Palo Alto hopes to spur affordable housing Around Town, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jan 10, 2013 at 6:52 am
With affordable housing in short supply, Palo Alto's planning officials debated on Wednesday night ways to fulfill this need without exacerbating the traffic and parking problems that have already reached a critical point in some neighborhoods.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 11:55 PM
Posted by Enough!, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 10:37 am
One reason there isn't more affordable housing is greedy "market rate" landlords. And, an attitude that prevails in Palo Alto that perhaps people of lesser means should seek housing somewhere else, like Barstow. It's offensive. The diversity of this City has declined since the 70's, when there was a nice blend of people of all socio economic levels.
Posted by Alcheck's views, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 11:40 am
You don't suppose that Alcheck's passionate opposition to asking developers to substantiate their claims has anything to do with his occupation as an attorney for a Real Estate Investment Group?
Maybe he forgot that he is supposed to be advocating for the city's well being, not for his real estate clients. oops!
Posted by looking forward, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 11:44 am
I'm so looking forward to 3 bdrm houses that cost only 1.2 million an rental that go for less than $3500/month for a 3 brdm apartment :-) I'm so surprised Palo Alto is even considering letting anyone with a less than half million dollar income even consider sullying their streets. You know they might not drive Audis, BMW's and Teslas? OMG. The quality of life will deteriorate!
Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm
BMR Housing income eligibility is set by HUD - Santa Clara counties chart follows, but a single person would have to make $53K or less to be considered low income.
Posted by j99, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Palo Alto is packed with homes and businesses and every usable building seems like it is being torn down for more apartments and businesses. There is a lot of cheap land and room for apartments and condos in East Palo Alto and that is where the new development should be focused. I live in Barron Park, where the city has put most of the "affodable housing crowd" and living quality degraded and continues to deteriorate. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Posted by Alice, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 7:06 pm
We have a genuine, lower income COMMUNITY in Barron Park at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Yet, the powers that be want to turn in over to large scale apartment developers. Let's keep Buena Vista and encourage true, lower income housing.
Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:57 am
@ Alice: not exactly an accurate statement re "powers that be".
The owner of BV cannot afford to pay for the upgrades to meet current code. The owner has decided to sell instead of losing money. An apartment developer wants to buy the property and build a significantly sized apartment complex. In order to do that, the developer would need the city to change the zoning for that property.
You can't make the owner lose money. And obviously no one is going to buy the property and implement the prescribed improvements given that it is a money losing proposition.
Posted by Resident and Employee, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 14, 2013 at 7:20 pm
To Crescent Park Dad - The owner bought the property and did not have the obligation to meet code at time of purchase? Seems to me that the property was sold FOR development sale later. How is it ANYONE can justify forcing out the trailer park ? Under what guidelines were the owners allowed to purchase or have this property occupied with INCOME - when it was not up to code? Sounds more like to me that there was no enforcement of building codes or protection for renters safety for QUITE some time while the owner has been receiving income.
The means by which rthis owner has apparently exploited the tenants is really questionable.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
