News

Lawyer: Buena Vista evictions could start next month

Pressure heightened to save Palo Alto's only mobile-home park

As local officials continue to scour for ways to save Buena Vista Mobile Home Park from imminent closure, the attorney for the park owner warned Tuesday night that eviction notices could legally be sent to the Palo Alto park's 400 residents as early as next month, when the closure application is set to be formally approved by the City Council.

The council unanimously voted Tuesday to uphold a September decision by Hearing Officer Craig Labadie to approve the property owner's Relocation Impact Report, which details the financial compensation owed to each resident, but ordered several revisions. These include a revised appraisal that takes into account the monetary worth of local schools and the safety of the Buena Vista community to its residents.

The council specified that the new appraisals would have to be completed within six months of a Buena Vista resident's relocation from the city's last remaining mobile-home park. It would be up to a hearing officer to ultimately sign off on the assistance packages, and any appeals of the hearing officer's decision would have to be made to the state Superior Court.

In the meantime, if things go as planned, the Jisser family, which owns the El Camino Real park, would have the right to proceed with the closure process, which began in the fall of 2012.

The council plans to revisit the topic on May 4, when city staff is to return with written findings and a formal decision consistent with the council's unanimous decision Tuesday. Margaret Nanda, the Jissers' attorney, told the council that eviction notices could go out the following day.

"As I understand it, on May 4, when you approve some version of this, it's a final decision of the council," Nanda said. "If the park owner chooses to accept this, that means that on the day following this, on May 5, the park owner can issue a six-month notice of termination of tenancy under the civil code."

Nanda made it clear that she is not suggesting this is what, in fact, will happen.

"I'm not saying we will do that. I'm not representing that. I want everyone to understand the scope of it," Nanda said. After "the application has been approved ... (my client) has the legal rights that flow from that, which is to begin the conversion or closure of the park."

Nadia Aziz of the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, which is representing the residents, requested Tuesday that the council "clarify" that the new appraisals be made before, rather than after, a resident is relocated from Buena Vista. The council ultimately chose not to adopt this suggestion.

The council did, however, agree to push back the timeline from Tuesday to next month to give attorneys from both sides a chance to submit written responses to Tuesday's decision. Even so, the council's vote and Nanda's comments underscored that the drive to save Buena Vista isn't just a fundraising challenge but a race against time.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, who in January jump-started the effort to prevent Buena Vista's closure, said Nanda's comments made it clear that the issue of saving the park now has a renewed urgency. The park's closure could conceivably be a "matter of weeks," he told the Weekly.

"I thought we got a clear message from the park owner's legal counsel, who said that the moment this approval is final, eviction notices can go out to every resident of the park," Simitian said. "That conveys pretty clearly the sense of urgency that we have to have about finding an alternative."

Simitian said he has already met with three nonprofit developers that expressed interest in a partnership to buy the property from the Jissers and maintain Buena Vista as a mobile-home park. The county Board of Supervisors has earmarked $8 million for Buena Vista's preservation. Palo Alto City Manager James Keene added another $8 million in city funds to the pool, pending the council's approval. State Sen. Jerry Hill and Assembyman Rich Gordon have both reached out to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for possible funding sources to preserve Buena Vista. U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo made a similar request in a letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"There's clearly interest," Simitian said. "I think it's a question of finding sufficient resources and the right partner all in a very short period of time."

Plenty of obstacles remain. A 2013 offer by the residents to buy the property for $14.5 million was rejected by the Jisser family, which has estimated the property's value closer to $30 million.

The family at one point formed a partnership with Prometheus Real Estate to build 187 apartments. Prometheus pulled out of the partnership last year, and with the closure process pending, the family has not disclosed its current plans for the site.

"The property ownership has to date indicated that they would prefer to wait until after the relocation (report) is resolved, and I understand and respect that," Simitian said. "Once the matter has been finally resolved, we'll want to be front and center with a genuine and realistic plan that might have appeal."

Related content:

Attorneys debate the value of a Palo Alto education | April 17, 2015

Buena Vista's closure hangs on new appraisal | April 14, 2015

Buena Vista residents make final plea to save their homes | April 13, 2015

Videos from the two Buena Vista hearings

The Weekly has compiled an archive of news coverage capturing the many voices of the people involved in the fight over Buena Vista.

Comments

134 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:20 am

Personally, I don't understand why City Council is dragging this issue out so far. Every resident signed a lease with the Mobile Park; both parties should be accountable to the terms of the lease. How would the residents feel if they wanted to break the lease to move elsewhere and the Jisser family dragged out the process?

There is value to the school systems here but if they're only leasing, they are clearly not paying the property taxes that's supporting our local schools. Ultimately the property tax payers want to do something with their property which they have EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO.

This process started in 2012, we are now in 2015. This is three years of lost opportunity cost. The beauty that has always sustained America and the Silicon Valley is entrepreneurship and a strong support of supply and demand. What about assessing the cost of lost opportunities and broken partnerships? Maybe that should also be calculated into the ultimate relocation payouts.


43 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:44 am

Let's hope that the Jissers refrain from suing our city for damages. I am compassionate for the plight of the mobile home resident but the rules of law need to be followed.


53 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:25 am

Listening to the city council meeting this week I heard the residents admit to making numerous changes to their units in violation to state building codes. Also that they exceed the occupancy limits for their units.

I hope that during the appraisal process that they are NOT rewarded for any of these violations. You can't pack 6 people into a one bedroom unit and then claim that you need to be compensated for a 3 bedroom apartment.

I think the city should pull all building permits for Buena Vista from the state records. Then inspected each and every unit as part of the appraisal process. Any alterations that were not permitted and built to code should reduce the value of the unit. And reduce the compensation that they are asking for.


16 people like this
Posted by old teacher
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:26 am

The opposite ends of Palo Alto: folks being evicted from Buena Vista, and on the same page, an article about the manager of a local luxury hotel. So sad to have such a financial gulf right under our eyes.


24 people like this
Posted by Awful Human Beings
a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:39 am

You Palo Altans who say that the property rights of the Jisser family must be respected are so full of it. We all know that, when this property is redeveloped, you'll be the first in line to complain to the council about how the development is too tall, too dense, doesn't have enough parking -- even when the proposal is fully consistent with your comprehensive plan. In fact, it's perfectly legal to seek variances and density bonuses. You will fight the developer the same way the Buena Vista residents are fighting to stay in Palo Alto.

You don't care about property rights. You don't care about your neighbors. You care only about the value of your property. [Portion removed.]


32 people like this
Posted by dennis
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:40 am

To those that don't see the importance of following the law, just take a walk through the park and see for yourself what is really going on there, especially at night. In short; the park owners have the right to do what they want with the property and in an expedient manner. The opposition has become a farcical example of liberalism at its worse. I can't believe this has been going on so long.


39 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:01 pm

Congratulations to the Jisser family. They have been patient and generous. It is now time to move on. The politicians can stop playing politics and let the legal process play out.


18 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm

If the Jissers decide to redevelop the property, I agree that there will be some amount people who will complain --- it is the nature of so many people in PA.

But if the Jissers stay within zoning requirements and don't ask for any variances or waivers, then they'll be within their private property rights to build their project.

I have no problems with that.


5 people like this
Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:09 pm

rsmithjr is a registered user.

While I hope that the city/county will be able to do something to help the residents, there are problems with any such an approach.

1. PURCHASE: Once the RIR is established, the Jissers have the same legal rights that anyone else does. They may not like proposed terms, or just may not want to sell. It is their call, not the city's. Palo Alto needs to start showing more respect for the Jissers, they have done a lot to help people over the years. I suggest making a very substantial, condition-free offer to the Jissers in a very polite and respectful way and see what happens ONCE HE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH EVICTIONS AND NOT BEFORE.

2. EMINENT DOMAIN: The city can always try eminent domain, which is the legal way to force a sale. I think this is preferable to the kind of coersion that is being applied to the Jissers.

3. BEST APPROACH TO LOW-INCOME HOUSING: Is buying the park the best approach to helping the residents, or to helping the cause of low-income housing in general? I penciled out some of the costs and it looks very inefficent compared, for example, to building a new facility that would house more families under better conditions.

4. FAIRNESS TO OTHER LOW-INCOME PEOPLE: There are waiting lists for low-income housing. I would guess that the people on those lists might have something to say about giving the mobile park residents priority to any publicly owned housing. There is a potential conflict here.




7 people like this
Posted by Consistency
a resident of University South
on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm

"But if the Jissers stay within zoning requirements and don't ask for any variances or waivers, then they'll be within their private property rights to build their project."

Well, that's what the Wongs did for 429 University, and look what happened to them. And, yes, their proposal as it stands is completely in compliance with zoning and required neither variances nor waivers. The in lieu fees and TDRs they used to reduce their parking requirements are standard rules applied in Palo Alto rather than optional waivers from standard zoning.

Can we all stand for private property rights within existing zoning consistently and on real projects, not just hypothetical ones? That would go a long way to making those property rights actually secure.


24 people like this
Posted by BP resident
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:53 pm

The above discussion is one reason my husband and I are increasingly looking forward to retiring so we can get out of Palo Alto. The arrogance and sense of entitlement in the city is out of control. I live in Barron Park, and, contrary to the poster above, have never seen nor heard of any unsavory activity at night there. This is a wholesome community of long-term residents who should be cherished and embraced for their contributions and service to Palo Alto, whose children are being schooled, and succeeding, along side privileged white kids and who are being prepared to work to make this world a better place. Why can't someone with money and vision buy the Jisser's out and let the trailer park, stay, as a humane gesture, and more importantly, to simply do the right thing, morally and philosophically. This city needs to do something good for other people instead of itself for once; here's a golden opportunity. Won't someone who's won the high tech jackpot step up to form a cooperative or a non-profit that would secure this treasured and unique community as the integral part of Palo Alto it is? It is so easy to close one's eyes and say, "It's too big; there's nothing I can do." There is something that can be done to save Buena Vista; all it takes is vision, making a decision to do what's right for our community, and money. There's plenty of the latter item; but the first two appear to be in short supply.


10 people like this
Posted by michelle
a resident of Triple El
on Apr 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Here's a twist for y'all: my son begged us to move away to an easier high school all through his 4 hellacious years here. He would have thought himself the luckiest kid alive if someone had actually offered us money to go.

I have great hope for the kids who have to restart after eviction, as hard as that is. Those of us here in PA, left behind with our dwindling population of diversity and our frighteningly competitive schools, are the ones to be most pitied.


37 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 16, 2015 at 1:51 pm

Politicians such as Joe Simitian who oppose the closure of BV park are basically pandering for future votes. This particular group knows very well what the law dictates but chose to spin, stir and provides false hope to the BV residents. For them to pledge 16 million dollars so far using my tax money is irresponsible to say the least and a total betrayal on public trust.

This is the reason why Trust in Government Gallup poll shows a historically low trend in how Americans put trust in their elected officials.


43 people like this
Posted by Another Neighbor
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 1:55 pm

This is akin to me purchasing my food at a Bargain Market and now they're moving away so my only options are Whole Foods or Safeway; both hypothetically out of my budget. How is it Bargain Market's responsibility to subsidize my grocery bill difference because I have to shop at Whole Foods or Safeway? It clearly is my responsibility and not theirs.

We all need to learn to live within our means and leave the feeling of entitlement behind. Everyone should look inwards; we all want a lot of things, but we may not be able to get or have those things. It is not someone else's responsibility to provide that. Frankly entitlement is clearly an unattractive trait regardless of what tax bracket any person falls in.


21 people like this
Posted by the politicians
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Apr 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm

I see this is all about the politicians. These politicians, most of whom are lawyers who understand private property rights, are NOT following those and have devoted way too much time to this situation for political reasons. They are attempting to buy future votes via their actions here. The offers of huge sums of taxpayer monies from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the City of Palo Alto (without voter approval) are inappropriate and frankly, outrageous.
We are ALL sorry about mobile home renters who will have to relocate, and they are being offered a generous relocation deal that renters elsewhere rarely receive when they need to move for whatever reason. There are a zillion reasons why most of us have been forced to move at times.
A suggestion: there is a huge mobile home park in Sunnyvale, Casa de Amigos, that usually has availability and the location is very good for Silicon Valley at an incredible deal.
It's time to bring in outside legal interests like the Pacific Legal Foundation. As a taxpayer, I request our posturing politicians get back to the business of the city and county.


22 people like this
Posted by get a fresh start
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm

“Why can't someone with money and vision buy the Jisser's out and let the trailer park, stay, as a humane gesture”

Because to do so would actually be an inhumane gesture. Have you seen the condition of park? Some of the families are living 7 to an RV, the washing machines and dryers are infested with cockroaches, people have trees going through the roofs of their homes.
To me it is more insulting to suggest that poor people should be living in conditions like this than to suggest that poor people shouldn’t be living here at all.

I believe that the residents are resilient enough to be able to make it through the transition to new housing and come out stronger, I think the children are bright and motivated enough that they will succeed no matter where they go to school, and I don't think anyone needs Palo Alto as much as we’d all like to think they do.


33 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 2:47 pm

If the park was purchased (it is not for sale), it wouldn't be able to remain in its current state. It would have to be brought up to code; State code and City code.

All of the illegal remodeling would have to be removed at the trailer owner's expense. It's a fair assumption that the number of people per unit is over the allowed amount per squarefoot/unit (especially after the illegal remodels are taken away). The number of units would have to be reduced because it is above density maximum for a mobile park. All of the illegal plumbing and wiring would have to be removed. I don't know the ratio (something like 1:10), but it's likely that the number of RVs per mobile homes is over the state limit.

All of the utilities that are connected to city services would have to be brought up to code (electrical, water, etc.).

Not saying it can't be done, but it certainly is not as simple as just buying the property and letting things stay as they are.


4 people like this
Posted by Be Kind PA
a resident of JLS Middle School
on Apr 16, 2015 at 3:37 pm

Be Kind PA is a registered user.

>> If the park was purchased (it is not for sale), it wouldn't be able to remain in its current state. It would have to be brought up to code; State code and City code.

I'm not sure that's true. Please provide the source of info. Thank you.


11 people like this
Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:20 pm

rsmithjr is a registered user.

Crescent Park Dad,

Great point about upgrades that would be required.

It is all going to be expensive.

Adding up all of the costs that the city would have to incur as a part of a purchase, it would be huge. Includes purchase price, legal fess for the purchase, costs of renovations to the park, costs of renovations to illegal units or replacement, operations cost (including staff), maintenance costs, it could be a lot.

Note that many of these costs would be at the rates the city pays for labor and with all city work-rules and inefficiencies in place. Who knows, they may even do a remodel such as they are currently doing on City Hall. :)

These costs have to be paid somehow. Either they would be huge increases in prices to the residents, or they would be large, on-going city subsidies, or some combination.

If the goal is to support 400 low-income people with housing for the long-term, there are likely much better ways than taking over this park.

Sorry to say this.


2 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Hi,

I usually wait, read, and listen first, before I offer my opinion. But the time has come.

Thank you 'Marc', 'the politicians', and 'get a fresh start' comment contributors. Your combined inputs are really good, important, and address the real problems and the attempts to save and solve the park problem very well. Yes, the park will probably go (close) and for legal reasons. That's why we have laws. But we, as PA residents, home owners, and tax payers, shouldn't take blame or have guilt feelings about it. I think most of the residents were preparing for this already, at least I hope they were and they should have been.

And to 'get a fresh start's comments, they were so appropriate and spot on. Those folks came here under dire conditions/circumstances from wherever they came from. They've had some good years here with very low rents thanks to the land owners. But I think they now know how, and are prepared to survive and deal with it again. They are strong resilient people. I wish them well and wish they wouldn't have to go thru this again. Now they might have to deal with going back to where they came from, maybe not the best and most desirable neighborhoods and communities, but affordable. And those kids who spoke so eloquently the other night...in perfect fluent English...well, they too will survive wherever they go to school and they will get into college I'm sure. They have the 'right stuff'.

And let's not get down too hard on the current CC. They've been dealt a bad hand and they still have to play with it. My hat's off to all of them. And those comments about some of them being liberals, which many are and admit to being, and Joe Simitian as well, but saying they are pandering just to get future votes is uncalled for. Let's get back to civility. That's where Cory started his campaign and I wish others had listened. Thank you Cory, good friend and neighbor, on that good advice.


8 people like this
Posted by Ellen Gold
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:43 pm

Ellen Gold is a registered user.

Crescent Park Dad, the park is currently in state and city compliance. Last state inspection was 2 years ago, it took jissers a whole year to finally pass. If the utilities were currently not in compliance we'd have shut off, and we don't. jissers are still using and charging us for all utilities.

As far as the home built around the heritage oak tree, as per the city arborist at the time, "no problem".

it is jissers responsibility to maintain the laundry room. Problems there have been ignored by "management" along with anything else that does not fall under the category "collecting rent".


22 people like this
Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:47 pm

rsmithjr is a registered user.

Gale Johnson,

I really want to thank you for saying this:

"They've had some good years here with very low rents thanks to the land owners."

I almost never hear anything good about the Jissers and it is a shame!

My biggest regret of the meetings this week is that the city council never said a good word about the Jisser family.

Speaking of civility, the Jissers have been publicly humiliated and criticized throughout this process. Few have recognized that they made a large contribution to the folks living in the park, and low-income housing and diversity in our city.

The city council members spoke at great length about their sympathies for the residents, but made no effort to say anything good about the Jissers, who have in fact given a huge amount for decades. How much effort would it have taken to say a paragraph or two about the contributions of the Jissers.

The problems of income equity, diversity, low-income housing cannot be confronted by just demonizing a few people. They are problems that belong to us all.


4 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:47 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Ellen Gold
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:54 pm

Ellen Gold is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


12 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm

WRONG->: "Lawyer: Buena Vista evictions could start next month"

This title not correct.
1) Buena Vista can not begin "evictions" next month
2) The Lawyer NEVER said those words.

A landlord in Calif. can not begin an eviction without first legally terminating the tenancy.

Assuming things moved as quickly as allowed at Buena Vista ...

1) Mid May - the Closure and RIR are signced by CC and in effect
2) Assuming #1, then Mid to late May - the Owner can provide the residents with the required 6 month notice if intent to terminate the liens.
3) 6 months later, IF a renter has not vacated the property they would be notified that the property owner intends to file a lawsuit to evict (an "unlawful detainer lawsuit".)
4) The property owner files the unlawful detainer
5) 20 days later, if the property owner wins the lawsuit and withstands the appeal by the renter, they will get a "judgment for possession of the property".
6) The property owner provides the judgment to local law enforcement (sheriff or marshal). The sheriff or marshal gives the tenant a notice that they will be back within a number of days to physically remove the tenant if they aren't gone.

Any actual eviction could only begin at earliest 8 months from now - ASSUMING the city signs the Decision next month.


8 people like this
Posted by Be Kind PA
a resident of JLS Middle School
on Apr 16, 2015 at 7:30 pm

Be Kind PA is a registered user.

rsmithjr said, "Crescent Park Dad, Great point about upgrades that would be required. It is all going to be expensive."

As I asked Crescent Park Dad, please provide sources for this information. I know it's more fun to just keep repeating things so people start to believe it, but that doesn't make it true.

Please provide sources for this information, because I do not believe it is true.

Gale Johnson said, "Those folks came here under dire conditions/circumstances from wherever they came from." "Now they might have to deal with going back to where they came from, maybe not the best and most desirable neighborhoods and communities, but affordable."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!! Yes, "those folks" got to live near us "... PA residents, home owners, and tax payers.." and they should be thankful for that, right? Now they should just disappear from our sight, is that it? Guess what? "Those folks" also are residents, home owners, and tax payers" (through their rent - see the attempted 20% rent increase in 2001 that the Jissers tried to blame on property taxes). And "those folks" are mostly readily identified by the color of their skin, otherwise this "community" would be rallying to help their "neighbors."

When a white Palo Alto family lost everything in a fire, did we say, "Oh too bad, guess you'll have to wear the pajamas you had on when the fire struck until the insurance pays? NO! We rallied and helped our "neighbors!" If misfortune strikes your family, do you want your neighbors to reach out and help you, or turn a blind eye and tell you to "go back where you came from?"

[Portion removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 16, 2015 at 9:54 pm

Ellen Gold,

I sincerely hope that things work out for the residents. As I have said many times, I hope the city will find some solution. They seem to be interested, although there are many problems. I wonder how the complete financial package will work out given all of the costs that will be incurred.

As to the Jissers, I had heard many times that they were nice people, years ago of course. One thing to keep in mind is that rent control was imposed in 2001, and almost all studies of rent control have found that it led to poor maintenance because the owners could not afford it.

I listened to many of the residents' comments on Monday night and could not help but think that Mr. Jisser deserved more credit as the owner of this park that everyone loves so much. He must have done some things right.


10 people like this
Posted by Ellen Gold
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:46 pm

Ellen Gold is a registered user.

rsmithjr, here's some more info, available from city and court documents. The reason they tried to give a huge rent increase in 2001 was because they had to buy out their biz partner when he found out the actual rent blockbuster was paying was twice what jisser had told him; when jisser was forced to replace the fence along los robles ave, he was required by the city to include "plantings and irrigation", which he never did.

It was the previous owners to the Jissers, the Weilers who were very nice people from what I've heard. They lived in the single family home inside the park. The Jissers rented out the home and spent only the first and last weeks of the month at the park for rent notice preparation and rent collection. We still do not have a night and weekend on site manager, as required by state law.

We had to go to state and federal authorities to make jisser stop accessing our mailboxes on a regular basis. He still accesses them when he wants to, but he stamps and mails our rent bills now. I know he still has access because in the recent past I asked for a document from him, which he offered to place in my locked mailbox, even though I requested he throw it on my porch.

[Portion removed.]

He's never cleaned the streets, doesn't trim bushes regularly, allowed the folks renting the single family home to actually board up windows. He thinks he's a hero because he claims to have provided water heater enclosures for residents who were required by the state to install them at the last inspection, when he was aware that residents lacked these enclosures and he never required them to be installed.

He indicated to me that my porch and carport enclosures would need to be removed to comply w/state codes (they've been there for 50 years and were grandfathered in by the inspectors at the prior inspection). He did that so I'd need to confirm they were okay with the inspectors which I did, with supporting paper work, as a way to harass me as payback for complaining about lack of maintenance and parking enforcement. He prefers residents who don't complain, which describes the majority living here.

He's completely neglected the landscaping here and has never so much as planted a flower to enhance the park. You can assess how he manages his stores on el camino. He never maintained the original plantings and never cleaned the area in front of the stores until the spa came in. For years the area in front of the stores was filthy and there were dead plants in all of the planters.

Right now I've asked him to cover or remove the graffiti on the rear wall of the gas station and he's never responded. Rather than pave some of the streets in need of paving he had a contractor, not a paving contractor, just a general contractor who applied some kind of patching material - so just use your imagination for what that looks like and is like to drive and walk on.

[Portion removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:05 pm

Hopefully this addresses your question (#11 is the kicker):

From the mobile home inspection booklet Web Link

Prior to the Department’s inspection, the park residents may eliminate many violations by inspecting their lots and facilities. The following is a list of commonly found resident violations. The Department will cite these conditions if found to endanger life, limb or health and safety of the public and occupants. Use the following information as a guide for your inspection.

3) Wiring Methods
The general electrical conditions affecting the unit should be inspected to insure that:
a. Extension cords are not used in lieu of permanent wiring. If there are appliances or other equipment installed outside a unit which require continuous electrical power, an approved wiring means must be provided.
b. The cables and conductors for electrical wiring installed outside a unit are protected against physical damage by installing materials such as conduit.
9
c. The electrical equipment installed outdoors is approved for wet or damp locations.
d. All the parts or components of the electrical equipment of the unit, or equipment for accessory uses, are installed so that no energized parts are exposed.
e. The lot electrical service equipment is accessible. Remove any storage or permanent construction which obstructs access. Unobstructed working clearance of at least 30 inches wide by 30 inches deep and 78 inches high in front of the lot electrical service equipment is required.
f. The unit is electrically grounded to prevent electrical shock.
Note: If you believe that one or more of the above conditions affect the electrical system of your unit, it is recommended that you consult a professional for assistance and correction of the condition. Permits are required prior to the installation of any electrical wiring.

5) Appliances
Appliances installed outside of a unit are to be located out of direct weather, such as placed under an awning. Electrical power to an outdoor appliance is to be provided only through a permanent wiring means; extension cords are not permitted.

11) Substandard Manufactured Home/Mobilehome or Recreational Vehicle (Unit)
A unit in substandard condition may be ordered removed from a park unless the substandard conditions are repaired. Substandard conditions include but are not limited to:
a. Structural hazards such as deteriorated floors, buckled walls, deteriorated roof members, etc.
b. Electrical hazards such as bare wires, unprotected cables/conductors, open splices, etc.
c. Improper plumbing such as leaking fixtures.
d. Mechanical hazards such as un-vented or improperly vented gas appliances.
e. Faulty weather protection including leaks in the roof, broken windows, damaged siding, etc.

18) Permits
If any of the following changes have been performed without a valid permit, you are encouraged to obtain a permit prior to the Department's park inspection in order to avoid possible penalties:
a. Installation, construction, or alteration of:
(1) any building, structure, or accessory building;
(2) any electrical, mechanical, or plumbing equipment; (3) any fuel gas equipment;
(4) any fire protection equipment within a park.
b. Any alteration of an MH-unit requires a permit from the Department of Housing and Community Development.
c. Installation of an MH-unit within the park requires a permit from the enforcement agency.

Does this help?


46 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:21 am

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Shamika
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 18, 2015 at 7:30 pm

My heart goes out to the people of Bv. We're facing the same crap here in East Palo Alto! The creator will be here soon!!


7 people like this
Posted by What problem?
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2015 at 2:48 pm

To Ms. Ellen Gold: I see your litany of complaints but after so many years you are clearly still happily living in the same place. If the Jissers were so horrible or the living conditions so terrible, then you would have moved would you not? The fact that you are still there means that you knew you had a terrific deal - the like of which you could not find anywhere. It is this greed and feeling of continued entitlement that enrages just about every resident of Palo Alto (with the notable exception of ultra liberals).
As Parent rightly pointed out, the rest of the rent paying, hard working masses live where they can afford to. Time you all did so. In the meantime, quit complaining about minor things and thank your blessings for the decades of subsidy that the Jissers gave you.


2 people like this
Posted by Ellen Gold
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 21, 2015 at 3:17 pm

Ellen Gold is a registered user.

to What problem?

the jissers provided no subsidy, I've paid market rate rent for 20 years. I put up [portion removed] for four reasons:

1. Location
2. Location
3. Location
4. No other options available given my income.

as I've already said, in my opinion, jissers rented to people who they could intimidate for various reasons and who would thereby never complain or be willing to organize for a lawsuit for failure to maintain.

I have a 20 year record of complaints to the jissers and every authority available at the city and state level. the county has nothing to do with management of BV, nor does the city, although I did get the arborist out and the city oversees the buildings in the park. the county is helpful with vector control but that has been seldom needed.

maybe YOU and your pals can get the wonderful, generous jissers to simply cover or remove the graffiti on the back wall of the Valero Station on their property. I've been trying for at least a year and they've done nothing about it.

and while you're at it, maybe you can get them to enforce the parking so that the streets are not blocked for emergency vehicles, this happens daily right next to the office and the handicapped spaces, one right next to the office, are used by cars with placards.
[Portion removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Ellen Gold
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 21, 2015 at 3:23 pm

Ellen Gold is a registered user.

to What problem?

BTW, I don't feel entitled to anything except what the ordinance requires, relocation costs for COMPARABLE housing within a 35 mile radius, or for our resident's HOA to purchase the park at FAIR MARKET VALUE.

Get it? the above is not entitled, its the law.


2 people like this
Posted by member
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 21, 2015 at 3:48 pm

[Post removed.]


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

Post-election reflections -- and sponges
By Diana Diamond | 12 comments | 1,401 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,062 views

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 4 comments | 440 views