News

Santa Clara County supervisors vote to support Buena Vista Mobile Home Park

Board unanimously approves plan to allocate $8M for Palo Alto mobile-home park's preservation

In a strong show of support for residents of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed on Tuesday to allocate $8 million for the mobile-home park's preservation and directed county staff to reach out to other potential partners in the nonprofit community with the purpose of halting the park's pending closure.

The 5-0 by the county board followed the recommendation of board President Dave Cortese and Supervisor Joe Simitian, who last week unveiled their proposal to use $8 million from a county affordable-housing fund that is restricted to projects within six miles of the Stanford University campus. The board also directed staff to enter into discussions with Palo Alto officials, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Housing Trust Silicon Valley and Buena Vista residents about "securing the long-term viability" of the Barron Park neighborhood community.

The board's vote was prompted by the ongoing effort by the park's owner, the Jisser family, to close Buena Vista and redevelop the site at 3980 El Camino Real. The closure process received a boost last fall, when an administrative judge concluded that the Jissers' offer to compensate Buena Vista residents for relocation is reasonable. The Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Residents Association has appealed this decision, and the City Council is scheduled to consider the appeal in April.

But while the appeal centers on the questions of compensation for displaced residents, Simitian's and Cortese's proposal seeks to avoid the eviction altogether. The $8 million would come from a fund set up by Stanford University about 15 years ago as part of Stanford's "general use permit" agreement with the county. Simitian noted that because money is pegged specifically for affordable housing and will not come from the county's general fund, "the fit couldn't be more perfect."

"Candidly, members, $8 million is not going to solve this problem," Simitian said. "But I have felt that too much of the conversation has been about an orderly march toward eviction rather than how to avoid eviction. I'm hoping to change the conversation."

Simitian said that the proposal seeks to do two things: prevent the displacement of nearly 400 residents and retain an important source of affordable housing that once gone is unlikely to be replaced.

"Let's protect the residents who are an integral part of the community, and let's hang on to an increasingly scarce source for affordable housing," Simitian said.

Cortese said the $8 million allocation is intended to provide leverage for other funding sources, a common method of funding affordable-housing projects. The allocation, he said, is "setting up the possibility of making a fair market value to the owner so they're not left short-handed."

The vote came after testimony from several Buena Vista residents and their supporters, including members of the school community and the group Friends of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The Palo Alto Council of PTAs issued a statement thanking the county board for its proposal and called on other local entities to joint the county in the preservation effort.

"Preserving Buena Vista, with its culturally and economically diverse population, enriches our schools and our community," the statement reads. "As PAUSD school board policy emphasizes, 'The diversity of the student population and staff enriches the learning experience for all students.'"

Melodie Cheney, a Buena Vista resident who serves as secretary of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Residents Association, presented a petition signed by more than 200 residents thanking the supervisors for their show of support. She talked about the importance of remaining at Buena Vista, where she owns her first home.

"I can actually say I have a piece of the American Dream," Cheney said. "This is where my second family and I can afford to live, pay our bills and be productive members of the society and the community as a whole."

The county's vote directed staff to return in late February with a report about procedures for disbursing the affordable-housing funds.

Comments

12 people like this
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 27, 2015 at 2:15 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

This is great news. Winter Dellenbach showed the city council last night how local papers across the spectrum have editorialized in support of acting to save BV. The 5-0 mandate for county staff to enter into discussions with parties interested in maintaining BV starts the clock on what I hope will be a positive outcome for all involved, including the current owners. Congratulations, residents and FOBV!


14 people like this
Posted by Carlos
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 27, 2015 at 3:00 pm

Some of the reasons why this country became great are 'respect for' and 'enforcement of' the 'Rule of Law'. You enter into contractual agreements with a good idea of what to expect, and you can then make long-term investment decisions that reward entrepreneurship and risk taking.

When we decide to selectively follow the 'Rule of Law' only when it benefits us, or when politicians start deciding when it's applicable or not, we become like those backward and oppressive societies many of us left behind to immigrate to this wonderful country.

I hope the legal system eventually reaffirms the property rights of the Jisser family, but I'm just afraid a lot of taxpayer money will be wasted in the process due to decisions made by politicians who are more interested in becoming popular than in following the 'Rule of Law'.


14 people like this
Posted by Greenacres
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 27, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Carlos,
You misunderstand what this is about. No one is taking anyone's rights away. There is an interest by the community in saving some affordable housing here, especially in such a cohesive community at BV. All this does is make it possible for the funds to be used, in the event that someone can negotiate a deal. It makes options available to everyone, that is all.

As for the rule of law, that is what is being exercised in the process now, by both sides.


9 people like this
Posted by Hurrah, Hurrah!
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm

Perhaps there is justice in Silicon Valley after all!


Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 27, 2015 at 7:57 pm

That's great but by the time they use this to buy something to develop the park will be closed. Unless your intention is to buy the park that the owner repeatedly said is not for sale.


6 people like this
Posted by Judith
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 28, 2015 at 10:30 am

I don't understand what is meant by "not for sale." Will Jisser evict everyone and then not sell it? Or will he build something himself? If he develops the land himself, there is a cost of construction. Perhaps enough funds can be assembled to exceed that cost and make him a profit.

This is a great opportunity for the city to put its money where its mouth is - collaborate with the Housing Corp, the county and whoever else wants to participate, buy the property and keep the 400 people in their homes.


9 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 10:40 am

Presumably the cost of the land is tens of millions of dollars or more. I'd assume the various pledges of $8 million are simply politicians trying to show they did something. If any part pf the government or Stanford or anyone wanted to pay the Jisser family market rate for their property, then they should do so. If the buyer thinks the best use of the property is low-density affordable housing, then power to them; its their property now. The Jissers seem to have concluded that they would rather do something else with their property, so anyone who disagrees should simply buy it outright.

Carlos is precisely correct: rule of law is the best thing America has going for it, and we tamper with it at our peril.

Does anyone know what the market rate would be? And can anyone explain why it is just that the Jissers are having their economic freedoms so impinged for giving such a good deal to so many people for so long? This is the reward they get?


6 people like this
Posted by Linus
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 11:22 am

Common guys.... This is just another road block out of several in order to squeeze money out of Jissers . This guy is closing the park and he is going through the process per advice from his legal team. At the end of the day, it will be the US Courts of Appeals that will uphold the rights of property ownership - assuming that it will end up this far.


6 people like this
Posted by DZ
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 28, 2015 at 11:37 am

BV doesn't fit Palo Alto anymore. It is an "out-of-dated" spot in a brand new city. I don't understand why people think their own interests is above the interest of the whole city. If you are only thinking of your "own community", you are not part of the whole community.


3 people like this
Posted by Map Guy
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 11:47 am

The whole site is about 4.9 acres. Land around here is costing almost $10M per acre, so it could cost around $50 million to buy out the Jisser's. Maybe more if they do an economic analysis based on the RM-15 zoning. I think they could put about 70 very expensive houses or condos there with that zoning.

Good luck!


2 people like this
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 12:02 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

Linus,
"This is just another road block out of several in order to squeeze money out of Jissers"

Or perhaps insistence by the Jissers that it's not for sale is an attempt to "squeeze money out of" a motivated potential purchaser who may have access to more resources to bring to the table than was thought. Resolving these questions is what negotiations are for. if you're worried about the rights of property owners I think you should take heart in the evidence that no one is going to try to force the owner to accept a low-ball offer for the property.

I don't think many, apart from a handful of BV occupants who have already signaled to the Jissers' lawyer that they'd be willing to accept the current offer and leave Palo Alto, feel that the preferred outcome here is increased relocation assistance. (It would be small consolation for the families forced out of Palo Alto into a housing market that guarantees they won't be able to resettle anywhere close to their current Barron Park homes.)

Making a deal that keeps the BV community here while satisfying the Jissers' core interests is the challenge. Let the negotiations begin!


7 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 12:22 pm

There are two obvious reasons that the owner doesn't want to sell. First, since Palo Alto's mobile home ordinance was enacted in 2001, the economics of rental housing on the Peninsula and Palo Alto has changed dramatically. A decade and a half ago, Buena Vista would have become condominiums. This was the underlying assumption of the ordinance. Condominiums would have required a subdivision map, at which point the City could have more aggressively pushed for larger share of affordable housing in return for approving the map. With interest and vacancy rates now at historic lows, rental housing is an easy money maker for whoever develops this site even if it stays within current zoning.

The second reason is strategic. Neither the ordinance nor state law require the owner to submit a development plan for the site when the closure (i.e. "change of use") occurs. Since the site's plans aren't known, this strategy effectively blunts criticism that the owner will personally realize a huge gain from the closure. We saw this when the Prometheus development offer was active. After all, the owner could potentially go broke developing the site on his own. I don't think he will (either go broke or develop the site himself), but that's the response we'd expect. Also, if the owner was willing to sell now, he'd be forced to name a price which obviously isn't to his advantage before the closure process gets completed. Once he has approval for closure, he can put the City in a bidding war with developers both here and offshore and let the market set the price.

Even if you don't agree with the purchase of the park, Simitian's proposal is a good move. A multi-agency effort to purchase the park effectively kicks the last remaining legal leg the residents have for keeping the park open when or if the purchase effort fails.Given the windfall PAHC received selling their Maybell site, the current value of the complete 5 acre site (remember the owner was only selling 4.5 acres to Prometheus) is in the mid to high $40 million range. That kind of money could fund a lot more affordable housing for a much longer period of time than "saving" Buena Vista would. Now, the City will have the opportunity to throw up its hands and say: "Well, we tried, but the numbers just didn't pencil out." Any legal action against the City for violating fair housing laws becomes unsupportable.


Like this comment
Posted by Linus
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 12:48 pm

@Bill- well written analysis


5 people like this
Posted by jack
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 28, 2015 at 1:02 pm

@bill- well said, this is precisely a well thought out strategy on behalf of the owner. Normally, it would be a gamble, meaning the longer the owner waits the land can go down in value. Being that this Palo Alto, I would gamble on the land going up even further in time than down. Thus time is on the owners side.

Further, the rents have gone up this year. Per the residents attorney they are collecting about $6000 per month more this year - about $50 to $60 per household. I can see this happening every year until the park closes or the residents are economically forced out.

The residents are trying to get more out of the owner and the City Council are backing the extortion tactic, however I would caution the residents on this. They may eventually get a bit more, but what they get may be less valuable as the bay area continues to sky rocket in price. This is a very volatile situation with all the odds leaning to the owner


2 people like this
Posted by Greenacres
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 28, 2015 at 2:02 pm

"is in the mid to high $40 million range. That kind of money could fund a lot more affordable housing"

Actually, the cost of the Maybell proposal would have ultimately been something like $30 mil for the building I think and then there's the cost of the land (net probably $6-8 mil after the houses were sold). It would have only been 60 units. At BV, there are over 100 units already. The loans would be for land not for new structures, which would mean the City or whatever public agency making low-interest or no-interest loans would have less risk and would ultimately be paid back. And the transaction would prevent the displacement of existing residents, which has its own benefits.

I don't think you can use Maybell as a comparable either, since BV is on El Camino and Maybell in the middle of a nice neighborhood across from a park and school. Part of Maybell is zoned R-2 and it's adjacent to R-1. It's more valuable property because of its location, even though they are in the same general neighborhood.

Jisser should be able to expect market rates for his land, however, there are things that tip the scale in favor of acting earlier. He gets use of his profits sooner and in advance of the next building season. He avoid the hassle and expense and uncertainty of continuing the suit. And he has the ability to justify the maximum price that one could reasonably consider and write-off some of that as a donation with the residents' non-profit. There are scenarios where one could see Jisser coming out better financially and personally for reaching an agreement sooner than later in selling the property to the residents, through a negotiation with the City and County involved.


2 people like this
Posted by Greenacres
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 28, 2015 at 2:07 pm

@DZ,
You wrote
"BV doesn't fit Palo Alto anymore. It is an "out-of-dated" spot in a brand new city. I don't understand why people think their own interests is above the interest of the whole city."

I don't think most people who think that have ever even visited BV. You can't see it from the street. It's behind a gas station. A few thousand dollars in hardscape and nice landscaping, and it would enhance the neighborhood. This is just really not a reason. If something being out-of-place and out-of-date-looking were a reason to get rid of a building, I would think we could get rid of that awful overzoned Hilton Hotel going up next to Hobee's. I recoil every time I see it. You hardly see the mobile home park and the part that you can see could be improved if the residents owned it.


Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 28, 2015 at 2:18 pm

green acres. Your logic is not right. BV is a better site than mobile being next to commercial. And delaying further only hurts the residents.


Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 28, 2015 at 8:39 pm

$8M is a small fraction of the ultimate cost if a public entity buys this property to preserve low income housing. Another $30M to $40M will be required to buy the property, and then what? Now that it's publicly owned low income housing, I'd bet that none of the mobile homes there would pass any sort of code, new buildings would be called for, reimbursement for old mobile homes removed, temporary housing costs, etc., and the price tag keeps climbing. At what price does BV become too expensive to 'save'?


Like this comment
Posted by palo alto resident
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 9:21 pm

@greenacres - I so appreciate your commitment to trying to making this work, but I don't the economic realities of Palo Alto real estate will support you. 4.5 acres of R15 zoning is probably worth somewhere between 40 and 50 million dollars. BV backs up to some R1 zoning, but also PC, Commercial and R 30. If Jisser develops the property, thats a potential of over 100 million in real estate. Taking advantage of the affordable housing laws could net him more density without a zoning change and add to that. The market in Palo Alto is so hot, that with a competent partner to actually do the construction, it would be harder not to make a profit...


Like this comment
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 9:47 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

This is a very informative discussion. Thank you Bill, Jack, Ben and Greenacres for your perspectives.

All of us have a stake in the price that gets assigned to this property in the negotiation process, should it occur. What sounds like a lot of money, e.g $8M, when thinking of coming up with $30M looks quite different when we hear figures of $40M, $50M and more floated in the conversations around town. Just how big is the property boom, how likely is it to be sustained?

There's a lot of real estate experience and expertise represented in Town Square. Commercial and home real estate is a major economic driver here. Since almost everyone posts anonymously there would seem to be little personal risk in some knowledgeable speculation of what we might expect in the near- and long-term. References to insightful articles on this topic would be appreciated.

To say of the Maybell project that it would have been *only 60 units* seems not to recognize how difficult it will be to get that same number of units any time in the future if Buena Vista doesn't work out. Getting two units here, three there (see the 441 Page Mill proposal that the council balked at this week) makes for a tough slog to maintain healthy economic diversity in the city.


Like this comment
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 28, 2015 at 9:50 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

Palo Alto Resident,

You read my mind while I was typing my post. Thanks.


4 people like this
Posted by Greenacres
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 am

"Taking advantage of the affordable housing laws could net him more density without a zoning change and add to that. "

That in a nutshell lays bare the insanity of our "affordable" housing rules and is why we should be committing every resource possible to save this park. Because this is the last patch of true affordability in this town, and it's just egregious for laws ostensibly supporting affordable housing to help push out the existing low income residents to get a smattering of BMR units that won't really be that affordable. This situation is the poster child for what's wrong with the rules. When it's new buildings and focusing on spots, we have all the money in the world, but when it's real people, real neighbors among us, suddenly it's just too bad.

The residents want to find a way to purchase the park. In exchange for getting the loans, and if I understand the possibility correctly, they would then enter into a regulatory agreement similar to what PAHC has with BMR owners so the property stays affordable into the future and the residents benefit, but they also stay out of subsidized programs. Low interest or no interest loans would be a subsidy, yes, but it's not a tremendous public outlay for what we would be getting. Look at it this way: the residents are already paying (I can't remember the exact amount, can someone post?) $800k? $1M? annually in rent. If they are paying that instead to service a loan, they're paid up for a $30M no-interest loan after 30 years, not even counting any increases over the years. OK, I appreciate that's not the full story, but my point is, this could end up being really cheap overall for the public compared to what it costs to put in new buildings, and it's over 400 low-income Palo Alto residents.

@ Jerry Underdal,
I was answering someone else's claim that $40M spent at BV would go toward a lot more affordable housing than at BV, and that's just plain wrong. Helping the residents purchase the park even for that amount would ultimately be a relatively inexpensive way to provide that amount of low-income housing. Again, it's also for a community living there now, so there are no arguments over who exactly would be living there and no need to do (or argue about not-done) market studies.


2 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 29, 2015 at 8:00 am

As you indicated above, there is going to be more costs than just the sales price if the BV residents could pull off a purchase. One of the albatrosses that the Jissers have been delaying is bringing all of the park's infrastructure up to code. I would also expect that any loan agreement would require that all of the trailers be brought back into code. They would also have to pay for monthly maintenance (which is part of their current rent) and would need to set up and pay into a repair and replacement fund (for the park, not individual trailers). This is in addition to any mortgage payments they may already have to pay off their own trailer purchase.

What happens when a trailer owner doesn't pay on time or at all? Who covers that payment and/or the costs to evict/sell the trailer and the spot? Again more funds would be required to cover such contingencies.

Then there's the establishment of a HOA and all it's trappings. By laws, legal fees, rules and regulations, board of directors, etc.

And don't forget insurance costs. Don't forget the costs for management and supervision.

Certainly creating a non-profit would be the better way to go instead of a consortium of 100 trailer owners. But the funding of the non-profit would also habe to consider the many other cash flow issues indicated above.

This would not be a Mickey Roomey & Judy Garland musical where they say, "Hey kids, let's put on a show!" and everything magically comes together. Just throwing money (via a "make me look good" gesture in the newspaper) at an unknown purchase price is beyond simple...frankly it is grandstanding and meaningless without any organization behind it.


2 people like this
Posted by Richard Nixon
a resident of another community
on Jan 29, 2015 at 1:13 pm

"Watch what we do, not what we say," Attorney General John Mitchell advised reporters at the start of the Nixon Administration.

Let me say this about that in regard to Board of Supervisors Vice President Simitian's proposal for saving Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.

Including the Palo Alto Housing Corporation as one of the financing partners signals to me that they will be the organization holding the deed to the property after any sale to "save" Buena Vista. Based on PAHC's past performance with the Maybell Avenue project, I suspect that PAHC would save the land known as Buena Vista, but not the use known as Buena Vista, and would then propose, with the support of the Palo Alto City Council, to develop the property at a higher density than the current zoning allows, possibly including selling off or developing themselves a portion of the property for market rate housing. Even if all the current residents return to live in a redeveloped affordable housing project on the Buena Vista land, they will live as renters of their apartments rather than as owners of the mobile homes where they now reside.


2 people like this
Posted by SEA_SEELAM REDDY
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 29, 2015 at 1:42 pm

SEA_SEELAM REDDY is a registered user.

Great work by the County Supervisors!

We have given life to 100+ families to get ahead of life.

Life is not reserved for a 'select few'.

Work hard, we will all have our own breaks; regardless of where we came from.

Respectfully


2 people like this
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 29, 2015 at 2:09 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

@Richard Nixon

"Even if all the current residents return to live in a redeveloped affordable housing project on the Buena Vista land, they will live as renters of their apartments rather than as owners of the mobile homes where they now reside"

And that would be bad because . . . .?

Not saying it'll go that way, but what if it did? You'd have BV residents living in new, expertly managed rental housing that's guaranteed affordable for 55 years, without the burdens of home ownership that we aging Barron Parkers are becoming aware of as we hesitate to get up on the roof anymore.


2 people like this
Posted by Richard Nixon
a resident of another community
on Jan 30, 2015 at 4:35 pm

Jerry Underdal, on another thread you recently wrote "I would have welcomed the Maybell affordable housing for seniors and would enthusiastically welcome the Buena Vista community's continued presence here should it become a reality."

Redevelopment of Buena Vista would invoke the zoning regulations of the RM-15 zone district that allows about 67 residences. Thus, you would need a zone change to fit all of the 117 units currently in Buena Vista.

Friends of Buena Vista have previously advocated for a variety of proposals for this site, including a combination of market rate housing and fitting all of the current residents on a fraction of the site in new affordable housing.

Your recent comment on the other thread mentions your support of the "Maybell affordable housing for seniors" but omits the fact that the rezoning project also included market rate housing. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation's campaign slogan that the project was for affordable housing when it was really for a rezoning to accomodate market rate housing failed when that project was on the ballot, and that tactic will fail again if the same kind of project is proposed with the slogan "save Buena Vista".


Like this comment
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2015 at 8:10 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

Richard Nixon,

I am not among the many in Barron Park who refuse to admit any increase in density. You are factually accurate about what I have supported.

In Barron Park and Green Acres, we've had several positions on affordable housing proposals in the neighborhood.

Position 1: Support 60 units of affordable housing for very low- and low-income seniors at the Maybell/Clemo site, accepting that profits from sale of part of the property for market rate housing on Maybell and Clemo was crucial to finance the project. AND Support retention of the Buena Vista community to the extent possible, whether by purchase of the mobile home park or redevelopment of the property with some combination of affordable/market rate housing, using government subsidization.

Position 2: Oppose the Maybell project while supporting the Buena Vista project. This group divides into at least two parts. Some would accept government subsidies that would allow residents to stay in their current homes, whatever their current condition. I believe some would like to see every available dollar for affordable housing in the foreseeable future put into maintaining the status quo at BV, in part because it would eliminate any new projects. Others would reject that but accept development of new affordable housing so long as what was built was within current zoning, with no density bonus allowed for affordable housing.

Position 3: Oppose government action to provide affordable housing at both Maybell/Clemo and Buena Vista. Let the market rule, approve no project at BV if it breaks zoning, try to force a developer to build at the lower range of zoning limits.

I support Position 1. Maybell/Clemo is dead, but I agree with the entire council's decision that it was a good project in a time when funding for affordable housing is harder and harder to find.


2 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 30, 2015 at 10:00 pm

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but the original Maybell plan worked great if you didn't live nearby.

Would it be fair to say that you (Mr. Underal) do not live next to the Maybell site?

Overbuilt, over density, over height and under parked. I voted No on D and would do it again...even though I live a few miles away. No person living in an R-1 house should have a 50-foot building installed next door to their home.

No up-zoning. No PC exceptions. Same goes for the BV property...


Like this comment
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2015 at 10:30 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

@Crescent Park Dad

"Would it be fair to say that you (Mr. Underal) do not live next to the Maybell site?"

Not at all. I live a block away and have for almost 40 years. Does that change your appreciation of my position, pretty clearly stated for well over a year.

"I voted No on D and would do it again...even though I live a few miles away."

The farther away from here you lived, the less facts on the ground mattered in contrast to one's predisposition to approve or reject affordable housing schemes. Especially if it was part of a movement, as this was. I'm not surprised that you will accept no concessions in the case of BV to help our part of town retain an important piece of itself.

No on Measure D, No on BV is a consistent position. I prefer that to hearing people see that they're in favor of affordable housing, but it has to be done right. For too many of them it represents a refusal to recognize that in order to get affordable housing in this market there has to be intervention in the market in the form of subsidies, density bonuses, etc.


2 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 31, 2015 at 3:47 pm

@JU: BTW, I appreciate all of your posts and respect your opinions.

FYI, my no exceptions for BV is targeted towards Jisser...he's the owner and the likely developer of the property. I believe in his right to close the park....I don't think he should be given any special treatment when it comes re-developing the property.

There are going to be many, many more projects in this town. If built at current zoning, we'll have np more than enough density as it is. We don't need to make any exceptions to make it worse.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Mountain View's Hangen Szechuan to close after 25 years
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,254 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 2,007 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,479 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,301 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,021 views