|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
-
SLIDESHOW: In a matter of two weeks, the Karat School Project coordinated with RV families and donors to gather gifts given to children along El Camino Real in Palo Alto on Dec. 19. Courtesy Evelyne Keomian. -
A volunteer from the Karat School Project gives a gift to a child on Dec. 19. The nonprofit distributed holiday presents to children from about 35 families, each with an average of five kids, who live in RVs parked along El Camino Real in Palo Alto. Courtesy Evelyne Keomian. -
The Karat School Project brought gifts to children living in RVs along El Camino Real in Palo Alto on Dec. 19. Many had asked for bicycles. Courtesy Evelyne Keomian.
In the latest Around Town, news about a nonprofit’s effort to make spirits bright this holiday season for families living in RVs, a pastor’s Desks for Distance Learning project and a questionable Palo Alto Utilities advertisement.
FULFILLING CHRISTMAS WISHES … Every other Saturday since late March, the Karat School Project has dropped off educational materials and gift cards for food to local families living in recreational vehicles. RV dwellers have said each visit feels like Christmas, according to Executive Director Evelyne Keomain. This month, the organization planned ahead to bring holiday cheer for the families they serve. Within two weeks, the nonprofit worked with parents to get their children’s wish lists by text message (many wanted bicycles) and gathered the items through donor support. The gifts were delivered Dec. 19 to about 35 families, each with an average of five children, who live in RVs along El Camino Real in Palo Alto. “The joy in the children’s eyes — it was just amazing,” Keomian said. The families also received gift cards to purchase holiday meals. The assistance was particularly meaningful to a single mother of a 3-year-old boy. She was unable to text the nonprofit her son’s wish list because she has been out of work due to the pandemic, preventing her from paying her phone bill. The nonprofit gave her a Target gift card that she spent on her son’s first Christmas gift: a toy from the film “Cars.” “To be able to hand a gift to a child that may not have had a gift otherwise … it’s a good feeling,” Keomian said.
A STRONG FOUNDATION … When the Rev. Greg Schaefer of University Lutheran Church heard from a local teacher that their students attended classes on Zoom from the floor or couch, he decided to tap into his carpentry background to launch the “Desks for Distance Learning” project. Since mid-September, 45 of the 57 requested desks have been built. Community contributions and church funds paid for the materials, which cost about $45 per desk. Schaefer found help from locals to meet the demand. He and a fellow woodworker prepared detailed directions ahead of time. Volunteers came to the church to pick up the materials, assemble the desks outdoors and bring them inside the sanctuary when completed. “Even though we’re not using our sanctuary for worship right now, to walk in there and see lumber and tools and screws … we’re doing God’s work in there, in a different way,” Schaefer said. To align with health protocols, each appointment was limited to members of the same household and no two appointments conflicted. The desks are left unpainted so the students have a chance to personalize them. “A child moving those 3 feet from the floor to a desktop, to be able to do their schoolwork — that 3 feet represents a pretty big change.” Anyone interested in a desk can email Schaefer at Pastor@UniLu.Church.
A PLEDGE FOR DIVERSITY … Some Palo Alto Utilities customers were a bit put off when they received an insert in their utility bill this month advertising ProjectPledge, a program that assists residents who have trouble paying their utility bills. It wasn’t the program itself that was the issue but the two photos used in the ad: one featuring a Black family and another featuring a Black couple. “Why must we assume that African Americans are the ones who need this kind of assistance, when no other racial groups were represented?” resident Michael Cass asked in a letter. Utilities officials maintain that there was no intention to link the program with any race and that any suggestion that Black individuals are more likely to need assistance with their bills was unintentional. Catherine Elvert, communications manager for Palo Alto Utilities, said the marketing approach is to “focus on all aspects of the community” and to depict images of customers of “all ages and races.” The fact that this flyer only depicted Black individuals was coincidental, she said. “We strive to show diversity across our communication and outreach channels to reflect the diversity of the community we serve.”
The idea of gifts for the RV dwellers is a nice idea. But the information included points up a major problem. It is talking about families with multiple children living on the biggest and busiest street in the city that has huge buses going by. There is no sanitation support available. Does that make sense? I drove by after dark and there were no lights on – like they all went somewhere else for the holidays
There is a disconnect between what we are reading and what we are seeing. I have seen people in suits leaving in the morning to get into their car and drive to work.
Time to “reimagine’ where these RV’s are parked. what type of support services are available. Time to look at the Palo Alto Business Park on East Bayshore at 101. The parking lot is huge. and many of the buildings are for lease. The city has an office on one of the streets. That is an obvious location for the RV dwellers with the city providing some sanitation support. People who go to work get into their cars and go. There are school buses next door – also a child care center. Put this land to use and get these families to a location that is safe.
>”I drove by after dark and there were no lights on – like they all went somewhere else for the holidays.”
^ It’s highly unlikely they went away for the holidays. Except for maybe a sanctioned RV campground or rest area, when was the last time you saw a string transient RVs with their interiors illuminated at night?
A 12 volt DC battery wouldn’t last very long without regular recharging & an AC generator is beyond the means for many of these RV dwellers + there are no convenient city or university provided AC junction boxes.
As a result, most retire early for the evening & use flashlights as needed…this also affords a greater degree of personal privacy.
As for the folks departing their RVs wearing business suits…maybe they are simply professional workers who have successfuly overcome the high cost of conventional Palo Alto residency.
In some ways, I envy them.
Lee – you are trying to rationalize what ever is going on here. It is a mixed bag of people and situations. I think some people rent RV’s and then go home for the weekends. Some have homes elsewhere. How are kids suppose to study if there is no light? The more I read here the more this all does not make sense. If there are kids then then they cannot sit around in the dark.
They need to move these people over to the PA Business Park and provide sanitation and electrical hook-ups. There has to be some type of security attached to all of this. The PA Business Park provides overhead lights for safety. They can put some generators out there for lights. This whole thing does not make sense. MV has a lot of RV’s in a Shoreline Parking lot behind the fire station. At least there is some safety there. the city got talked into this and needs to reevaluate the how and whys this is all going on.
@Resident 1-Adobe Meadows…
Concurring with your assessment & recommendations as safety, sanitation, a provision for basic utilities, reduction of existing traffic obstructions, & reasonable accessibility factors for RV dwellers are critical concerns & key necessities.
The question…how to successfully implement such a program & why hasn’t this issue been FULLY addressed by the PACC?
Mountain View’s former mayor is a proponent of “park anywhere” and is in a pickle with the residents who voted on this topic. – no RV’s on residential streets or commercial streets. He has been in contact with other surrounding cities and wants everyone to support his opinions on this matter.
Now MV has RV’s parked over at Shoreline behind the fire station. Since we have a new PACC coming on board it is time to get a grip on the specific issues here in this city instead of getting bounced around by other surrounding cities and county officials who have previously followed his lead. We have the location and is near all of the utility equipment on East Bayshore.
Read the Mountain View Voice topic on RV’s. You can access the MV Voice from the bottom of this page. Also the Almanac for MP.
Most people who live in RVs have no other options. While there are many different situations. Not everyone fits the the stereotype of someone who lives in a “homeless encampment”. I think you will find that many who live in RVs because they cannot afford housing and many are fully employed. Plus there are not many “RV parks” in our area. Just think of traveling nurses and other traveling healthcare professionals. Many of them live in RVs and travel from job to job around the country. What about the minimum wage earner with or without a family? Housing costs are beyond many of them. What about construction workers, cops, fire fighters and others who work in the Bay Area but live in the central valley, Sacramento or other areas. Some of these workers are lucky enough to have an employer that will let them park their RV on the property, others are not. We do need a regional commitment to provide affordable, safe places with electricity, laundry, hygiene and internet services for these workers and their families.
Don’t you understand that you are condoning them living in an RV on ECR? Do you think that is where they belong? They are here because Palo Alto let’s them, pure and simple. Charities should be providing help, encouragement, and discouragement not messaging that it’s okay to raise your family in an RV on a busy street. Where is CPS? Go there. Walk along the sidewalk (if you can get around their trash). How is this not a violation of SIP?
>”How is this not a violation of SIP?”
^ Aren’t the inhabitants observing ‘stay in place’ mandates by simply remaining inside their respective RVs a majority of the time?
Lee – that is not the issue. The issue is where the RV’s are. On the biggest street in the city that has major buses going by? Major traffic going by? And SU does not want anyone on their campus at this time.
When I went by I got the feeling that many have left the area for the holiday. What is left is the rental RV’s that are owned by the residents of our cities. This is more a matter of the people who own these RV’s and rent them out do not want to move them? IS that where this is going? The people that own those RV’s need to be willing to move them over to the east 101 lot. It is not our job to facilitate the bottom line of the RV owners.
>”What is left is the rental RV’s that are owned by the residents of our cities.”
^ If the above is true, then the alleged Palo Alto residents who are owner/landlord/slumlords of these RVs should be ‘outed’ via DMV registration verification though chances are, a sizable number of the RV landlords are non-PA residents.
This move is ultimately the responsibility of the PACC…to initiate explicit mandates, leaving the citation process, tow-aways & impoundments up to the PAPD, unless the PACC as exemplified by its seemingly progressive (aka aquiesent/wet noodle) mindset endorses caravans of transient RVs parked along ECR.
Meanwhile the ACLU is waiting in the wings to initiate yet another lawsuit if the RVs are forced to move.
If we put the RV’s in a better place then the ACLU cannot touch us. On ECR they are subjected to bus diesel fumes, car fumes, hit and run, dangerous location. I am surprised that they have not threatened us for having them park on ECR. No other city has RV’s on ECR. Sorry – threat of ACLU not applicable. Lot with sanitation and lighting, security better place.
Curious…though this article is a year old, has the EPA response to providing a locale for RVs proven successful to date?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/24/rv-parking-lot-offers-safety-and-xmas-cheer-victims-housing-crisis/2729845001/
Lee – the article had too many ads to read. It is about EPA which is in San Mateo County. I know that RV’s were parked on Bay Road and now they are not. They are redeveloping that whole street going down to the end point – a county park. There is a charter school at that location and another charter school a few blocks further down. A lot of new money is being injected into EPA. Mrs. Jobs is developing a major intersection at Bay Road and University. I don’t keep up on the redevelopment in that city but it is definitely happening.
>”…RV’s were parked on Bay Road and now they are not. They are redeveloping that whole street going down to the end point – a county park.”
^ Then perhaps the displaced RVers will need to relocate (if they haven’t already) to parts of MV & any available space remaining along ECR in Palo Alto…much to your chagrin.
I love AAA paper maps. They have the index categorized by topic. The one for Palo Alto-Mountain View – Mobile Home Parks lists 17 locations. Bigger list in the Sunnyvale listings. Bottom line is that there are organized locations all over that provide hook-ups for organized utilities. If I was to believe the tabloids you would think that these locations do not exist. Advocacy Groups by-pass the dedicated locations for these residential locations.
How about “Open Space and Nature Preserves” = 16 line items in the Palo Alto-Mountain View map.
If a person was limited by Google Search you would not know these all exist and exactly where they are. Time for people to get actual maps that lay out where everything is.
I was on ECR the other day and the RV’s are going down the whole road. Some people must have gone home for the holidays and are now back and parking further down. And we may be absorbing RV’s from Mountain View that got kicked out of that city.
It is time for “the city” to take a position and put them over on the PA Business Park at 101 and San Antonio. And provide sanitary services. The PA Utility Yard is a bit further down the road so the equipment is there. That would be a safer location for all concerned. We are looking at safety for EVERYONE. Every city out there is taking positions on safety and civil practicality. Why are we different? And if there are people who are “advocating”” for them to be all over the place then identify who you are. WE can tell them where you live.
I’m glad that there are such organizations that help people. I’d like to organize one in my area, and I’ve found the article by this https://thegeniusreview.com/volunteering-community-service-company/ which describes how to do it. I’m currently a student, and I’ve started to be interested in this theme after writing my college paper on volunteering using some additional resources such as Phdessay and so on. I think it’s essential to help people, as it builds strong community relationships.
Article in the BAN/SJM 03/11/21 – ‘Palo Alto parked RV dweller receive notices to move or be towed”. Thank you PACC for getting on top on this . I have relatives who are now going out to see college and universities in CA , Colorado, and Oregon. Someone comes to SU and what do they see? The first thing they see are RV’s parked in the most popular location of the school coming in the gates. And half are in disrepair. And when you drive by in the night they do not appear occupied – they are dark. ECR is a parking lot for unused or partially used broken down vehicles. Is someone going to pay top dollar for their child to go to SU? Sorry – UC San Diego , UC-Irvine look a lot better for the safety of the students. Please note that the businesses and the universities are tax paying entities who pay a huge amount of be on ECR in this city. And the city is by signage limiting how parking is placed on the street. Change up the sign-age – it used to be there and you all took it down.
The next problem noted here is NGO’s who are trying to direct city policy – Palo Alto Renter’s Association. Do these people pay any taxes? Do they function for free dictating to the city how to conduct business and space for the people who do pay taxes? The city taxpayer is directing traffic here not NGO’s which do not pay any taxes and directly work to the disadvantage of all of the businesses on ECR.
The RV’s on ECR need to be gone. They do not contribute to the city or businesses on ECR. They damage the safety of the university and how it is trying to run their business which includes renting out their fields for group teams to play. Further down ECR they are sitting in front of businesses that are paying a lot to be there.
For all of you NGO’s – you need to focus on putting RV’s on available land east of 101. Not in residential streets, not in church parking lots. And NGOs need to stop trying to dictate to cities.
“And when you drive by in the night they do not appear occupied – they are dark.”
Most folks turn down the lights even in conventional dwellings. As my father used to say, “don’t waste electricity.” We’ve all heard that one before.
“ECR is a parking lot for unused or partially used broken down vehicles. Is someone going to pay top dollar for their child to go to SU?”
I suspect that most students go to premier universities to get a top notch education…not to look at or be bothered with transient RVs.
“The RV’s on ECR need to be gone.”
Palo Alto residents could consider adopting an ‘invite an RV’ program to get them off ECR.
Before resituating back to SoCal, we used to let an RV dweller park in front of our house (Walter Hays school area). The property is now a rental and speaking as the current landlord, if the tenants wish to do the same, no problem as the only ones who might take issue are our former neighbors or an aspiring RE agent trying sell a residential property nearby.
Out of mind and out of body as the saying goes + the property manager overseeing matters could care less!
Oh – so now it becomes clear – Mr. Cavendish has property in PA but does not live in PA, and does not care really what happens in PA except that his rental property keeps paying off. We got it. Mr. Cavendish thinks he is the gatekeeper of what happens in PA but his comments have no applicability to PA. Do not plan on reading any other comments.
“Oh – so now it becomes clear – Mr. Cavendish has property in PA but does not live in PA, and does not care really what happens in PA except that his rental property keeps paying off. We got it. Mr. Cavendish thinks he is the gatekeeper of what happens in PA but his comments have no applicability to PA. “
@ Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
You’re being a tad harsh.
I still pay Palo Alto property taxes and since our former residency falls under Prop 13, the rent currently being charged is $2500.00/month for a 3BR/2B house including utilities (excluding wi-fi and phone service).
We have received several offers from overseas buyers who are more than willing to pay cash for the property but I am reluctant to displace the current tfamily who have two small children attending local schools (when open).
So yes, I am no longer a Palo Alto resident but I have a general interest in the goings on having resided in YOUR community for over 40 years while offering cost-effective housing in this time of limited options and availabilities.
As for SOME of the current PA issues and concerns, I frankly don’t care while on others I do.
In the meantime, enjoy complaining about the RVs that neither you nor I have any control over.
Perhaps the next time you happen to be in the SoCal area, we can further discuss the state of Palo Alto and the current changes it is undergoing.
Hint…nothing ever stays the same.
Excuse me – I live here. Every one is free to express their own points of view to the topic at hand. Harsh comes in when some people compulsively use other people’s comments to play off of. Express an opinion with out tangling me into what you are saying. Make your point exclusive of other people’s points.
“Make your point exclusive of other people’s points.”
Sounds kind of anti-discourse.
“Harsh comes in when some people compulsively use other people’s comments to play off of.”
Isn’t that the nature (i.e essence) of having an open conversation or responding to commentaries, editorials and other opinion pieces (i.e a forum)?
We are all accountable for what we convey, including myself.
And begging to differ (at times) is why we live in America.
there’s so much hate going on today. even towards people who are forced to live in recreational vehicles.
is this who we have become as a country?
the rv’s don’t bother me. they are just homes on wheels and one rarely sees the inhabitants.
and while adopting an rv family and letting them park in front of one’s house is not practical for many residents, eradicating them like vermin is inhuman and goes against the grain of a modern progressive and compassionate society.
that poster who continues to voceriferously rant against their presence near town and country village must be wrestling with some peculiar inner demons of his/her own.
live and let live!
Julianne – yes people live in RV’s. But not on ECR at SU and down through the city. Businesses are leaving the T&C – they are leaving. People pay a huge amount to be in specific locations. They have an investment in their business. Having a derelict RV in front does not promote business. The RV’s can be located in east 101. Mountain View is moving the RV’s out of the main city section in back of the fire house on Shoreline east of 101. Redwood City – the RV’s are east of 101 across from the sheriff station. All other cities have moved the RV’s out of the main thoroughfares because the taxpaying voters voted to make that so. If all other cities are moving the RV’s out of the main business areas then there is no argument that PA should have them on the main highway. Town and County Village has less to do with the fact that the students who are using those fields need a place to park. The RV’s are unsanitary and should not be in the middle of both high school and college students. You have made an argument concerning Town and County. That is not the main issue.
Pre-pandemic there were numerous articles about how many of the RV’s served Stanford University construction workers who went home during the weekend and families of patients at Stanford Health who couldn’t afford the costly room rates of local hotels and motels.
Some were rented for less than nearby apartments, some were driven their by workers and Stanford Health families.
There were also numerous articles glamorizing the “RV Life” and 2 stuck in my mind. One featured a Google guy whose wife was an artist talking about how the lower rent om their RV allowed them to save money and the wife to continue her art work. Another featured Stanford students — grad students I believe — who said their RV rent was less than what they would pay on campus.
Throughout the years the RV has been on ECR, Stanford gets them cleared out on Big Game Day while refusing to address the need to house their construction workers for their endless building projects ON CAMPUS or for Stanford Health to accommodate families getting long-term treatment. You routinely see pleas on NextDoor seeking housing for those families.
We’re told expansion projects won’t never a single car trip — yea right — but they always ignore factors like the RVs, housing their workers etc. and that may explain why PACC has ignored the issue for so long.
SU has a huge amount of unused property – a maintenance section across from the golf course on one side and other space up by the medical center. If people are employed by SU or a company subcontracted by SU then SU should Carve out space for those employees. They should be on SU property. Any other company with a large parking lot should house their employees on the property. Back in the day when Ford Aerospace was on Fabien people would park in the lot in a back section. The company had showers and a gym. Lockheed in Sunnyvale has a lot next to the electric train where RV’s are stored.
The bigger problem now is that the RV’s are trailing down ECR going to the city line to Mountain View / Los Altos. There are sections with signs for 2 hour parking in sections, but past Oregon it all starts up again. It is not about T&C. It is about all of the businesses along ECR which pay to lease there. No other city now has RV’s on ECR.
Other issue is that ECR is suppose to be the main transit corridor for the city. When we talk about housing it is about location next to ECR. That is the criteria for where housing breaks down from R-1 to large condos and apartments. And the main business corridor. I was on ECR during the day when we had heavy traffic and a large double bus was trying to go through and not side swipe an RV with an extension in the SU section. I was on the other side and almost got side swiped by the large double bus. It is like running a gauntlet when the RV’s are sticking out beyond the lines. That street is suppose to be a transit corridor for cars and busses.
On another day when there was an event people leaving the parking section were directed by police to consolidate lanes because an RV was in the section of the access to the parking lot. What ever rules we had before about parking on event days had gone by the board.
An RV is suppose to be able to move – some cannot move. Some of the renters do not know how to move/drive them and the RV owner is no where to be seen to move it. Some are just broken down and are held up by something other than wheels
The whole concept does not work. And we are going to return to normal coming up spring. And we again are going to have heavy transit for events. And people are going to be out and about. And we are going to continue to argue housing relative to ECR.
All reasons that RV parking needs to be disallowed on ECR and moved to east side of 101. No parking in residential locations – that is the narrow street with children and bikers argument.
“that poster who continues to voceriferously rant against their presence near town and country village must be wrestling with some peculiar inner demons of his/her own.”
If this is such a personal affront, then get a petition going and submit it to the Palo Alto City Council for further consideration.
Meanwhile live and let live.
> “that poster who continues to voceriferously rant against their presence near town and country village must be wrestling with some peculiar inner demons of his/her own.”
Hard to say as I am not a psycho-analysist.
I’m just another PA resident trying to get through these trying days with better things to do than condemn those less fortunate living in RVs.
Since the RVs are parked on the Stanford side of El Camino Real, I might suggest that this individual take the issue up with the university instead.
Maybe Stanford could consider implementing a parking fee of sorts, say something around $25.00 per month.
Then with the proceeds, set-up a string of porta-potties for the inhabitants to use.
Done deal.
° All reasons that RV parking needs to be disallowed on ECR and moved to east side of 101.
Yes, let’s just banish all of the RV residents so Palo Alto can look more presentable to some people.
“that poster who continues to voceriferously rant against their presence near town and country village must be wrestling with some peculiar inner demons of his/her own.”
Agreed.
People = the city of Mountain View put this up to vote and the taxpayers of that city voted for no RV’s in the inner city matrix. MV has the RV’s now in a parking lot behind a fire station on Shoreline Blvd – east of 101. The fact that it as put up to a vote says it all.
Alicia – Los Altos does not have RV’s in the downtown city matrix – or on ECR. RWC has the RV’s in a lot across from the Police Station east of 101. Los altos has it’s own problems concerning Main Street and what happens in that city – voting out a residential building on Main Street.
There is one RV poster here from MV -he says all head to PA/ECR = that is where the action is because they got voted out by the taxpayers of that city.
Every other city on the peninsula has made decisions on that topic. The rest of you people do not get out much – or you go to other cities to shop because the city of PA is losing business. All of those taxpayers are not ranting – they are making business decisions concerning their cities and voting. If every other city has made decisions on the topic then you all are in the dark about how other cities are going to emerge from the pandemic – they are already working on that.
The city is in a survivor mode as to how it will emerge from the pandemic and all of those businesses that are leaving are going elsewhere. And T&C is a topic of another blog because everyone is leaving. One PACC rep wants to but business in T&C – forget the cute shops.
Nothing like watching a city become the charity case for every other city on the peninsula. Nothing like watching a city NOT make good decisions when there is space for a resolution.
You cannot attribute the decline in business at Town and Country Village on a bunch of RVs. The RVs are parked across the street and do not impede shoppers entering T&C.
The decline in business is happening everywhere due to public health mandates and ‘cute shops’ are not a priority, just another luxury shopping outlet.
And even if Stanford Shopping Center were to suffer or endure the similar fate, businesses come ang go.
Palo Alto old-timers will recall that except for maybe Gleims, all of the other storefronts when the shopping center first opened in the mid-1950s have changed proprietors so it’s no big deal.
Increasing retail rents and declining business are the primary reasons for the shop closures at Town and Country Village, not a row of delapidated RVs.
And as some others have mentioned, it is a Stanford University issue to resolve and not Palo Alto’s.
Lastly, since practically 100% of the available RV parking spaces along ECR are already taken up, there is no need to be concerned about any additional RV migrants resituating to this particular area.
So let ALL of the existing RVs remain on ECR (until Stanford decides against it) and direct ALL of the newer RV dwellers who wish to reside in Palo Alto to the recommended and city-sanctioned outskirt areas.
It’s not that big a conundrum and besides, the area along ECR is prime RV real estate.
Location, location, location!
So what is the fascination with T&C? Julianne is the person who is stuck on T&C. I am not stuck on T&C – I am stuck on PAHS and SU – that is where our children and other people’s children are.
No poster here is talking about PAHS and SU students who are using those fields and have games there. They have to pass the gauntlet to get to their game fields. People who are participating in use of the fields need to park there. But hey – forget about them?
All of the services that are at T&C can be found down the street Stanford Ave to Oregon. Coffee, food and groceries, gyms, some cute shops. T&C in itself is not a driving issue here. T&C is irrelevant to this issue. It has it’s own problems – no one is going there and shops are becoming vacant. I do not go to T&C so what ever happen there is just a mirror on city governance.
As Sam says – ECR is prime real Estate. Spoken like a person who is renting out RV’s to people who cannot drive them or move them when needed. The problem here is that the RV’s are going down ECR past Oregon to the border of MV / Los Altos. It is a growing problem that is a PA problem – not a SU problem. There used to be signage in the SU section – the signage has been removed. People who invest in a business on ECR need to have a good presence on the street to be successful.
So you are vociferously championing all type of special interests issues which ae irrelevant to the businesses on ECR going all the way downs, the students, the commuters on ECR.
Los Altos does not have RV’s on ECR or anywhere else so Alicia is just protecting her own turf.
“T&C is irrelevant to this issue.”
“As Sam says – ECR is prime real Estate. Spoken like a person who is renting out RV’s to people who cannot drive them or move them when needed.”
Way too much of an assumption…just like assuming that you have an unrelenting and semi-neurotic issue dealing with transient RVs.
Life is too short. Get over it.
I think the RVs are kind of cool.
Alternative housing regardless of where they are parked.
In the city of MV RV’s have been parked for years by Rengstorf Park. That park has a community center in the back which is used both day and night. After much discussion regarding how the city is upgrading itself with new apartments and new businesses the city put it to a vote as to whether RV’s should be parked in that location. The city voted that the RV’s had to be located elsewhere – not next to a community center and park. That is what happened – the city carved out a number of locations for the RV’s, including a location behind the firehouse on Shoreline Drive. east of 101. Let us not assume that the people who voted are all crazy. They have the best intentions for how public property is used both day and night. And let us not assume that the city of MV is crazy for defining how public access property is used. I am sure there was a lot of name calling involved in this venture – it is on the MV Voice. We have a high school that has night events and a university that has had some security issues of late. That is the same decision that has been made by the other cities which have located RV’s in secure locations not adjacent to schools. Of all places in the city that is the area that needs the best efforts at safety, especially since we will be having a lot of night events at both schools.
Check your newspapers – school teams are getting back in business. Adult teams are getting ready to get out and going. We are going into recovery mode. The playing fields on ECR at SU are specifically set out for teams of all age who rent space for the use – or have it provided for free. That is what that space is all about. Getting everyone out and playing again. And they are going to park on ECR. That is the public space dedicated for that purpose.
Squatters have preempted that space – some for fiscal gain – and that was never the intention of that space. And that preemption is intentional and only benefits a few people at the expense of all of the teams sand the punblic that are suppose to be parking where their playing fields are. We need to get our city use of community space back in business for the benefit of all the people and teams who are entitled to park there. We have other space available for RV’s that is not pre-emptying dedicated space allocated for our citizens who are suppose to be out and playing. That is where our youth are suppose to be – what the taxpayers of this city bought into. PA is about health, youth and adult recreation, and that space is not up for grabs by a few people trying to make a buck.
This was a nice holiday gesture (though I suspect there was one particular poster here who did not deliver any fruit baskets or gift cards).
This discussion is taking place due to an article in the paper concerning the Palo Alto Renters Association making a demand on the city to cease towing RV’s on ECR.
Problem 1 – an activist group making demands on the city regarding city policy. The activist group is a non-tax paying entity – not entitled to make demands on the city regarding policy. That is a voter determined issue.
Problem 2 – An RV is suppose to be a movable, drivable unit. Presumably movable on game day. There are units which are not “operational” as provided by the owner’s to the DMV. Non-operational units do not belong on the main highway for the city.
Problem 3 – every other city has made locations possible for RV’s = operational or not – in off-site locations. The city of PA is working on this but not using the obvious choices in proximity to their offices on Ewell Court east of 101.
Problem 4 – the city and SU are off-loading a problem onto the general citizens who are going to be using those fields coming up very soon. The organizations who are using the fields should have the available parking on ECR next to those fields.
Problem 5 – the owner’s of the RV’s who are renting them out are capitalizing on a business operation to reduce their own costs at the expense of the general public.
Problem 6 – the location of the parker’s on ECR are an eyesore that is not allowed in any other city on the peninsula. You all argue business taxes – if you can’t provide a safe, secure, business oriented approach to the main street in the city then what are you going to tax people for. The city is setting itself up in a self-defeating situation.
Problem 7 – the city and SU can make available locations which have sanitary stations and electrical hook-ups. So get serious and make that happen.
Problem 8 – In a previous life I worked for the Open Road Corporate Offices in Redondo Beach. I do know something about the business of RV’s, the support systems available for the owners.
“In a previous life I worked for the Open Road Corporate Offices in Redondo Beach.”
^ In a ‘previous life’ or in an earlier career?
Shirley MacClaine was once an Egyptian queen in both.
quote:
Problem 7 – the city and SU can make available locations which have sanitary stations and electrical hook-ups. So get serious and make that happen.
Stanford may have the financial resources to fulfill your RV dream/utopia but given the current fiscal constraints now facing the City of Palo Alto, is this a viable solution?
Stanford has a slew of donors and an active alumni association to raise additional funds while many Palo Alto residents are concerned about their property taxes and would be reluctant to approve any additional surcharges or even a bond initiative.
Given your previous professional experience in these types of matters, would you consider coordinating a community fund-raiser to allocate the financial resources needed to provide sewage disposal and electricity connections to hundreds of RVs (both existing and the newly-arrived)?
One party with a bone to pick over others who are less fortunate and forced to seek an alternative dwelling in RVs is best ignored.
Especially when the primary complaint is visual blight.
Regarding the singular crusade against RVs parked along ECR, some folks lack empathy.
If some of these RV haters put as much energy into repairing their own lives as they do complaining about RVs, they would be far happier people in life.
WOW equating “empathy” with parking poor people on a major highway with no sanitary services, no available electricity, and security issues is amazing. I equate that with being a Slum Lord. But Slum Lords are a specific breed. For all of the people who want to demonstrate empathy move the RV’s to a location in which they have sanitary service, available electricity hook-up, and near by services for community support. Some of that support is being provided by PA east of 101. Other cities are providing that support. That is what empathy is.
In the papers today – Mr. Roadshow – people are complaining about El Camino From Sunnyvale up to Woodside Road. It needs repair and resurfacing. Caltrans is responsible for the integrity of El Camino and is going to work to get it resurfaced.
In the meantime there are very new and large double busses on the corridor. The double buses have to navigate their lanes. Having an inoperable unit in the lane is not going to work. That makes no sense.
As to the T&C – there was a similar operation in Sunnyvale off Mathilda that has been replaced by a huge building which is part of the Sunnyvale upbuild. I suspect that the Trader’s Joe in the PA T&C will make a decision to move since it is competing with huge Safeways and a new market on ECR – replacing the old JJ&F.
~~ “WOW equating “empathy” with parking poor people on a major highway with no sanitary services, no available electricity, and security issues is amazing.”
• What is amazing (and correct me if I am mistaken) is an apparent Palo Alto resident who considers El Camino Real to be a ‘major highway’ (like 101/280/I-5 etc.) when it is essentially a ‘boulevard’.
To simply advise moving all of the RVs in question (or contempt) to another location out of public view is far easier said than done.
It will require community support, logistics coordination, public utilities engineering assistance, and council re-zoning designations.
As others have mentioned, since this is a personal crusade, why not grab the bull by the horns and make a personal effort towards fulfilling this complex task on your own?
That’s where real empathy comes in.
Anyone can point fingers at an alleged or presumed problem.
Eleanor – History Lesson. El Camino Real – the Royal Road – has a Wikipedia page due to it’s history – the trail of the California missions going from San Diego to Solano – in Sonoma County. It is State Hwy 82 – not to be confused with interstate freeways 101, 1-5, etc. Check it out on Wikipedia and get your CA history updated. You do live in Professorville so put your CA history beanie on. One of the many reasons that SU is connected to that highway – the history was thought out and focused on the past and future history of the state of CA. The architecture of the university reflects the CA history in the original buildings.
@Resident 1-Adobe Meadow
Potato/potaahto.
Highway 9 is also a state highway but more along the lines of a long boulevard.
And the early Spaniards traveling along El Camino Real (aka The King’s Highway) were barely going faster than 5 mph.
So that said, are you going to get further involved in the RV eradication program?
>> “…the early Spaniards traveling along El Camino Real (aka The King’s Highway) were barely going faster than 5 mph.”
And I imagine people didn’t mind if there were a few wagons parked on the side of the king’s highway to either rest or camp.
So why take issue with these mobile dwellings now? Back then the king seemingly didn’t mind.
And they didn’t have toilets or electricity in those days.
People – we are talking about RV’s that are in the road – not along side of it – okay? They are not ADU’s which are suppose to have permanent presence occupying a whole lane in the road. Some have no wheels – they think they are a permanent occupier of the road? Some never move anywhere.
What is everyone’s hang up that they have to be on THAT ROAD? That Road is next to playing fields which are suppose to be parking places for people who are playing on the fields. That is why the fields are in that location. We are going to have events coming up soon and that is parking for the event people. This is about the taxpayer’s use of the SU facilities that are put on for the public to use. It is about the kids and adults who have team sports that are going to start up. Those fields will be filled up soon and they need to park to go to the fields. That is screwing with the children’s team sports – and a lot of adult team sports.
Suggested places – check out:
1. Corporation Road and Elwell Court Road which are off East Bayshore. That is the Elwell Business park. There is no signage on the roads that would prevent parking. Palo Alto has a business office on Elwell Court so you can stop and and see them –
use their bathrooms? Ask questions about where else to park?
2. East Embarcadero Road – no signage beyond the auto section. Food and bathrooms at the golf course. The golf course is very cool. And the airport has food shops. County club living in PA – next to the golf course.
So why is that better? Quiet, safe, and no new VTA double bus rolling by you in your bed 3 feet away. No proximity to ambulances going to the health center.
Any time I go by there after dark there are no lights on in those RV’s. There is no one in some of them. Some people are just using that space for storage of the RV because they cannot park on their own street. They do not want to pay for storage at a regular RV storage lot. Now that is somewhat insulting – using a major street as a RV storage.
Note the papers today – this is an issue throughout the bay area. Do note that all vehicles need to be registered with the DMV. The Vehicle Industry Registration Procedure Manual defines the requirements for Recreational Vehicles allowed on the roads. Any unregistered vehicle or one that does not conform to CA requirements for being on the road can be removed. That is a CA public safety issue. Any unlicensed unit can be removed. Any unit that is in disrepair can be removed.
The next issue is signage on the roads. Issue in Pacifica is lack of signage – a legal issue. There used to be signage on ECR next to the SU campus that has been removed. Who removed it? The signage had no RV parking on event days on the street. RV parking was typically on the SU property in designated locations for the purposes of tailgating.
Side note: friend has a boat in Marina next to Chase center in SF. When events are in process friend can go and park at boat and use as overnight hotel while attending the event – sports or other type. One can translate that function to RV’s parked on ECR for sports events which provided overnight participation at these events.
Storage of units while not being used. SU should provide storage locations for employees so the units are off the street. Other people should be asking their employers if they can store on company property. City needs to review where storage is available for RV’s not in use. And where parking is available that is not limited by signage. There is signage on ECR in the California Street business area – 2 hour limit. Signage on residential street off Park – no commercial vehicles in excess of 5 tons.
Problems defined by signage, condition and type of vehicle, registration of vehicle, location of vehicle. All need definition.
Maybe just ‘grandfather’ in the existing RVs on ECR and require newer RV residents to use the alternative PA sites.
A win-win for all parties.
Danny- look at all of the blogs we have going on with schools in the specific area – Castilleja, PAHS, SU. ECR is in that educational school zone and is specific to supporting the activities at all of these schools, their parents, their student bodies, their activities, their events. And with spring coming when people are going to be going full bore to reclaim their lives.
Meanwhile we have a bunch of people who have tried to coopt the very parking space we need for the student activities. That make no sense except to the people who are renting RV’s to people and do not want their revenue stream interrupted.
Who is that a WIN-WIN for? Not the schools, not the events, not anyone except the people who have an investment in the RV situation. And in this city that is not very many people – and a lot of people who do not live in this city. That is a lot of people who are parking their RV’s here because they cannot park them in their city.
How is that a win-win for you specifically? What is your investment in this situation. Should we move them off ECR and put them at your house? ECR is state highway – not bed and breakfast ADU.
If one was fortunate enough to have a prime parking spot on ECR from which to situate an RV (running or not) why would anyone want to vacate that area?
It is convenient to shopping, public transit and Jack in the Box.
We must aclimate ourselves to being more compassionate towards those less fortunate than ourselves.
No one wants to reside in a ratty-looking RV but some have no choice due to economic reasons, mental illness or substance abuse.
Perhaps a community volunteer funding effort could assist in setting up a string of porta potties and AC generators.
And water could be delivered either in bottles or by tanker truck.
Step up Palo Alto and show some human compassion.
Roberto- you all keep trying to take a section of a major highway and converting it into living space in a section of the city that now has new wrinkles- closing the access to the schools via Alma and Churchill. Now there is going to be a huge amount of traffic on ECR. Caltrans is now being pushed to resurface ECR from Sunnyvale to Woodside Road so you all are going to be moved by the state. Time and traffic are not on the side of people who want to occupy a whole lane. And the DMV and VTA are not going to allow immovable objects sitting in the lane because that is illegal. You all seem to not recognize that it is illegal. You all need to consider relocating to a place that is not on a major or minor road. A location for parking that is not directly on a road. A “normal” parking place. There are a lot of places for food, marketing and other needs not on the actual street of ECR.
Compassion is a two sided venture. It goes two ways. Not a one-way discussion.
Roberto – you are a resident of “another community”. Do you own an RV that you are renting to someone who is living on a major highway lane in the middle of town? If you are not an owner or resident of an RV on a highway in the middle of town then why are you commenting? Each city is carving out locations that are not on a street or highway – aka a parking lot for RV’s. Does the city you live in have such a location? For those of you who like to comment it brings up the question of your city and what does it have to offer to the situation. If everyone is looking for legal solutions then what is your cities legal solution?
MV is providing a parking spot for RV’s on a parking lot. RWC has a parking lot across from the sheriff station. Being solution oriented is about what your town is doing that is not perpetuating further illegal activities.
There are bigger and far more pressing issues (i.e. public health, economy etc.) to contend with at present than getting bent out of shape over a bunch of RVs.
In time they will need to be relocated but perhaps now is not the time unless the PD actually begins citing and towing them away as per PACC mandate.
So take it up with city hall.
I drove by those RVs everyday and they don’t bother me.
Besides, it’s a Stanford issue to address.
Every city is working this problem. Article about the city of Richmond which scotched the plan to put the RV’s in a deserted mall because it is currently in the process of changing ownership. The issue distinguishes “road side parking’ vs established parking lots off the street. The parking lot is a good choice because the city can set up sanitary stations, refuse stations, etc. in a stable set-up.
The road side parking does not lend itself to that type set-up because you are now straddling city and state owned highways with private property. That is a lot of problems for the land owner relative to insurance liability which they are paying for.
All keep avoiding the idea of using the fair grounds. Fair grounds have huge buildings that have heating, bathrooms, and food courts. Also trash pick-up. Huge parking spaces in fair ground properties.
In the current dust-up of using Moffett Field no where was it mentioned that it is a Super Fund site currently being worked by the EPA and government agencies to remove pollutants in the ground and water table. Why not mentioned? Does Anna Eshoo know that? That is why you do not see much change on the airfield and adjacent buildings. Forget that site for RV parking, housing, children, etc.
Back to the fairgrounds – huge buildings sitting there with huge parking lots. In San Mateo next to Caltrain tracks and food markets. In San Jose near food and markets.
You all have to get over the idea for some that this is their RV storage location, or their RV hotel for sports events at SU, or their revenue for rental to offset the costs of owning an RV – DMV registration – a must for being on the road in the state, and insurance coverage – a must for being on the road in CA. what ever the ACLU thinks it is doing it cannot overrule state laws and state organizations which dictate how vehicles of any type use the roads. So that leaves the city to find “lots” where they can set up some type of support.
Keep seeing articles about people getting tickets for parking in the wrong places. Worst – the columnist uses this example as a reason for the ACLU to step in.
Start with the fact that the person has a valid driver’s license that assumes they can understand the stated rules relative for the use of the highways. Then assume that the vehicle is registered with the state as required for use of the roads.
Yes – the person is in financial trouble and possibly mental trouble that questions why they are driving around in a vehicle that can cause a lot of damage. Vehicles on the road need to conform to what ever the stated rules are for being “on the road – curbside”.
SU is a private University that does not allow RV’s on it’s property unless it is a cleared event. And currently they do not want people on the campus that do not have a reason for being there – and only in the section where they are doing business. No – it is not SU’s problem. They are not Caltran, or the DMV. They are not the State of CA or the city of PA.
The problem lies in the state/county not taking control of the situation and deflecting it to tax payers and property owners who have no leverage in this situation. The county and state keep ducking their responsibility and trying to push it on residents who are paying the taxes here.
Back to the fairgrounds that are owned by the city, or county, or state. That is property that is owned by the collective tax payers, is sitting empty, and should be made available to the vehicles and people who need some housing in a short term projection of time. The fairgrounds are near markets and other commercial outlets.
ECR is this city is under assault from every direction, including the closing of the Caltrain crossings which keep traffic on Alma. School opening up – use of playing fields for events. There is a high concentration of activity is the section of the city and needs relief.
@All keep avoiding the idea of using the fair grounds. Fair grounds have huge buildings that have heating, bathrooms, and food courts.
FYI…the food courts (aka vendors) are only open for business when the county fair is in progress and the same goes for the facilities you mentioned.
Lastly, what are you going to do…run all of the RVs off the premises during the county fair?
Maybe reroute them BACK to ECR in Palo Alto?
Next brilliant idea?
Edna – is you have not noticed there is no activity at the fair grounds except covid shots. And if you have not noticed we have a build up of all type of activity on ECR is the direct location where the RV’s are parked. And if you have not noticed we are the only city on the peninsula that has RV’s on ECR. Every other city has figured out that is a bad idea and have worked the issue. Our county thinks up ways to deflect RV’s onto residential streets, church parking lots – note that has not happened – and avoid the use of county owned property to solve this problem. ECR is not a solution.
Edna did bring up a valid point. Though the SC fairgrounds are closed now, what do you do with the RVs when the fair reopens?
That comment has the same effect for RV’s parked on ECR on game days. What do you do on game days at SU? No parking for RV’s on ECR. So you want to qualify a fair grounds for event parking but not SU? SU has it’s own rules for event parking. Making up one-sided opinions does not work here. And if you have been to any events at the fair grounds the whole parking lot in never filled up. You section off one section for RV’s and another for autos. They do that any way because the size of the spaces is different. And for most events they rarely use all of the buildings.
Move RVs to Town and Country Village (in back lot). Plenty of room.
Then install portable toilets to eliminate unlawful discharge of human wastes.
The Palo Alto City council and the attorneys who tell them what to do without public votes, is set to take up the issue of mandatory transfer of use of Foothill Park to RV families. It was my suggestion, so I expect the…Nobel peace prize.
That is hilarious – Just imagine some of those rickety, old RV’s trying to get up Page Mill Road. Once they get up there then what? They have to come back down to buy food, gasoline, stuff. How many will crash and burn before they get up the hill. How many bicycle people will be run off the road as they traverse upward? Sorry – not going to work – they can barely function on flat land. And the people that own them and rent them out want them to be where they can keep an eye on them so the “gangsters’ do not make off with them. Or the Repo person does not sneak them away. The Repo man, the gangsters, a whole host of impediments out there. There are Repo shows on tv for airplanes, boats, etc, You to can learn how to repo something for your own use. I have extended family that repo’s autos – big business in San Diego.
Side note here – Had a fairly new GMC bright red truck on the street yesterday. The license plate was stolen – the number series was not consistent with the age of the truck. If it appears again I will leave a note to that effect. We seem to get a lot of these type problems on my street. I call then into the police. A license plate has to be consistent with the age of the car or newer. Cannot be older that the age of the vehicle.
Jim Lawrence of SU equates Highway 82 with Highway 9. Highway 82 is the address of hotels, hospitals, major businesses, law firms, markets. Highway 9 is the address of redwood trees that got burned in the recent fires, was closed down so dead trees could be removed.
What does Jim Lawrence do at SU? Hopefully not a job that requires logical management of resources. How does anyone equate 82 with 9 as to the community use of resources and business equivalency?
No one is talking about RV eradication. I worked in the corporate office of a RV company. The point here is removing RV’s from the section of the highway that is between two educational institutions with no sanitary facilities, no planning, no organization. And no recognition that the section of ECR involved is in the center of a multitude of other problems regarding educational institutions, use of roads, major traffic, T&C problems, Caltrain street closures, etc. The last thing we need in that location is the piling on of unassociated problems which when combined make city management look very stupid. Then pile on how some people talk about this city being so rich. Do you people ever get out and go see what other people are doing and how they live? This is like the homeless living next to the Guadalupe River – another brainless city development.
Note on Repos = people take out loans for Airplanes, boats, RV’s, cars. Those loans are provided through financial institutions. When payment of loans goes into arrears for a length of time then the REPO operation kicks in. The Repo people are on the search for the item, usually hidden from the financial institution, including changing license plates. Find a plate that already has a current registration sticker on it and steal it. I just had a new GMC red truck on the street that had a 1996 license on it with a current year sticker. The numbers used on a license are year specific. A lot of busy operations in this city and they use residential streets in different cities to hide.
Our papers are reporting on the number of deaths due to Covid by county. Our local health support is struggling to maintain schedules for injections. I defaulted to El Camino Health in San Jose for my shots. Well Done El Camino. Good communication, good management of the facilities. Advertisements on TV are about products that kill all type possible germs. Buildings are empty because people are not suppose to be at work spreading germs. And then we have people who staunchly defend the right of RVs to sit on a major highway between our prized educational institutions with students now coming back. No sanitation, illegal dumping of human waste, some that are inoperable – which is illegal on that highway. And the city cannot organize a safe and clean location off of a major street.
Go no further than the comments on the closing of Churchill which has morphed into the closing of California and all of the problems associated with the routing of vehicles and trains. Each topic is discussed and arbitrated separately but collectively is a giant mess. The whole section from Stanford Shopping center down to Oregon needs planning. And further down to San Antonio which is now home to hotels and apartment buildings. All of those lanes need to be available for the conduction of business, recreation, and events.