a result of the affordable housing?


Posted by Wondering, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2014 at 8:21 am

Isnt this the developer who just set a precedent by beating our city attorney in the ca supreme court over whether this was a fee or an exaction?


Posted by Get outta town, a resident of Midtown
on Jan 23, 2014 at 9:24 am

Developers should not have this option!!!


Posted by cramley, a resident of Meadow Park
on Jan 23, 2014 at 3:28 pm

yuppies outta town! get outta the country!


Posted by SteveU, a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 23, 2014 at 5:12 pm

SteveU is a registered user.

The city made a demand for LIH that has been found to be illegal.
Why not sue?
It will be expensive to rip those out and rebuild with LUXURY units.

Best laws that money can buy.


Posted by Sheri, a resident of Midtown
on Jan 23, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Agree to terms to get a project approved and then whine (and sue) about being forced to agree under duress, all over 4 BMR units. Not once, but twice. Have these people no shame or sympathy for those who need affordable housing--which is most of us. I used to view Classic Communities favorably. No longer.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scottís Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,097 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 1,660 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 11 comments | 1,526 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 16 comments | 974 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 372 views