Posted by Mobile-Homes-Were-Made-For-Moving, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2012 at 9:44 am
> A better approach is to vigorously pursue replacement-housing
> options for the residents and to work with the current owner to
> ensure he provides the time and resources needed for them to
> make successful transitions.
Why is this a better option than to expect these residents to deal with their own problems like other people who might be in the same situation—such as having their rental unit being converted to a Condo? What makes the owners of “mobile homes” different, in the eyes of the City, than anyone else? Didn’t they purchase “mobile homes” because they are “mobile”—allowing them to move whenever, and wherever, they wanted to? The tone of this editorial seems to be that a great tragedy has befallen Palo Alto because these folks are now going to use their “mobile homes” in the way that they were intended to be used.
Moving is always annoying, but it is not so traumatic that people keel over and die because having to change locations where they call “home”. This newspaper’s editorialists need to get a grip, and turn their attentions to really pressing problems.
Posted by common sense, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2012 at 10:28 am
The city staff has known about this for quite a while; there have been several new low income housing projects developed/or are being developed since the plans for this mobile home park have been known. Will the city should have been working with the mobile park residents to have move to these housing projects (Tree House & low income housing being built at 801 Alma, and the project that will be built at Maybell).
All of these projects are being financed by the city, so the city council can push for this.
Posted by barron park parent, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Dec 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Relieved to learn that the PTA statement is incorrect. Will the editor ever retract the statement? When I read this "false" statement about the pta endorsement, i was very disappointed, but just considered it another error by the schools... My kids attended Barron Park and I gave my time and financial support to many families in need, usually from Buena Vista. My kids education suffered due to Principal Howard lowering standards so that all kids "felt" equal. I had to take my own time to teach my kids what they needed. Howard permitted Buena Vista students to remain in Barron Park after they moved from the district. It was years of this attitude that forced many Barron Park families to the alternate programs at Hoover, Ohlone, Spanish Emersion.
If Barron Park school is permitted to serve the neighborhood in a legitimate fashion, the school can finally prosper. The PTA does not need to worry about the kids who leave from Buena Vista. There are many new Barron Park families and some older families that might return to Barron Park School. It should be the school district jobs to ensure the school is managed properly.
The above comments are all reasonable and show common sense.
Re: mobile parks meant for moving
Agree, if you live in an area that is developing you run the risk of being priced out. My parents (who never owned a home) had to relocate due to increasing rents.... I did not cry to the city council for help.
Posted by common sense, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 16, 2012 at 9:01 am
The 801 Alma affordable housing project is adding 50 units, and the Maybell project has planned 60 units (senior affordable housing). In addition, the redevelopment of the Palo Alto bowling alley site will probably have another 4-5 units. Then there is the Alma plaza redevelopment which has another 15 below market rate units, and the Hohbach development on Park Blvd, (82 apartments, of which around 15%- 12 or more units, should be below market rate rentals).
The existing inventory of affordable housing includes 652 below market rental units and 257 below market ownership units. But very few move out of these units, but it does happen.
Posted by w. dean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Wow, I was once proud to say I was a former resident of Palo Alto.Hmmm, I wonder now.
Some have criticized Buena Vista a below par or an eyesore, or words to that effect.
Have these folks seen trailer parks in large cities that are far more "run down" than these? I would not describe these as run down in any manner (as seen in the posted photos)...maybe a bit dated, but offering affordable housing to folks probably not willing or able to move.Certainly now able to relocate elsewhere in Palo Alto to live the Palo Alto "dream".
If any of you remember moving from (and I suppose back) to Palo Alto, you'd agree moving is one of the three or most stressful events in life.
While Palo Alto may have few or no other mobile home parks, come on, pull you hands out of your deep wallets Palo Altoans and leave this non-threatening anachronism be. After all, Barron Park proper (or at least what remains of the pre-1970 housing stock there) is a true anachronism.
Leaving these folks alone is the progressive thing to do.