Buena Vista rally brings hundreds to City Hall

Residents and supporters urge Palo Alto officials to help preserve mobile-home park

With a cloud of uncertainty looming over their homes, residents of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and hundreds of their supporters rallied at City Hall on Monday to express support for the park's preservation and to thank Palo Alto officials for recent contributions to that cause.

Holding signs and wearing yellow stickers of support, more than 400 people attended the rally at Kings Plaza on late Monday afternoon. After about 30 minutes of pizza, photos and camaraderie, the tidal wave of Buena Vista supporters then spilled into the Council Chambers, filling every seat and spreading out against the Chamber walls and vestibules for the first few minutes of the meeting. The crowd included children, seniors and every age group in between; neighborhood leaders and school volunteers; staunch slow-growth "residentialists" like Bob Moss and Lydia Kou and board members of Palo Alto Forward, a citizens group which favors more housing and a vibrant downtown.

The high spirits didn't change the fact that Buena Vista, the city's only mobile-home park, remains in peril. The park, which houses about 400 people, has been threatened with closure since 2012, when the Jisser family announced its plan to shutter the park and build luxury apartments at the Barron Park site. The closure process scored a victory last fall, when an administrative judge approved the Jissers' plan to compensating residents who would be displaced. The decision from Craig Labadie has been appealed by the residents and the City Council is set to hear the appeal on April 13 and 14.

Yet the rally also underscored the recent development of a silver lining. In late January, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors agreed to allocate $8 million out of its affordable-housing fund for the preservation of Buena Vista.

Last month, City Manager James Keene followed suit and set aside $8 million of the city's money, pending the council's approval after the appeal hearings.

Supervisor Joe Simitian, a former Palo Alto mayor who led the push to set aside county funds for saving Buena Vista, said the rally was put together to thank city staff for its allocation of funds.

"We're here for two reasons: because we want to prevent the eviction of 400 folks from Buena Vista and because we want to preserve the site as a source of affordable housing in perpetuity," Simitian said, before the crowd made its way inside City Hall.

In addition to allocating the funding, the county Board of Supervisors directed county staff to engage nonprofit developers and other interested parties to discuss the prospect of preserving Buena Vista. Simitian told the Weekly that the board has already heard from two nonprofits – Caritas Corporation and Millennium Housing Corporation – that specialize in mobile-home parks and that have impressed interest in preserving Buena Vista. Other nonprofits, including the Housing Trust of Silicon Valley, have also been engaged in the conversation.

Simitian noted that the county only really became engaged in the conversation about saving Buena Vista about eight weeks ago. Much has been accomplished since then, he said, even though much remains to be done.

For Buena Vista residents, anxiety now has a tinge of hope. Melodie Cheney, who lives at Buena Vista, noted that when residents received their notices in 2012 about the planned closure of the park, they were "supposed to be out in six months." Even though the council has yet to hear the appeal, Cheney said the momentum now seems to be on the residents' side. She saw the strong showing at the Monday rally as a good sign.

"It's nice to know the community is really behind us," Cheney said.

Winter Dellenbach, founder of the group Friends of Buena Vista and one of the event's organizers, voiced a similar sentiment.

"One of the purposes was to show the breadth of support," Dellenbach said. "There can never be, from this point on, any doubt that this town supports Buena Vista."

After the rally, several speakers addressed the council to emphasize their support for Buena Vista and encourage the council to approve the $8 million allocation as soon as possible.

Nancy Krop, representing the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, told the council that Buena Vista includes about 100 children, many of whom attend the Barron Park Elementary School.

"We're talking about one of eight students at Barron Park Elementary School losing their homes," Krop said. "What's behind those numbers is a child. A child who dreams. A child who believes that adults can fix things."

Erika Escalante, president of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Residents Association, also addressed the council. Escalante, a longtime Buena Vista resident who graduated from Gunn High School and became her family's first college graduate, called the mobile-home park an "affordable and safe place to live and to raise our children."

"I want my son and all the children at Buena Vista to have the same access to education and opportunity I had," Escalante said. "Buena Vista residents are an important part of Palo Alto and the support we've gotten reflects that."

Members of the council have remained tight-lipped about its next moves on Buena Vista, not wishing to express leanings in either direction before the appeals hearing.

Vice Mayor Greg Schmid, who served as mayor in the absence of Karen Holman, acknowledged the crowd and thanked them for attending the council meting.

"Each one of you deserves our grateful thanks for coming," Schmid said, before reminding the group about the upcoming appeals hearing. "The council has an obligation to remain neutral, fair and open-minded during that appeal."

To watch a video of the rally, visit the Weekly's YouTube channel.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


30 people like this
Posted by Winter
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 5:12 am

In 30 years of participating in all manner of petitioning our local government for redress, last night’s crowd of Buena Vista supporters and residents was by far the largest. Just under 550 support stickers were handed out, 1 to a person - a good indicator of attendance on the Plaza.

It was a stunning outpouring of support for a solution that keeps residents here, the children in our schools, affordable housing preserved, and pays the owner for his land. We have much work yet to do, but the momentum is going in the right direction.

Thanks to everyone who participated. It was critical that Council members know we support them in setting aside $8 million of affordable housing funds for Buena Vista.

Thank you Supervisor Joe Simitian for your commitment to Buena Vista and affordable housing and diversity in Palo Alto, to your hardworking staff, and to the volunteers that made last night a success. And congratulations to BV residents who for 3 years have worked hard to stay here in their homes, jobs, schools, and community. But for their determined effort, we would have lost them long ago.

See you all April 13 at the City Council appeal hearing when the adequacy of the owner's Relocation Plan will be considered, though let's hope it will never be needed. See for information soon posted about the hearing, and how to join Friends of Buena Vista.

Like this comment
Posted by Margaret
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 10, 2015 at 7:29 am

[Post removed due to copyright infringement]

19 people like this
Posted by Eric Rosenblum
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 10, 2015 at 8:19 am

Eric Rosenblum is a registered user.

Congratulations to the folks who have been working tirelessly on this issue. You are inspirations.

45 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 8:47 am

Having the residents and their friends of Buena Vista gather for pizza at city hall still does not change the fact that the property owner has his legal right to close the facility per the terms of California law. Nor does it change the obligation of the council to support the existing laws.

35 people like this
Posted by Carlos
a resident of Green Acres
on Mar 10, 2015 at 9:36 am

Hope our elected officials can follow/apply the law instead of being persuaded by a vocal minority who somehow decided to change the rules of the game just because they feel some entitlement about living in Palo Alto.
We don't want to end up like a third-world country where politicians make populist decisions regardless of the law, and I think the silent majority in town expects the same.

15 people like this
Posted by hmmm
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 9:41 am

The county and the city are putting together money to give the owner a fair bid for his property. I don't see how that in any way offends the owner's property rights or the rule of law.

34 people like this
Posted by PA Taxpayer
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 10:00 am

re comment: The county and the city are putting together money-----

Yes, $16 million of our tax dollars to try to buy out the property and maintain a facility that does not even meet code.

23 people like this
Posted by Greenacres
a resident of Green Acres
on Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46 am

@PA Taxpayer,

The money set aside is already earmarked for affordable housing and cannot be used for another purpose. The highest purpose of that money would be to help existing low-income Palo Altans. The funds would also help keep the property as affordable into the future.

The situation is a delicate one because, as the Vice Mayor reminded everyone, the City cannot do anything until they decide the appeal on the issue, because they need to stay impartial. The citizens, however, do have a right to petition their government and let them know, that we support the City doing what they can, when they can. They do have to know that in a timely way.

@Carlos, in the case of the Buena Vista community, the City of Palo Alto benefits from keeping the community here, from retaining the affordable housing. I don't think the support is a vocal minority, I saw a broad representation from neighborhood leaders and neighbors across town.

This is really no skin off anyone's nose, because the funds are already earmarked for affordable housing, the City benefits by retaining the park - I remember specifically benefitting from one our teachers living there and being able to bike to class - and if the park is purchased by residents with a regulatory agreement (as would be required for such funds), the park would be eligible for tax credits for improvements, which the residents clearly would have help and motivation applying for.

It's not just compassion, doing this is in everyone's interest. Residents of BV are a large, cohesive community who will be contributing members of our larger community long into the future, the kids with bright futures rather than instability and potentially even homelessness, as a result of an investment already earmarked for this purpose.

Thank you to Winter Dellenbach and everyone who has worked so tirelessly on this issue.

19 people like this
Posted by PAmoderate
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 10, 2015 at 10:52 am

PAmoderate is a registered user.

Makes you wonder how many people protesting are actually from Palo Alto and not astroturfed from other local municipalities.

11 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 10, 2015 at 11:05 am

Greenacres - the issue before the city council is the hearing officer correct in the judgement that all the criteria were met to close the mobile park. If the city council finds there were errors, they will have to justify their reversal of the hearing officer, and what remedy the owner will need to make.

The criteria does not include any consideration of affordable housing.

Any misstep by the city council can lead to a lawsuit, with the potential of damages in the tens of millions of dollars. (Half Moon Bay learned a costly lesson when they tried to appropriate land for wetlands, and it nearly bankrupted the city).

If this misstep does lead to a lawsuit, and an unfavorable ruling will the city & county use the affordable housing funds to fund the judgement? or will all property owners in Palo Alto see an additional "parcel tax"?

There are many details yet to considered - for example the current configuration of the mobile park does not met code; the utility infrastructure does not meet code. How does this become affordable housing that benefits anyone who has been on the waiting list for years, rather than specific individuals?

And what is fair value of the property? Based on sales of homes that have been torn down and new homes built, value of land is around $250 - $300/square foot. Then there is the profit of developing the land.

23 people like this
Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 10, 2015 at 11:11 am

@Greenacres - the highest use of the money is the most effective use of the money. You can't argue that paying a premium price for a dilapidated trailer park is the best way to promote affordable housing. It might feel good, but it is a waste.

12 people like this
Posted by Greenacres
a resident of Green Acres
on Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27 am

@ Mr. Recycle,

I don't agree. If you look at the cost per resident, the situation at BV is far cheaper than Maybell would have been, and of course there was never any market study done at Maybell, so it wasn't even clear exactly who would benefit. At BV, we know who benefits, a large cohesive community of existing low-income Palo Altans. If we have a fund and a mandate to support affordable housing, it seems to me this is the greatest test of that, and even if it did cost more, we should do it -- but it won't.

There are organizations in California that help residents retain mobile home parks. Should the residents enter into a BMR regulatory agreement, they will be eligible to apply for funds to upgrade the park, funds that are also earmarked for such purposes but will come from outside Palo Alto. Upgrading the park for the 400 residents will be SO much cheaper than putting a $45million building for a few dozen residents.

The other advantage here is that, if it can be purchased for this purpose, the property will remain affordable in perpetuity, rather than reverting to for-profit the way the Terman Apartments or even 801 Alma will.

37 people like this
Posted by Hello people
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 11:39 am

Wow people, allocate all the money you want and make any offer you want and have any opinion you want about saving the park, But it does NOT change one important little fact. The owner clearly stated that the land is NOT for sale, the business is only closing down per the law and lastly, they want to develop it at the current RM15 zoning. so they are not asking the city of Palo Alto for any favors.

All of this propaganda is just giving the tenants a false hope and not preparing them for the inevitable.

24 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 10, 2015 at 12:32 pm

The argument that "the funds are earmarked for affordable housing" is nonsense. For the cost it will take to buy Buena Vista and bring it up to code, affordable housing could be acquired in other parts of Santa Clara County for 1500 - 2000 people. So instead of maximizing the coverage of the funds, they are being used to try and acquire some of the most expensive property in the area.

I also don't buy the diversity arguement because it's all concentrated in one location, and neighborhoods like Crescent Park and Old Palo Alto won't receive any benefit of diversity.

6 people like this
Posted by Richard Man
a resident of Meadow Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 12:34 pm

I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am a photographer. Here's my photos of the event.

Web Link

14 people like this
Posted by Barron Park dad
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm

So between the county and the city, they can come up $16 million? How much are competing offers from private developers? I heard $50+ million. That is a huge gap to close. Anyone else hear different?

The broader issue is this: what are the rights of the private property owner? Can he sell? Seems like he made a decent cash offer to the current 400 residents. Is it more money they want? Or do they want to prevent him from selling his land altogether?

28 people like this
Posted by Umm...
a resident of Woodside
on Mar 10, 2015 at 1:09 pm

This is a capitalist nation. Why are they so special that they deserve to stay? Everyone else who can't afford a city lives elsewhere. I'd love to live in a mansion on an oceanfront. [Portion removed.]

2 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm

We are supposed to see 10-page statements from each side, made available 3 weeks before the April hearing, meaning two weeks from now. I appreciate Winter's 550-sticker data point as a good attendance indicator for the rally. Too many people for me to count. Good pizza from Spot (Hamilton near Alma), which I'd never tried before.

Later in the evening there was unrelated Council discussion about Stevenson house, which is another affordable-housing situation in dire need of renovation. Apparently, regarding Greenacres' comment above, making use of tax credits for improvements gets complicated, as the credits are much more valuable to a for-profit entity. With tens of millions in play, I expect some arcane financial maneuvering ahead.

10 people like this
Posted by Margaret
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

here is the full statement from Attorney Margaret Ecker Nanda for owners of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: I like what she had to say

"The City can and should build affordable housing for the residents of Buena Vista and others who want to live in Palo Alto, but cannot afford market rate rents within the City. The City's decision in this regard has no bearing on the merits of the decision of the Hearing Officer, chosen by the City Attorney, who found the Park Owner had in fact offered reasonable mitigation assistance to the residents of Buena Vista and could therefore close the park. It is the Hearing Officer's decision which is the subject of the appeal to the City Council. The willingness of the Park Owner to sell the Park to the residents or to any government or non-profit housing provider is not before the City Council. Efforts such as those of the city manager to direct the council's attention away from the issue of whether the Hearing Officer's opinion should be upheld are prejudicial to the park owner. The park owner has the constitutional right, like every other property owner in Palo Alto to sell the property to whomever it wants, at a price it finds acceptable and at a time it decides is advantageous to sell it. I suggest that city officials stop pressuring my client to sell the park and instead direct their attention to a fair and impartial resolution of the appeal in this matter. The hearings before the Hearing Officer were held in May 2014, thus when the council finally hears the matter in April, it will have taken 11 months for the council to hear an appeal of a decision by a city appointed hearing officer. The fact that it has taken the city 11 months to hear the appeal more than supports the maxim, 'justice delayed is justice denied.' In those intervening months, more and more pressure is being asserted against the park owner to sell the park to the residents, the city or the county and thereby right the wrong of the lack of affordable housing in Palo Alto. For 29 years, the owner of Buena Vista has done nothing but provide the least expensive, non-subsidized housing in the city of Palo Alto. Righting that wrong is not the job of a mobilehome park owner in the state of California."

24 people like this
Posted by AlexDeLarge
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 10, 2015 at 1:56 pm

Eight million dollars is about enough money to cover attorneys fees for the law suit Jisser will bring, and win...

6 people like this
Posted by Barron Park dad
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm

If the owner is getting an offer of $50M and the city + county has come up with $16M, then just find someone to bridge the difference and I'm sure the owner will be happy to sell to that consortium. Are people actually wanting him to give up his personal property rights? After all, he already made a good faith cash offer to the current 400 residents. Does this simply boil down to them wanting a bit more, and thus using the public as a negotiation platform?

11 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 2:25 pm

Don't know if it will work or if it is the 100% perfect solution, but I support this effort. Glad to see plenty of people showed up.

4 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm

> Eight million dollars is about enough money to cover attorneys fees for the law suit

Yeah, ridiculous how attorneys charge so much that justice is not availble to all .. that's
one of the problems. That the price of justice is so high, justice is just forfeited to the
developers for their political connections.

11 people like this
Posted by Samina
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 2:45 pm

It was great to see so many of Palo Altans supporting Buena Vista Park. We must be the voice for the voiceless. I will do everything in my power to make sure we help them keep their homes. Most importantly help the children remain in the best school district to ensure their future. I wish we can start thinking about these kids as our kids and will ensure their future. In return we will be ensuring all of our future by supporting them to become Presidents, teachers, engineers, doctors or anything they wish to do. Please open your minds and hearts to all Americans so we can be kinder, inclusive and harmonious nation.

12 people like this
Posted by interested
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 10, 2015 at 4:35 pm

In most cities the City Manager doesn't tie his shoes in the morning without checking in with the City Council (essentially his boss). Where did he get the direction or the authority to set aside $8MM for Buena Vista preservation before the appeal hearing. Clumsy at best... always follow the money...

I tend to agree with the statement by Jisser's attorney that the City's actions are prejudicial...


you called it...

5 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Mar 10, 2015 at 5:02 pm

Mobile home park rent control (property control) has a lock on what will probably be the premier lesson plan in basic economics. Go to the internet: The end of rent control: the crash . . . and more pertinent: The end of rent control the catastrophe in Capitola and the Great Santa Cruz Land Swindle (MSN) back to back. A new apartment house on Jissers land would be worth at least 200 million dollars as opposed to its present 3 million assessed value. I've talked to Simitian before and he lacks intellectual integrity. He's a menace to the well being of his community. Mobile home parks were a temporary form of housing developed after world war II for the housing shortage at that time. They are land banks intended for future development. However, the tenants are a very solid voting block unscrupulous politicians like to represent. The financial damage to California with price (rent)controls in place is enormous amounting to billions of dollars a year in damages. Rent control is the most studied subject in economics. Of real interest now is how the very well educated Palo Alto electorate is going to take all of this. George Drysdale a social science teacher

4 people like this
Posted by Member Name
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 10, 2015 at 5:41 pm

Love life. Love funk. Love grooves. Love reggae. Love blues. Love country. Love bluegrass. Love classic rock. Love rock. Love Life. Love it all. It's all love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love everyone around you. Love. Money makes you feel really weird. Money is everywhere. Money gets printed daily like newspapers. Buena Vista 2015-∞. Love you Palo Alto Online (my family has donated plenty of money to you all over the years).

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto

on Mar 10, 2015 at 6:40 pm

Hmmm is a registered user.

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.

11 people like this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2015 at 7:13 pm

Funny how many Palo Altans seem to find religion concerning property rights when they think it will get rid of the poors. I'm certain the same voices will be crying out against whatever gets proposed to build there.

18 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2015 at 10:25 pm

I still can not get over the fact that a private land owner who wishes to close a business, clean the property up by removing tenants and their property and sell it to a developer to improve it can not do this. The city of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County should not be the ones making this decision. It is the property own who gets to make this decision.

1 person likes this
Posted by jerry99
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 11, 2015 at 7:19 am

[Post removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by chris
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2015 at 2:44 pm

What's the demographic of the people who live there anyway? So it's obvious that it is low income, but what else? Anyone know?

9 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 11, 2015 at 3:22 pm

Let the owner close down the trailer park. After all, it is his property and his right (according to state law). If these people own the trailers, then they will STILL own their trailers. They simply have to move it elsewhere.

5 people like this
Posted by Hulkamania
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 11, 2015 at 3:52 pm

Hulkamania is a registered user.

It's not that simple Nayeli. Where will they move the trailers too?

10 people like this
Posted by jerry99
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 11, 2015 at 4:46 pm

Let the owner sell his property. The City Council has slowed this decision for 3 years and its time to finish this. The residents of Barron Park hate the place and want it closed, and there are 3 additional below market properties within one mile of the trailer park, two within a block.
Barron Park residents will continue to have deteriorating property values and low selling prices as long as the trailer park stays open.
Let the city buy a vacant piece of land and build a trailer park there, could have been done in the last 3 years this has dragged on.
Greenacres- the money set aside will not even pay for the utilities and code upgrades needed if the trailer park stays and the number of residents would need to be decreased by 40-50% to meet CA requirements (CA requirements, not PA requirements).

9 people like this
Posted by gg
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 11, 2015 at 4:48 pm

That display was a pathetic effort by Joe Simitian to pimp for votes by promising things he could not deliver and giving false hope to the BV residents. Unnecessary and destructive.

3 people like this
Posted by RVs
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 11, 2015 at 9:58 pm

It looks like many of the "mobile homes" are actually RVs. These could be parked along El Camino Real (as many, sadly, already are) or anywhere in Palo Alto or neighboring cities. The problem is that the additional structures built around the RVs are not so movable.

3 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm

You forgot to mention that the additional structures (for the most part) don't come close to meeting code requirements.

5 people like this
Posted by Robert Smith
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 12, 2015 at 3:57 pm

The city is allowing itself to be put into a difficult position.

The decision the city has to make in this appeal is in no way a political decision or one that is a matter of discretion. The city simply must decide if the park owner has met the terms of the law with the offered relocation payments.

This decision has nothing to do with many of the issues being raised, especially the need for low-income housing, diversity, economic justice, and the personal plight of the park residents.

Allowing these issues to intrude is illegal, ignores the rights of the park owner, and can expose the city to later litigation. At this point, there is so much evidence that the city was biased that any decision against the owner will be difficult to believe.

Everyone should calm down and the city should focus on its job at this point. The city needs to take the lead in showing that it is focused on the legal issue.

1 person likes this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm

Interesting that the City Manager set aside $8 million to increase visibility prior to the appeal hearing by the city council.

3 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 13, 2015 at 3:48 pm

>>Robert Smith : "The city simply must decide if the park owner has
>>met the terms of the law with the offered relocation payments. "

Actually, the Judge appointed by the City has already decided (11 months ago) that "the park owner has met the terms of the law with the offered relocation payments."

The upcoming appeal to the City Council was made by the organization representing the residents of Buena Vista. They want the city to find fault the decision by the Judge, thus putting pressure on the owner of Buena vista to offer a larger settlement. The recent rally (the subject of this article) is an attempt to garner sympathy and support from the City Council.

I'm sure the City's lawyer has advised the City Council that any challenge of the Judges decision requires an objective legal foundation, and that the appearance of bias by the City Council opens the City to a lawsuit.

Puzzling that the city needed 11 months to hear an appeal of a decision by its own appointed Judge.

Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 13, 2015 at 5:47 pm

Not puzzling at all. That's what I do when faced with an unpopular decision. Procrastinate. I think psychologists call it passive-aggressive.

4 people like this
Posted by Edgarpoet
a resident of Mountain View
on Mar 20, 2015 at 10:21 am

Did the pioneers get relocation allowance when the railroad took their land?

Did the Japanese get relocation allowance when out into internment camps during WWII ?
Did freed slaves get relocation allowance after the civil war?

What the heck makes these trailer park people so important that they
will probably get $100,000 each after this is all done with in the courts
and yes, some attorney will get the $8,000,000.00 or maybe even more.

I was hopeful there was some vacancy there so I could move in and then cash in!

Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 20, 2015 at 10:35 am

Are you ranting about a State law or are you ranting about how much will be paid out? Certainly you must understand that neither the BV residents or the Jissers (landowners) had nothing to do with the State law regarding mobile park compensation.

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

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Vegan cafe to land in Mountain View this week
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 4,049 views

What Would it Take to Get Tech Companies to Move Jobs Out of the Region and Is This a Good Idea?
By Steve Levy | 12 comments | 1,115 views

A Power Play
By Sherry Listgarten | 4 comments | 932 views

College Match
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 865 views

Piles of artwork
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 350 views


Vote now!

It's time once again to cast your vote for the best places to eat, drink, shop and spend time in Palo Alto. Voting is open now through May 27. Watch for the results of our 2019 Best Of contest on Friday, July 19.