Posted by Lee Ellak, a resident of another community, on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:28 am

Smaller square footage makes sense with the un-affordable state of housing in the bay area.

Seniors especially need affordable housing and it is sad that apartment rents are skyrocketing which will make it much more difficult for seniors to retire in the area and be near their grandchildren and other family members.

Even single college graduates could get by with smaller square-footage pads to give them time to settle in with their new jobs and to have funds to pay off student loans.

And for the folks who hate cutting their grass on Sunday, their cherished day of rest from the rat-race, smaller square footage means less maintenance and lawn care, if they even have a lawn.

In closing, one ponders, why do cities have to take dictates from the state on what housing numbers are allocated to individual cities? Can't the local politicians influence their state lawmakers to change the laws if the city thinks they should not be forced to build or overbuild? Or the state legislators influence the Congressional leaders at the federal level?

I wonder what the housing plans are for Atherton, for example, or other ritzy areas.

My big fear is that with escalating rents and home prices, seniors will become the next rank to join the homeless.

Posted by neighbor, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Sounds like too much government control to me.

Or - how about we get rid of the luxury-level housing allowance provided by PA taxpayers for PA city manager, etc. -- if s/he is going to join us in living in a "smaller square footage pad?"