News

Closure of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park approved

Palo Alto City Council vote clears the way for park's shuttering

In a decision that may signal the end of the road for Palo Alto's only mobile-home park, city officials on Tuesday affirmed the property owner's right to shut down the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.

By a unanimous vote, the City Council officially approved the Jissers' closure application, paving the way for the family to commence the six-month process of evicting the park's roughly 400 residents. In a decision that several council members characterized as difficult but fair, the council also directed staff to hire an appraiser to review the methodology in the Relocation Impact Report, which analyzed how much residents should receive in relocation assistance.

Despite the emotional testimony from residents and attorneys at the Tuesday meeting, the council's vote was in some ways a foregone conclusion. On April 14, members unanimously approved the closure application on a tentative basis when they rejected an appeal from the Buena Vista Residents Association, which challenged the adequacy of the Relocation Impact Report. Yet in a nod to the residents' concerns, the City Council also agreed on Tuesday to hire an appraiser who would conduct a peer review of the appraisal in the Relocation Impact Report. The council also agreed to allow each resident to appeal the appraisal of his or her property to a hearing officer within 30 days.

The council's decision to commission a peer review was prompted by concerns that the prior appraisal, conducted by David Beccaria of Beccaria & Weber, failed to specifically consider the city's vaunted school system and safe conditions in determining the value of living in Palo Alto.

After the council directed Beccaria on April 14 to revise his methodology and specifically include schools and safety, Beccaria responded with a scathing letter in which he declined to perform the assignment and accused the council of pressuring him.

Prior to Tuesday's hearing, attorneys for the Buena Vista Residents Association argued that the city should hire a different appraiser and start the process anew. Given Beccaria's decision not to revise the methodology, the Buena Vista Residents Association argued that "the best course of action is to relieve Mr. Beccaria of his appraisal duties and hire an appraiser who is willing to comply with the City Council's directive," wrote Kyra Kazantzis, directing attorney for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, which is representing the mobile-home park residents.

The Jissers' attorney, Margaret Nanda, countered that local law does not require schools and safety to be specifically considered in relocation assistance and accused the council of rewriting the law on the fly. By insisting on the revised scope, Nanda argued, the council "has skirted the border of influencing appraisals with political ideology."

"The City Council is clearly not a licensed appraising body," Nanda wrote in a memo prior to Tuesday's hearing. "The City Council has no authority to engage in the act of appraising by amending an appraiser's scope of work – particularly with the unabashed intention of affecting the valuation outcome of the appraisals."

By opting for the peer review, the council charted a middle course. Councilman Greg Scharff made the motion to go ahead with the review, which was suggested by City Attorney Molly Stump, and his colleagues quickly added their voices of support.

"I think this is a fair process that takes into consideration the concerns that have been raised today," Scharff said. "I think it's the right approach."

Councilman Cory Wolbach agreed, though he also stressed the need to reach some sort of conclusion in a process that officially kicked off in November 2012, when the Jisser family filed its closure application.

"It should go onward. It should be resolved and this chapter in the story of Buena Vista should be closed in a reasonable time, so that all parties can move forward with whatever next steps they should pursue," Wolbach said.

In its discussion, the council reiterated several times that its options are limited. With its role in the hearing process more akin to a judge than to a legislative body, the council struggled to address the concerns of the park's residents without infringing on the Jissers' right to sell their land.

Nanda argued in both her written and oral testimony that the council failed miserably in the latter task. She accused the council of a "blatant overreach" in its attempt to modify the scope of appraisals and contended that the appeal process for individual appraisals is "entirely procedurally improper" and "must be dismissed."

The process, which allows Buena Vista residents to challenge their appraisals in front of a hearing officer, is not in the city's closure ordinance, she wrote in a brief. By adding it to its approval of the closure application, the council "has stepped outside the limitation of its own Ordinance and engaged in the act of legislation not adjudication," she said.

Nanda also strongly objected to a February decision by City Manager James Keene to set aside $8 million to assist with a possible purchase of Buena Vista, subject to the council's approval.

In her letter, she characterized Keene's action as evidence that he is advocating against the park's closure. The city manager, she wrote, "acted in a way that was prejudicial to my client and has tarnished the procedural fairness of this appeal proceeding.

"The Jisser family's rights have been infringed upon as well as their trust in the fairness of this proceeding," she wrote.

By approving the closure application, the council is now free to revert to its usual role as a legislative body and come up with other ways to assist the residents of the low-income and mostly Hispanic community.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, a leading proponent of preserving Buena Vista, has already cobbled together nearly $11 million in county funds that can be added to the city's contribution for a possible purchase of the park. Last month, the county selected the housing nonprofit The Caritas Corporation to put together an offer for the Jissers to consider.

Yet Nanda stressed Tuesday that her client will not be pressured to sell the site.

"I want to make it clear to the council that the park owner intends to exercise a constitutional right — and it's a constitutional right that every property owner has in the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara and the State of California," Nanda said. "It will sell its property when it deems appropriate to whom it chooses and for an amount it deems acceptable. It will not yield to pressure from the city to do anything but that."

James Zahradka, supervisor attorney for Law Foundation Silicon Valley, urged the council Tuesday not to approve the closure application until it gets a new appraisal. After the hearing, Zahradka called the council's vote to deny the residents' appeal "disappointing," but called the peer review that the council commissioned "very important."

"It gives a chance for at least that aspect of the relocation assistance to be fair," Zahradka told the Weekly. "It's a big step, a big improvement over what was gonna be a very low-balled appraisal by an appraiser who we thought was compromised."

Even so, the vote dealt a blow to the residents, who found themselves staring at the prospect of imminent displacement. Erika Escalante, president of the Buena Vista Residents Association, said the residents are "very disappointed" by the vote to approve the closure application and suggested that the city could have done a bit more. Yet she told the Weekly that the council's decision to commission the peer review will at least allow the residents to get a fair review on the appraisals.

"I don't think you can ever be mentally prepared," she said. "Since it's been such a long process, you're thinking this whole time is that we've been positive and that something good will come out of this. Joe Simitian is ... trying to put resources together to save the park. You don't really think that the day is finally here. Until now."

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

Comments

89 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 26, 2015 at 10:43 pm

A very Wise decision by CC to respect law and order!


29 people like this
Posted by Michael O.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 26, 2015 at 11:23 pm

Michael O. is a registered user.

Well, it's just sad for the kids who live there.


52 people like this
Posted by The Rich Get Richer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2015 at 11:28 pm

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Too bad humanity does not enter into the equation.


109 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:22 am

Mr. Jisser, the property owner, was definitely mistreated in this process. I respect the comments of Nanda (Jisser lawyer) regarding the bias actions of the city manager Keene. I hope Mr. Jisser enjoys developing his property in a manner he chooses.

Thanks to Mr. Jisser for providing low rent opportunities for several decades. You should have been applauded and thanked by the residents of BV and their representatives.


4 people like this
Posted by Oh Really?
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 6:27 am

[Post removed.]


58 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 6:40 am

Now let's hope the Jissers will refrain themselves from suing our city. Yes the decision was favorable but it took well over 2 1/2 years for closing the park. Damages have already been done to him and all law abiding tax payers in PA. As documented by his attorney below:

"Nanda also strongly objected to a February decision by City Manager James Keene to set aside $8 million to assist with a possible purchase of Buena Vista, subject to the council's approval. In her letter, she characterized Keene's action as evidence that he is advocating against the park's closure. The city manager, she wrote, "acted in a way that was prejudicial to my client and has tarnished the procedural fairness of this appeal proceeding.""

City Manager is to manage all city issues successfully. Meddling in, interfering with city ordinance and/or violating ones constitutional rights are not in his job description.


59 people like this
Posted by Cassie
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2015 at 6:42 am

THe Jisser family was mistreated in this one. Now all have to move on. Let's hope for no lawsuits.


55 people like this
Posted by Wasting $$
a resident of Community Center
on May 27, 2015 at 7:55 am

Hard to believe that the CC is now going to allow each individual to appeal the value of his mobile home. 100 appeals? How much is that going to cost the taxpayers? The waste continues at the taxpayers expense (and the Jissers - does he have to defend each one of those appeals?). Absolutely ludicrous.


36 people like this
Posted by Of Course
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 7:59 am

Of course there will be a lawsuit. As Nanda said, the CC has overstepped its bounds and is acting outside of the law. They've gone rogue and the taxpayers will pay.


20 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 8:17 am

If Jisser is going to sue the city, then the litigation process is done. Next phase would be to hire an experienced trial lawyer(s) for the trial. If lawsuit is forthcoming, Plaintiff can ignore any individual appeal for the moment. What a mess and a BIG waste of public funds. This is absolutely how NOT to mange a city!


2 people like this
Posted by ANNA
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 8:25 am

Yes i agree that an owner should sell when it chooses to but make it resonable.This is why this whole process started to get the correct amount for their homes and have a fair relocation. Not only are they affected but also the 9 studio units that are not getting any support. [Portion removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Sparty
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2015 at 8:51 am

Sparty is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Politeness Police
a resident of Evergreen Park
on May 27, 2015 at 9:37 am

[Post removed.]


14 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2015 at 9:52 am

Incivility has no boundaries. I have no problems with setting expectations for civil discourse.


2 people like this
Posted by option
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 10:59 am

I'd suggest the BV owner simply pay off the residents at the going rate for rent-controlled untits ($50K) and move on. No one wants the closure to drag on any longer, including the residents if they can extract enough funds to start anew.


36 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 27, 2015 at 11:17 am

The attorney for the Jisser family has made it clear what the law states, yet City Council is trying to force a "politically correct" component into this mess. It's over and done. Let the appraisals stand and get out of the way of the sale. Ms. Nanda has taken the right stance on this as she protects her client's rights.


4 people like this
Posted by BeeVee Junkie
a resident of Greater Miranda
on May 27, 2015 at 11:24 am

[Post removed.]


18 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:15 pm

A little note for "of course"
You are way off course, the park owner has every right to sell his property, just like all the so called home owners in the park do.
What you are saying is its not legal for someone to sell the property they own just because someone else doesn't think its fair.
I agree its hard for these people in the park, but they are living in deplorable conditions anyway, maybe now they can find a decent place to live.
Happy kids are not all about good schools.


4 people like this
Posted by nat
a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2015 at 12:19 pm

From what Jisser's attorney says, I don't trust the owners to negotiate with the Caritas Fnd. to sell it the park. Meanwhile if the eviction notices are going out now, there may be no one left in the park by time it is sold to Caritas, if that happens.

I think the council should have insisted that the sale be done first before the closure. I guess the city attorney said that could not be done?


14 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 27, 2015 at 12:23 pm

Disgusting. Palo Alto has become an appallingly heartless and shallow place to live. Any one of the tech giants who had a huge hand in creating this monster could have stepped up and bailed out this park.


23 people like this
Posted by Harriet
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2015 at 12:34 pm

enough: It is not the tech giants problem. This mobile park was here long before some of them came on scene.


15 people like this
Posted by Barron Park
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:37 pm

Jisser should thank the council in delaying his sale, now he will get twice the amount than if he sold originally when he wanted.


43 people like this
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on May 27, 2015 at 12:42 pm

>Any one of the tech giants who had a huge hand in creating this monster...

What monster are you talking about? We have a prosperous city with many opportunities for those with the talent to take advantage of them. This is called freedom. For those who cannot afford to live here, they should move to where they can.

The real victim in this BV deal is the owner...he was abused by our city council. Private property rights are the basis of human freedoms.


9 people like this
Posted by now what
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 12:43 pm

So what are they going to build at that location now? A park or a big new supermarket or something else that benefits the community as a whole? Of course not. We're going to get hundreds of new condos of course.


8 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 12:57 pm

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Zeemema
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 27, 2015 at 1:00 pm

If Santa Clara county Supervisor Joe Simitian has "cobbled together nearly $11 million in county funds that can be added to the city's contribution for a possible purchase of the park", why don't they put that in a fund that will allow the Park's ousted, current tenants to purchase units in any new residential structure that gets built on the land. Those new units should be sold at below market rates to accommodate the current Buena Vista tenants.


39 people like this
Posted by hello
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2015 at 1:29 pm

I drove by the trailer park the other day and was amazed to see a big jsckef up 4x4 truck with 3 ATVs loaded on them. How can you claim to be too poor to move and yet have all these toys out in front of your trailer?


32 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2015 at 1:57 pm

@ now what: "We're going to get hundreds of new condos of course."

Exaggeration again.

4.5 acres @ RM-15 zoning = 67 units


27 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 2:03 pm

@enough!

Does your band of merry men have their quivers full and ready? This a community problem, not a rich man's problem, to solve.

I have a hunch Simitian and others probably know already what it will take to get the Issers to sell. And it is, I'm sure, a much bigger number than we've ever heard of before. But, that would just be the tip of the iceberg. Has anybody actually calculated the cost of the infrastructure updates needed to bring everything up to code in the park and to meet our ordinances? I have a hunch that has been done also, but when will us taxpayers know about it, when will it be revealed to us to know the truth? When they get darned good and ready I think.Then it will be too late and come out in an article about the unexpected costs and overruns (now that should be a familiar word when any government projects or contracts are involved).

I might be having another nervous breakdown because that is only one of many of our city's problems.


12 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2015 at 2:04 pm

And BTW - RM-15 is less dense than the current BV set up where there are 100 units plus several "cottages" on the property.

If RM-15 is held (as it should be) for the (presumably) new housing project, then there will be fewer units (assume fewer people as well) than there are at BV today.


2 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 2:06 pm

Sorry, I meant Jissers.


27 people like this
Posted by KP
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 27, 2015 at 2:33 pm

KP is a registered user.

Finally!!!
The Jisser family finally got justice...it'as their property and they should be able to do whatever they wish within the rights and requirements of the city.
Of course it's hard for the family's that have to move, I know how much I hate to move. Hopefully, they will be able roll with the punches, like any other person who gets notice to move.

I am curious to know as to how the entrance will be worked out for anything else to be accessed back there.


55 people like this
Posted by Marrol
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 27, 2015 at 2:45 pm

The rights of the property owner must be respected. This was a just and appropriate decision.


5 people like this
Posted by Pearl
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2015 at 3:19 pm

Pearl is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


51 people like this
Posted by Frustrated
a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2015 at 3:49 pm

It is embarrassment to the basic rule of law that this approval has taken so long to go through. If the Jissers successfully sue the city (and I would think their case would be compelling) everyone in the city who was involved in this travesty ought to lose their job. This was never anything more than a blatant attempt to subvert the rule of law by the social justice warriors who seem to run rampant around Palo Alto. The right to be secure in one's property and possessions and to dispose of them as you see fit is the basis for all other rights. I sincerely hope all of the people who seek to deny that right to the Jissers have to go through similar multi-year gymnastics, payoffs, and bowing and scraping to the authorities (at huge cost to themselves) whenever it comes time for them to sell their own property in Palo Alto.


9 people like this
Posted by Steve
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm

Some people are claiming that property rights are the basis of freedom. Yet not many centuries ago in Europe, almost all property was owned by a landed aristocracy (and in some places the church) and the only freedom was for those few landowners.
In the present time, I believe that the laws that exist to private property exist in order to serve the overall interests of society rather than the other way around: Society serving the interests of private property.
In the BV case, we are weighing the property rights of one individual against the welfare of 400 people. We have eminent domain proceedings so that privately held land can be forcefully purchased for important societal/government purposes. This should be used.


19 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 4:59 pm

@Steve- I am sure Eminent Domain was considered. If ED were used, would it be a valid public use? I think not since this action would not benefit anyone in PA other than a small group of BV residents.

As for your comment regarding Europe, we have fought against this system i.e. King of England for over 200+ years ago. Thank goodness we won our freedom against tyranny to establish a new land ownership system here also known as The United States of America.


35 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2015 at 5:01 pm

I can't help but feel sorry for Jisser family for the years of frustration and inconvenience that they were caused.


22 people like this
Posted by palo alto resident
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2015 at 5:13 pm

California laws allow the power of eminent domain to be used for "public uses" like "schools, roads, libraries, police stations, fire stations and similar public uses" or to "eliminate blight through redevelopment projects" or for projects that increase tax revenues. None of those uses apply.


Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto

on May 27, 2015 at 5:14 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.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on May 27, 2015 at 5:18 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

I think I have mentioned this before.

There was a landowner in Jefferson County, CO that saw some condos go up nearby.
He put his little wedge of property up for sale, thinking that the buyer could build condos and get a quick profit turnaround.
The seller forgot something: Evergreen Metro ( which supplies water and sewage )was maxed out from the previous condo build in the area. Jefferson County Open Space offered a more reasonable and fair price for the property. The landowner saw $$$ in his eyes and refused the offer.
Then the landowner did the homework; the TAP FEES FOR EACH DWELLING ( to compensate for the new services from Evergreen Metro ) would kill any profit made by a developer!
Evergreen now has a new JCOS park. It still has no running water and a line of Porta-Potties behind a tall fence. Several soccer fields and a baseball diamond are busy most of the time. A link to open space trails gives an easy access to the facilities.
If the Jissers want to relocate the people to Boulder, CO, there are still several mobile home parks with access to some very good schools. The City of Boulder is what I call Berzerkly East, so the politics will be familiar to all.
I'm just trying to offer a better conclusion to your thorny problem.


4 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2015 at 5:38 pm

Crescent Park Dad is a registered user.

The Mountain View RV park closures are a bit different - which is probably why there isn't much press coverage. They are both on the same property bought by a single developer. And the big difference is that we are talking about RVs, not (im)mobile homes. By definition, the RVs should be road-ready and can move at any time. Not saying there's no stress due to the fact that they are going to have to move - but they don't have the same issues that the BV residents since they can presumably move their RV-home with ease.


6 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on May 27, 2015 at 5:57 pm

On a previous thread I wondered about future water usage on these 4.5 acres, whether it would be held to 2013 levels.

I also recall the Prometheus proposal in 2012 was for up to 187 units after the council rezones to RM-40 in compliance with the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Wouldn't surprise me to see people pushing for RM-60 and a height limit exemption.


Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto

on May 27, 2015 at 6:16 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.


14 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 6:21 pm

@Musical

There is nothing in the Grand Boulevard Initiative
Web Link
about up-zoning to achieve compliance...unless you can provide us a link otherwise.

Prometheus walked away from the deal when it realized it was not going to get any zoning increase. Based upon known facts and events, you don't need to worry about BV zoning beyond RM-15 (which will be less density than it is currently occupied)


Like this comment
Posted by Politeness Police
a resident of Evergreen Park
on May 27, 2015 at 6:37 pm

Crescent Park Dad,
Of course no one is opposed to civil discourse. Why do you feel the need to repeat this parental admonition?
What is interesting to an observer, however, is that the Politeness Police come out when aggrieved people challenge the ruling elites. Mr. Wolbach uses his podium to protect those elites, to protect them from an impolite word.

He also asked that the motion say that the issue could NEVER come back to the Council.


4 people like this
Posted by Robert Smith
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 27, 2015 at 6:39 pm

Steve,

Even if eminent domain were applicable--which most people are saying it is not due to restrictions in CA law--the government still must pay the value of the property.

Often, these cases are very complex, and cities try to avoid them.


4 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 6:50 pm

@Zeemema

Please explain how your idea would work! I'm asking for details...help me out on this. How would the mythical fund of $19 million be spent? Outright purchases and hand them the keys? Or loans and then we get to play mortgage broker/banker for 30 years? How big a mortgage do you think any of the current residents could afford to pay off? What is the cheapest condo available to rent or buy, in PA today? What is the lowest BMR's that would be needed to allow this to happen? Have I inundated you with too many questions? Hope so...that was my goal!

And there is a little debate going on between posters about how many units could be built on that property anyway. I've heard 100's, countered by someone who I think did his homework and really knows the right answer, 67, based on current zoning. And I haven't even touched on the subject of the possible actual purchase price of the property and all I know, so far, is that the owners, the Jissers, don't want to sell. So, are we just in a vortex, swirling around with no direction? It's starting to look and feel that way.

Maybe Supervisor Simitian will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. I just wait and wonder. How well does he do with wands, cards, pigeons, and brilliant colored scarves? Maybe he can do his magic trick gig again at City Hall sometime.

And so the saga continues. If we are a community of such smart people, then why are we acting and doing such dumb things? Moi? Of course not...it's those CC folks we should blame and fire the whole bunch of them. I'm kidding of course. They have, admittedly, made some bad, and too many bad, mistakes on the handling of this issue, but let's bury the hatchet and move on to the other, and sometimes I think, bigger and more important issues. Our CC puts in countless hours trying to do their best for our city. I realize this is not over and a lawsuit is likely to happen and there will have to be more time spent on this issue, but for now, let's take a break. The idea the CC should all be kicked out is out of line. We have a winnowing process, it's called elections...I hope you all remember the process and that's how all of our CC members got elected and are sitting there now. Did you vote? That's where it should get sorted out in the future. It might not seem soon enough for many of you. I'm a patient guy. I might have made some choices I'll learn to regret, but we will have another chance. How many of you naysayers want to put your hat in the ring and run for office next time around so everything will be right again in our city? Thought so!


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2015 at 6:58 pm

"There is nothing in the Grand Boulevard Initiative ... about up-zoning to achieve compliance... . Based upon known facts and events, you don't need to worry about BV zoning beyond RM-15."

But there is nothing in the GBI forbidding upzoning. Zoning is set by the city government, not by a natural law. Given the council's oft-demonstrated pro-housing bias in this issue, and the pressures from ABAG and doubtless from the owners too, do not be surprised to see RM-40 or greater. I don't know if that is referendable.


13 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 7:09 pm

@Curmudgeon
>>"Given the council's oft-demonstrated pro-housing bias in this issue, and the pressures from ABAG and doubtless from the owners too, do not be surprised to see RM-40 or greater. I don't know if that is referendable."

When Prometheus was in contract to buy BV, they came (personally) to each house in the neighborhood and also to the Neighborhood Associations to present their plans. The opposition by the neighborhoods to anything greater than current zoning (RM-15) was unanimous and strong.

The local neighborhoods are also the home of the recent "Measure D" which successfully fought the City in its up-zoning attempts on Maybell.

I realize that Downtown North faces more vigorous challenges with up-zoning, but recent events in Barron Park, Crescent Part and the other nearby communities demonstrate a record of successfully opposing up-zoning attempts where they negatively impact the bordering residential areas.


12 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 27, 2015 at 7:15 pm

A competent and greedy trial lawyer will represent this case on a 100% contingency fees. Over 2 1/2 years of well documented evidence that does not require much paper chase here. Cases like these are considered a "gold mine" besides class action.

Let's all pray that Jissers may just want to develop, sell and move on with his life. Otherwise I can smell another parcel tax in the making....


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2015 at 7:31 pm

"The local neighborhoods are also the home of the recent "Measure D" which successfully fought the City in its up-zoning attempts on Maybell."

You do not understand the process. Maybell was a "Planned Community" thing, and definitely referendable. Straight upzoning is a different process. If you're worried about getting more neighbors than you're ready to welcome, you'd better do your homework pronto.

BTW, I like my dense, walkable, leafy neighborhood.


10 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 7:36 pm

@Curmudgeon
"you'd better do your homework pronto."

That's good Advice. Thanks.


6 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Community Center
on May 27, 2015 at 9:41 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Politeness police
a resident of Evergreen Park
on May 27, 2015 at 10:00 pm

[Post removed.]


10 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2015 at 11:02 pm

Crescent Park Dad is a registered user.

@ polite: Nothing personal...but: Mr. Wolbach *campaigned* on bringing back civil discourse / "politeness" in CC meetings. So this is nothing new for him. You're assertion that he is only bringing it up now (let alone why / imposed against certain people) is not an accurate statement.

Sorry, I only call out people who state "facts", when in fact it is only their opinion --- with no facts to back them up.

For example, your assertion/opinion (not fact) that Mr. Wolbach is only bringing up civility now and against certain people. Check out the last paragraph of Mr. Wolbach's candidacy profile (10/8/2014) Web Link and you'll see that he mentions civility as an important factor for discourse and debate.




28 people like this
Posted by Pshaw
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm

"why don't they put that in a fund that will allow the Park's ousted, current tenants to purchase units in any new residential structure that gets built on the land. Those new units should be sold at below market rates to accommodate the current Buena Vista tenants."

@Zeemema - what makes the BV residents so special? There are lots of folks in PA that are eligible for low income housing. They seem to think they are, but the BV residents are no more deserving of available subsidized housing than the many others. They've been lucky enough to ride the gravy train for a LONG time. Time to appreciate their past good fortune and hop off and get in line with everybody else.


12 people like this
Posted by The Rich Get Richer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2015 at 11:18 pm

[Portion removed.]

The entitlement is suffocating in this town. Can you imagine if people here actually had to "work hard" just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table?


5 people like this
Posted by Pshaw
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2015 at 11:25 pm

"I'd suggest the BV owner simply pay off the residents at the going rate for rent-controlled untits ($50K) and move on. No one wants the closure to drag on any longer, including the residents if they can extract enough funds to start anew."

@option - isn't that the definition of extortion?


3 people like this
Posted by The Rich Get Richer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2015 at 11:57 pm

@Pshaw:

>> "I'd suggest the BV owner simply pay off the residents at the going rate for rent-controlled untits ($50K) and move on. No one wants the closure to drag on any longer, including the residents if they can extract enough funds to start anew.
@option - isn't that the definition of extortion?"

No, the definition of extortion is just the opposite. "the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority."

What @option is suggesting is a negotiated settlement that allows both parties to move on and avoid a lawsuit from either side. Happens all the time when smart people are involved.


24 people like this
Posted by GoneOnTooLong
a resident of Barron Park
on May 28, 2015 at 5:58 am

The entitlement is suffocating in this town.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."... Inigo Montoya


2 people like this
Posted by Deanna
a resident of Community Center
on May 28, 2015 at 8:51 am

[Post removed.]


7 people like this
Posted by Of course
a resident of Community Center
on May 28, 2015 at 8:53 am

@Roger - you misunderstood my comment. I agree with you that the Jissers have every right to sell their property. I think in the end the Jissers will end up suing the city of Palo Alto with valid grounds. The CC overstepped their bounds and acted outside of the law in requiring the second appraisal, demonstrating a bias in favor of the BV residents and delaying the closing for so long.


6 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 28, 2015 at 8:55 am

[Post removed.]


24 people like this
Posted by Pshaw
a resident of Barron Park
on May 28, 2015 at 9:10 am

@Rich get richer:
ex·tor·tion noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
synonyms: blackmail, shakedown; formalexaction

I think "shakedown" is a pretty good synonym in this case. The settlement has already been negotiated and adjudicated fair by the judge. Trying to "extract" MORE money from the Jissers by continuing appeals and forced legal expenses is, by definition, extortion. I guess it happens all the time when manipulative, greedy people are involved. Not so sure about the smart part.


27 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on May 28, 2015 at 10:40 am

Slow Down is a registered user.

@The Rich Get Richer "The entitlement is suffocating in this town. Can you imagine if people here actually had to "work hard" just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table?"

Maybe you didn't work hard, and that's why it's easy for you be so cavalier about the city ignoring the law attempting to expropriate private property. The reality is many people in Palo Alto had to work really really hard to be able to afford to buy here, so it is offensive to see the city council behave with disregard for the law.


32 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2015 at 5:21 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ The Rich Get Richer:

You wrote: "The entitlement is suffocating in this town. Can you imagine if people here actually had to "work hard" just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table?"

Are you implying that people living in Palo Alto didn't work hard to get to where they are at?

Over the last few months, I have read about people "fat-shaming," "faith-shaming" and even "race-shaming." Now, there are people who are "success-shaming."

Henry van Dyke once said, "Some succeed because they are destined to, but most succeed because they are determined to." I will go one step further and say, "Some people will succeed because they inherit money, but most succeed because they work hard."

The residents of Buena Vista have within them the ability and opportunity to succeed. Success isn't about having money to start out with. It is the ability to see everything around you as tools to assist with building that success. We don't all start on the same level. Some people start out in mansions, others in houses, others in apartments and still others start out in trailer parks. Some of us had to work a little harder to earn our education, knowledge and skills.

I would urge the families who lived at Buena Vista to realize that life will go on. They should use all of the opportunities afforded to them (e.g., college, work training, income, etc...) as investments for which they can find the greatest return possible. When all is said and done, those who are determined to succeed might one day move back to Palo Alto and buy a home here.


10 people like this
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2015 at 9:45 pm

BillyBob is a registered user.

What I find interesting is that @Slow Down and @Nayeli are posting their own agendas which have nothing whatever to do with the post to which they are supposedly (i.e. stated) responding.

@The Rich Get Richer said:
"Can you imagine if people here actually had to "work hard" just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table?"

@Slow Down responded with:
"...many people in Palo Alto had to work really really hard to be able to afford to buy here, so it is offensive to see the city council behave with disregard for the law."

Like somehow putting a roof over one's head and food on the table equates to living in Palo Alto?

@Nayeli said:
"Are you implying that people living in Palo Alto didn't work hard to get to where they are at (sic)?"

Again, equating putting a roof over one's head and food on the table is in no way equal to owning a home in Palo Alto, nor was that suggested. So no, Nayeli, I was not "implying that people living in Palo Alto didn't work hard to get to where they are at? (sic)"

My comment was specifically about the tone of entitlement that comes through many of these posts, and the variable definition of "working hard." If you dare to tell me it is a level playing field where everyone who "works hard" can live in Palo Alto, please provide proof, because I see a lot of proof that it is not the case, so I have little sympathy for the entitled who don't even realize how entitled they are.

Summary: I have no sympathy for most of the people who "worked hard" to live in Palo Alto, because most, if not all, had a lot of help, if not inheritance or finances to go to great schools, then government aid and scholarships that were awarded based on ethnicity and economic hardship.

People who were born wealthy should be compassionate. People who enjoyed government aid and extra help due to minority or low economic status are hypocritical if they do not support helping the BV residents.

At no time did I suggest the Jissers were responsible for that help.


33 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2015 at 4:09 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Billy Bob: I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to "The Rich Get Richer." Are you using multiple usernames?

In addition, I do not have an "agenda." I simply responded to someone else who seemed to fault people for being successful.

As for your comments: I hate to break it to you, but LIFE IS NOT AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD. It never has been. It never will be. It never should be.

The only thing that is "equal" is that we are all afforded opportunity. Like I said, we all start on different levels and some people have to work harder than others. That is life. Is it fair? That is entirely up to the person. However, I wonder whoever said that life was supposed to meet some universal definition of "fair."

I have no tolerance for people who cannot tolerate honest, successful people or who perpetually blame them for their success or insinuate that their success isn't honorable or came from something other than effort. The notion that the successful are somehow to blame is just jealousy disguised as a heart that cares for others.

As for accusing minorities (namely me) of hypocrisy: Easy there, cowboy. No one in this entire debacle lacks compassion for the residents of BV. Further, there is a difference between participating in a system that EVERYONE has access to (e.g., college grants, student loans, etc...) and demanding that a trailer park remain open or believing that you deserve a financial windfall simply because you lived there.


6 people like this
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 30, 2015 at 12:04 am

BillyBob is a registered user.

@Nayeli:

Perhaps you didn't notice, but PAO turned on a requirement to login to post, so I logged in. Please watch yourself with your accusations.

Did you just call me,"Cowboy?" What in the world makes you think I am a "Cowboy," or makes it appropriate for you to call me that? Did I say I was a "Cowboy," or someone who herds cows for a living? Should I engage in the same type of generalization/slur about you?

I have no idea where you get the idea I "seemed to fault people for being successful." That is simply not part of my post.

I'm so sorry you think life should not, and never will be, a level playing field. It absolutely should be, and I refuse to give up on the idea that people should be judged by their actions, and not by the color of their skin. What a ridiculous and backward concept to think skin color defines a person's station in life! Or to ACCEPT the fact that people of color just have to work harder than everyone else. Neither do I accept the idea that women should have to work harder than men for the same job and the same pay!

I don't really care what you have tolerance for, because your comments bear no resemblance to anything anyone else posted. Again, you seem to have completely misinterpreted prior posts and turned them into something that suits your personal agenda. No one ever said, or implied, that successful people should some how be blamed. Not even close. (This kind of stuff is why I suspect you have your own agenda).

And no, everyone does not get to check the extra boxes that give priority in acceptance to college (not to mention scholarships!): Hispanic, Low-income, Immigrant, Female, etc. I support these affirmative-action programs, but have no patience for the beneficiaries of these programs who then pretend they succeeded only on their own initiative, and deny others similar to them the same type of advantages. Yes, I see that at hypocritical.

>> "demanding that a trailer park remain open or believing that you deserve a financial windfall simply because you lived there. "

Again, putting words in my mouth that I never spoke. Artfully done though, with all of the indignation.


28 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2015 at 11:02 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Billy Bob: It was a question...not an accusation. You were answering a question directed at a different user, so it was puzzling.

You wrote: "Did you just call me,"Cowboy?" What in the world makes you think I am a "Cowboy," or makes it appropriate for you to call me that? Did I say I was a "Cowboy," or someone who herds cows for a living? Should I engage in the same type of generalization/slur about you?"

LOL! That isn't a slur! That is just a common expression for people who are "quick on the draw." Believe me: A "cowboy" is not a slur. In fact, I like them.

Back on topic...

Life is not "fair" in the sense of making everything from wages to housing "equal" for every person. A person who is dropped out of high school isn't worth the same wages as someone who not only graduated from high school but invested four or more years and a lot of money and effort into graduating from college. A person isn't entitled to have access to affordable housing in Beverly Hills, Bel Air or Soho because they feel that -- even though they are poor -- they should have equal access to the housing. Have you ever visited Paris? Try finding "affordable housing" in Saint Germain-des-Prés in the 6th Arrondissement.

Please don't lecture me about my life when you are completely oblivious to it. You're pretending that I "took advantage" of my ethnic background when I went to school. I don't feel that I have to explain myself to you -- but let's suffice to say that I didn't go to the schools that I was accepted to due to simply being unable to afford them (even with scholarships, tuition breaks, etc...) and the funding that I obtained during my state college and graduate school endeavors had nothing to do with race.

I graduated as an honor student near the top of my very large public high school class and my standardized test scores were above the Stanford average. I received need-based grants (no racial-ethnic litmus test there), work-study (no racial-ethnic litmus test there), dorm "scholarship" (in exchange for working as an RA), academic scholarships (none were race-based) and plenty of student loans that I will be paying off for the foreseeable future. The same was true during graduate school. I worked as a GTA (Graduate Teaching Assistant) and GRA (Graduate Research Assistant) and worked part-time jobs to pay for school in addition to the academic scholarships/grants that I received. I also received a scholarship to study abroad too, but I don't remember it asking for my racial or ethnic background.

So, before you are so "quick to the draw" to accuse people of hypocrisy, you might want to actually ask those individuals about whether or not they relied upon race-based "assistance" first.

More importantly, this has NOTHING to do with this trailer park. This owners aren't trying to shut down this trailer park because the people in it might be Hispanic, Black, White, Asian or whatever. I don't understand how people inject issues of race into issues that aren't truly about race. Yes, many of the BV residents are Hispanic, but that doesn't mean that they should have the power to keep an owner from selling his property or shutting down his rental business.


4 people like this
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 30, 2015 at 10:30 pm

BillyBob is a registered user.

@Nayeli,

You really need to take a deep breath and calmly read posts before you jump to conclusions that include a large amount of personal interpretation. I have pointed out where you are completely off the mark and you ignore that and come back with a new set of indignant responses.

Also, I suggest you read my posts without assuming you are the subject. I know nothing about you, nor did I ever "lecture" you about your life. Seriously, re-read my post and tell me where, exactly, I lectured YOU. YOU being Nayeli, nothing more than an online username to me.

Your post is primarily an indignant list of your accomplishments, and somehow that is on topic? This article is not about you, my posts are not about you.

YOU are the one choosing to make this about YOU.

Let it go. This isn't about you. You can disagree with my opinion, but please stop making it so personal. And avoid name-calling - that is never appropriate.


20 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2015 at 10:53 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Billy Bob:

You wrote: "You really need to take a deep breath and calmly read posts before you jump to conclusions that include a large amount of personal interpretation. I have pointed out where you are completely off the mark and you ignore that and come back with a new set of indignant responses."

Oh really? I breathe well. I am calm. I don't jump unless I am exercising. :-)

More importantly, you haven't "pointed out" anything but where you disagree with me and then question whether I am a "hypocrite" with strange assumptions about my potential use of my ethnicity for personal gain.

You did this -- whether directly or indirectly to me (since I am a Hispanic female from a low-income home) when you wrote: "And no, everyone does not get to check the extra boxes that give priority in acceptance to college (not to mention scholarships!): Hispanic, Low-income, Immigrant, Female, etc. I support these affirmative-action programs, but have no patience for the beneficiaries of these programs who then pretend they succeeded only on their own initiative, and deny others similar to them the same type of advantages. Yes, I see that at hypocritical."

My accomplishments aren't "indignant." They are a simple and straightforward rebuttal to your accusation of "hypocrisy" which was apparently directed at me (since I am apparently the only Hispanic woman in this article's comments section).

You're right about one thing: This isn't about me. It isn't about Hispanics. It isn't about females (even if YOU brought it up). This is about property owners who was being held hostage for years by his tenants, lawyers, bleeding heart activists and quite a bit of political posturing and grandstanding.

As for accusing me of "making this personal:" Next time, don't bring up allegations of "hypocrisy" for Hispanic low-income females" in a room with only one Hispanic low-income female. If you want to talk about "changing the subject," you might want to go back and read your posts.

I think that the advice to "let it go" should have been heeded long ago. This whole debacle probably would have had a better outcome if people were wise enough to do that.


7 people like this
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 31, 2015 at 12:04 am

BillyBob is a registered user.

>> (since I am apparently the only Hispanic woman in this article's comments section)

Are you? Or are you the only one who feels the need to point out their ethnicity and gender? How many other posters made an issue of their ethnicity and gender? Do you know mine? Do you know my ethnicity, age, gender, and socioeconomic background? No, you don't because I don't make an issue of it. My opinions are independent of my personal demographics. How do you know that I am not also an "Hispanic woman?"

Again, please consider reading these articles and posts as being not about you, because they are not. Focus on just the issues stated, without turning statements to somehow be about you, personally. Please focus on the discussion, and stick to the scope of the article.

This article is not about you.


18 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2015 at 10:49 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Billy Bob: I don't think that I am imagining things that you were (at least partially) referring to me with your Hispanic woman comments. More importantly, your comment -- bringing up race and gender -- has nothing to do with this topic.

It is a shame that you can't realize it.

You can go on and on about how this topic isn't about me. Of course it isn't. I didn't bring up the "Hispanic female from a low-income immigrant home" issue -- and suggestions of hypocrisy in her/them -- in reference to this topic. You did.

This article was about the Jissers, Buena Vista and the recent decision to allow it to be shut down but you turned it into an article in which you (under the name "The Rich Get Richer") lambasted an "entitlement" mentality in Palo Alto residents and suggested that the successful families in Palo Alto didn't "work hard" to get where they are at.


5 people like this
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 31, 2015 at 9:49 pm

BillyBob is a registered user.

@Nayeli,

This has grown tiresome - the continual twisting and turning of statements and arguments. I feel like I am constantly correcting what I DIDN'T say!

I do not appreciate the misquotation that you attributed to me. You have stated that you have a graduate degree, or at least have attended graduate school, which means you are well educated. Surely you must know that when you place a string of words within quotation marks and attribute those words to someone else, it is indicative of a direct quote. Obviously, you *intentionally* misquoted me.

I didn't bring up, nor refer to, an ""Hispanic female from a low-income immigrant home..." I listed a relevant (as in, similar to the BV demographic) set of typically underrepresented classes, separated by commas, that colleges are known to give preference to, and are often targeted for scholarships. Each class listed in my LIST, stands alone.

If you fit all of those classes, I wouldn't know, nor care, because as I said, you are just an online name to me. Instead of assuming people are targeting you, how about keeping your personal details to yourself, so you don't have to worry about it? Why do you need to share your (according to your posts) demographic, ethnic, cultural, and economic background on this forum? Does it somehow make your posts more credible? I don't know of a single other poster that feels the need to share that much about themselves in order to engage in a conversation.

>> "but you turned it into an article in which you (under the name "The Rich Get Richer") lambasted an "entitlement" mentality in Palo Alto residents and suggested that the successful families in Palo Alto didn't "work hard" to get where they are at. (sic)"

Lambasted? Really? Please look up the word, "lambasted." Here is what I *actually* said:

"The entitlement is suffocating in this town. Can you imagine if people here actually had to "work hard" just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table?"

Where do I lambaste "Palo Alto residents and" suggest "that the successful families in Palo Alto didn't "work hard" to get where they are at (sic)."

People here may have worked hard to be able to live in Palo Alto, but I doubt many of them ever had to "work hard" just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table." I'm sure there are exceptions, but that is what they are - exceptions.

I stated in other posts the distinction between living in Palo Alto and simply putting food on the table, but I guess that is not convenient to acknowledge when attacking my perspective, repeatedly.

Be accurate, or lie - we all have that choice.


4 people like this
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 31, 2015 at 10:08 pm

BillyBob is a registered user.

@Slow Down:

>> "Maybe you didn't work hard, and that's why it's easy for you be so cavalier about the city ignoring the law attempting to expropriate private property. The reality is many people in Palo Alto had to work really really hard to be able to afford to buy here, so it is offensive to see the city council behave with disregard for the law."

I absolutely worked hard to live here, which did not eliminate my compassion for others who did not have the same set of magical circumstances that allowed their hard work to result in a home in Palo Alto. I will point out the same distinction to you that I have (repeatedly) made clear to @Nayeli:

"Working hard" to "put a roof over their heads and food on the table" does NOT equal living in Palo Alto. The former is scraping by, the latter is living in luxury. My comment pertained to the judgmental attitudes from people whom live in Palo Alto, and I suspect never had to scrape by to have a home and food *anywhere.*

My spouse and I have worked hard, and continue to work hard, to live in Palo Alto, but neither of us actually knew poverty and wondered how we would keep a roof over our heads or food on the table. My comment, was that most Palo Altans are more like us, and less like the BV residents.

Grow a heart, people.


20 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2015 at 10:50 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Billy Bob: I corrected you because you claimed that I was making this about me. You made this about me by bringing up the demographics that I am a part of. You then infused that "hypocrisy" rhetoric. You brought up race. You brought up gender. You brought up economic status. You introduced doubt regarding families living here in regard to whether they have ever had to "work hard" to put a roof over their heads.

Ironically, this was in response to calling you out for turning this into some attempt at class warfare by questioning the work ethic of successful families living in Palo Alto. Even in this latest post that you wrote, you're still questioning the work ethic of people that you generalize. You have NO BASIS upon which you can make such a outrageous generalization.

I think that both of those premises are not only faulty -- but shameful generalizations and erroneous stereotypes. If there is some dishonesty in this article's comments section that you want to point at, you might want to look at your own posts and then see what kind of conclusion one might come to from reading them.

Of course, I suspect that you will continue trying "educate" me in my English as well as try to refute me and others who see both the grievous errors in your generalizations and stereotypes as well as the audacious attitude that you're directing at, well, this community because you disagree with what seems to be the consensus view about BV.

I find your posts to be very troubling attempts to win a debate by relying upon broad generalizations for which you really have no "facts" to base it upon. All of your condescending posts will not alter the underlying message of moral and vocational superiority that you're implying.

Next time, don't bring up race, gender, economic status in a post in which you mention "hypocrisy" in those from those groups who disagree with you. It isn't wise to question whether people "work hard" when they disagree with you either.

As someone who has worked very hard throughout my life (*to literally build the roof over our heads), I am greatly offended by this sort of class warfare rhetoric or the implication that the successful people in this world are successful for a reason other than working hard.

I take an opposite position to the one that you hold about people living in Palo Alto. This town oozes in college degrees and the ingenuity that built the tech industry. "Hard work" doesn't just come in the form of picking fields or other forms of unskilled labor. Consequently, I think that those who don't work hard are the exception and not the rule.


Like this comment
Posted by BillyBob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2015 at 12:39 am

BillyBob is a registered user.

@Nayeli,

>> You made this about me by bringing up the demographics that I am a part of.

Excuse me, but the demographic I brought up were that of the primary group living at BV. Why do you keep trying to make this about you? You are saying that I cannot defend the primary group living at BV because it offends you, personally, because you see some kind of parallel to you in the demographic?

Unacceptable.

>> Ironically, this was in response to calling you out..."

Why are you "calling" anyone "out?" Is that civil discourse? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, why can't you just respond to the posts, instead of attacking the posters personally and putting words in their mouths that they didn't say, or mean?

>> "...You introduced doubt regarding families living here in regard to whether they have ever had to "work hard" to put a roof over their heads. " "...for turning this into some attempt at class warfare by questioning the work ethic of successful families living in Palo Alto.

This is the THIRD OR FOURTH TIME I have said this, so it's getting a bit stupid to have to keep repeating it: At no time did I question "the work ethic of successful families living in Palo Alto." You are making this up to fit your agenda, and repeating it over and over to try and make it true.

One post you're patting yourself on the back for your educational superiority, the next you twist my rebuke of your *deliberate misquoting of me* into a persecution of your "English." Hmmm. You can't have it both ways!

Your post includes the following (directed at me, and I am cutting-and-pasting so no attempt to ensure appropriate tense, etc): doubt, shameful generalizations, erroneous stereotypes, dishonesty, outrageous generalization, grievous errors, generalizations and stereotypes, audacious attitude, condescending posts, and on and on...

Seems I inadvertently struck a nerve.

>> "As someone who has worked very hard throughout my life (*to literally build the roof over our heads),"

Yep, there it is again - the need to validate your post as somehow having more integrity than others'. Guess what, my family also worked very hard just to put a roof over our heads and food on the table! That experience did not leave me with a lack of compassion for people dealing with the same experience, or a 'figure it out for yourself' attitude! I believe in a level of social justice for those that have not been treated equally in this town, county, state, or country!

You should be capable of posting your own views without need to "interpret" my posts for everyone else. They can read my words themselves and decide what they think I mean. Your constant re-interpretation of my posts are disingenuous and ridiculously misleading.

[Portion removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2015 at 9:46 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


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

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 4,985 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 663 views

 

Race is tonight!

​On Friday, September 21, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run, or—for the first time—half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More