Post a New Topic
Original post made
by resident, Midtown,
on Apr 9, 2014
I don't know why they're bringing it up now, this has been an issue for 20+ years...
I think they're bringing it up now because right now the city is right now shutting down mobile home parks and living in campers on the street.
The city is shutting down mobile home parks? That's news to everyone...
Maybe because the whole Peninsula has gentrified to the point where when one sees homeless people walking around in filthy blankets at expensive shopping centers it's a big contrast to how "reality" is being constructed around us. Then...ooops - that reality is rudely interrupted by a homeless person.
In the meantime, the City is doing nothing to stop the razing of the last patch of actual market-based affordable housing in Palo Alto, at the Buena Visa Mobile Home park.
The horrible irony, of course, is that the incentives to build higher-density on the ridiculous pretense that this will produce affordable housing in Palo Alto is a major reason. The new owners of the property, once they have evicted the 400+ low-income, long-time Palo Alto residents, will then get a zoning exception that allows higher density in exchange for a tiny handful of below-market-rate units that none of the previous residents could afford anyway. Even if they could get through the wait lists of a government program.
It's true that this has never been an affordable place. A large percentage of the "housed" have their own stories of barely hanging in there. The people I know usually choose to move away early enough to put down some roots somewhere they can afford.
The difference this time around has been the active role the PA city council has played in exacerbating these conditions.
It's a sad state of affairs when the WSJ provides better coverage of a local issue than the Palo Alto Weekly. Read and learn, PAW.
"In the meantime, the City is doing nothing to stop the razing of the last patch of actual market-based affordable housing in Palo Alto, at the Buena Visa Mobile Home park. "
This is a private business deal. The current owner is selling and a developer is buying. Not sure the city should be involved.
"It's a sad state of affairs when the WSJ provides better coverage of a local issue than the Palo Alto Weekly. Read and learn, PAW."
Citizen-- you are comparing a newspaper (WSJ) with a for profit advertising journal that acts as cheerleader for the powers that be in PA. The weakly is not a newspaper. While I disagree with the wsj politics at least it is a newspaper
Of the 100+ comments to the WSJ article, the respectful lean toward suggesting a less expensive area than Palo Alto if one wants to live on Social Security checks.
Well good thing they're not in any kind of "senior housing" like they would be on Maybell, then they would be using city services and contributing to traffic!
It is difficult to understand the sense of entitlement among many people in the US. If a person has developed the unfortunate situation of having limited means or income, one does not have a right or a claim to park your vehicle on the street of the one of the most expensive cities in the US over a long term basis. Simple as that and end of story. Palo Alto should have enacted this ordinance decades ago, which is the case in many less affluent cities. One can always move to Salinas or Stockton and get a job working in a fast food restaurant or equivalent, as an example, and make some money. Making an honest living, even if limited, is nothing to be ashamed of.
Americans need to learn from immigrants who come to this country without speaking any English but through hard work, succeed without help from the government. Americans born here are entitled and lazy because they know the government will bail them out. There is so much disability and need-based fraud in this country. Immigrants take any type of job to make ends meet because they appreciate the opportunities of our country. [Portion removed.]
[Portion removed due to deletion of referenced comments.]
People should know that the Weekly endorsed the vehicle dwelling ban and that was shameful, truly shameful. Then, it cried crocodile tears in a big feature package when, predictably, a homeless women turned up dead of exposure on a park bench. Of course, the stories were all about how hard it is to help the mentally ill, not about how it feels to be homeless in a heartless community that passes (with the public cheerleading of the newspaper) a cruel ordinance like the VHO.
The Weekly should retract its support for the VHO. The Cubberley problem was solved by a seperate ordinance barring sleeping in public facilities, and there is no need or problem that requires the VHO any longer. The Weekly brought shame on itself by jumping on the anti-homeless bandwagon without any justification. Time to get off.
From the original WSJ article:
""He didn't know how to take care of money," said the younger Mr. Smith, who lives in Maryland. The two do not keep in regular contact outside of occasional Facebook messages.
He said that after his mother died, he wondered why Mr. Smith continued to live in such an expensive area. He characterized his stepfather as a bit of "an eccentric.""
When one digs deeper into the back story, it becomes a beacon into the truth.
The PAW gives these people WAY too much sympathy, without doing any digging on its own. The WSJ did do some digging, so good for it.
Car campers have already been banned in Palo Alto...now pending a judicial review. If the courts decide correctly, our car campers should become a footnote of history in our city. Never should have been allowed in the first place.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
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
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Barron Park
- Charleston Gardens
- Charleston Meadows
- College Terrace
- Community Center
- Crescent Park
- Downtown North
- Duveneck/St. Francis
- Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
- Esther Clark Park
- Evergreen Park
- Greater Miranda
- Green Acres
- Greendell/Walnut Grove
- Leland Manor/Garland Drive
- Meadow Park
- Monroe Park
- Old Palo Alto
- Palo Alto Hills
- Palo Alto Orchards
- Palo Verde
- South of Midtown
- St. Claire Gardens
- The Greenhouse
- Triple El
- University South
- Woodland Ave. area (East Palo Alto)
- Addison School
- Barron Park School
- Duveneck School
- Egan Middle School (Los Altos)
- El Carmelo School
- Escondido School
- Fairmeadow School
- Gunn High School
- Hoover School
- JLS Middle School
- Jordan Middle School
- Juana Briones School
- Nixon School
- Ohlone School
- Palo Alto High School
- Palo Verde School
- Santa Rita (Los Altos)
- Terman Middle School
- Walter Hays School
- another community
- Another Palo Alto neighborhood
- East Palo Alto
- Los Altos
- Los Altos Hills
- Menlo Park
- Mountain View
- Portola Valley
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Draeger’s Los Altos eyes upgrades, expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,353 views
Housing is for People
By Steve Levy | 33 comments | 2,334 views
College Visit: Lehigh and Lafayette
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 4 comments | 1,655 views
"the Summit" (CompPlan): Forewarned is Forearmed
By Douglas Moran | 21 comments | 894 views
A quiet moment
By Sally Torbey | 8 comments | 667 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2015 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.