News

Palo Alto opens its first 'safe parking' site for unhoused residents

Palo Alto leased a lot at 2000 Geng Road, pictured here, to Santa Clara County for the establishment of the city's first "safe parking" program. Embarcadero Media file photo by Magali Gauthier.

Responding to a steady increase of residents living in vehicles, Palo Alto on Friday opened its first "safe parking" site.

Located at 2000 Geng Road, near the Baylands Athletic Field, the site can accommodate 12 vehicles and includes a building with a shower. The site was recently used by the Palo Alto Fire Department while the city's Rinconada Park fire station was getting reconstructed.

The nonprofit Move Mountain View, which oversees five "safe parking" lots in Mountain View, will operate the site, with Santa Clara County providing the funding. The City Council approved the arrangement in September, when it unanimously agreed to lease the 25,000-square-foot lot to the county.

In addition to providing a 24-hour secure place to park, the site will offer case management and other social services. At its Mountain View lots, Move Mountain View has provided residents with regular COVID-19 testing and a food pantry.

The program was first proposed in 2019 by council member Lydia Kou and Mayor Tom DuBois, who submitted a memo urging their colleagues to identify city sites that could be repurposed for safe parking. While the memo focused on city-owned land at 1275 San Antonio Road, it also identified the Baylands property on Geng Road as an option.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The two council members cited in the memo the substantial increase of residents who live in vehicles, which can be seen parked on main thoroughfares and quiet streets for long periods of time.

"The city of Palo Alto must address this matter from a health and safety standpoint," the memo states. "The effort must be made to find immediate short and long term solutions. The ultimate goal is to provide assistance to people to get them back on the path to stable housing."

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, who worked with cities and nonprofit groups to establish the new programs, said Friday that while the lots are not a long-term solution, safe parking "allows residents to have stability in where they sleep each night while they seek permanent housing.

"The goal is to move people through the program, out of the program, into a better place."

Simitian cited the county's most recent homeless census, which showed 18% of the county's unhoused residents living in vehicles. That's up from 8% in 2015 and 2017, according to the announcement.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

DuBois said Friday that the city needs to do more to "help the most vulnerable among us, like those living in vehicles, have a safe base to get back on their feet."

"This is fantastic progress with hopefully more to come," DuBois said in the statement.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Palo Alto opens its first 'safe parking' site for unhoused residents

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 4:44 pm

Responding to a steady increase of residents living in vehicles, Palo Alto on Friday opened its first "safe parking" site.

Located at 2000 Geng Road, near the Baylands Athletic Field, the site can accommodate 12 vehicles and includes a building with a shower. The site was recently used by the Palo Alto Fire Department while the city's Rinconada Park fire station was getting reconstructed.

The nonprofit Move Mountain View, which oversees five "safe parking" lots in Mountain View, will operate the site, with Santa Clara County providing the funding. The City Council approved the arrangement in September, when it unanimously agreed to lease the 25,000-square-foot lot to the county.

In addition to providing a 24-hour secure place to park, the site will offer case management and other social services. At its Mountain View lots, Move Mountain View has provided residents with regular COVID-19 testing and a food pantry.

The program was first proposed in 2019 by council member Lydia Kou and Mayor Tom DuBois, who submitted a memo urging their colleagues to identify city sites that could be repurposed for safe parking. While the memo focused on city-owned land at 1275 San Antonio Road, it also identified the Baylands property on Geng Road as an option.

The two council members cited in the memo the substantial increase of residents who live in vehicles, which can be seen parked on main thoroughfares and quiet streets for long periods of time.

"The city of Palo Alto must address this matter from a health and safety standpoint," the memo states. "The effort must be made to find immediate short and long term solutions. The ultimate goal is to provide assistance to people to get them back on the path to stable housing."

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, who worked with cities and nonprofit groups to establish the new programs, said Friday that while the lots are not a long-term solution, safe parking "allows residents to have stability in where they sleep each night while they seek permanent housing.

"The goal is to move people through the program, out of the program, into a better place."

Simitian cited the county's most recent homeless census, which showed 18% of the county's unhoused residents living in vehicles. That's up from 8% in 2015 and 2017, according to the announcement.

DuBois said Friday that the city needs to do more to "help the most vulnerable among us, like those living in vehicles, have a safe base to get back on their feet."

"This is fantastic progress with hopefully more to come," DuBois said in the statement.

Comments

felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2021 at 6:34 pm
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 19, 2021 at 6:34 pm

Great work. Thank you Lydia Kou, Tom DuBois and Joe Simitian - this is putting our votes for you to good use!

Now we just need more safe sites such as this one, used by folks till permanent housing is found.


Easy8
Registered user
Green Acres
on Feb 19, 2021 at 9:02 pm
Easy8, Green Acres
Registered user
on Feb 19, 2021 at 9:02 pm

Why not open up the whole area East of 101 to high density housing? The pressure to build housing from the State, etc will only continue to grow, and a couple of high density complexes here would make significant headway into our "quotas." This area has offices and commercial, but there is still open land and underdeveloped areas. Granted, there is no public transportation currently, but public transportation is lousy just about everywhere in the city.


Rupert Johnson
Registered user
Los Altos Hills
on Feb 20, 2021 at 7:10 am
Rupert Johnson, Los Altos Hills
Registered user
on Feb 20, 2021 at 7:10 am

Good to see Palo Alto stepping up to address this issue of accommodating vehicle residencies.

The only other option would have been to outlaw these kinds of transient settlements which Los Altos and the township of Los Altos Hills effectively enforces.

Palo Alto is far better suited to assist RV/car campers and their needs based on
ease of accessibility to shopping, public transportation and social services in Mountain View.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 20, 2021 at 10:39 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 20, 2021 at 10:39 am

Rupert noted Los Altos. Los Altos is on the flat land and has all of the markets and services the same as PA. There is a continual trend to shoehorn all of these type activities which other cities do not allow into PA. Duly noted. That is a trend that cannot keep happening. If any of the Santa Clara County legislators have agreed to shoehorn costly welfare activities into this city then watch out because you will not have a job the next time arounds.

The worst problem on this whole situation is the people trying to tie support from home owners instead of using city, county, state, and federal land for these activities. There is commercial property that is sitting there "for lease' signs abound. Empty commercial buildings yet you all keep trying to tie this all to church parking lots. Note - a church is a business that has to pay insurance and upkeep of their buildings - bathrooms and kitchens. Continual off-loading of this problem onto individual home owners is not acceptable. The state created this problem due to incompetence. At least this is good news that a small spot has been created with toilets and services.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 21, 2021 at 9:06 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Feb 21, 2021 at 9:06 pm

I strenuously oppose this. No logic to inviting random persons to reside in vehicles in the Palo Alto Baylands.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 9:01 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 9:01 am

There is the Palo Alto Business Park east of 101 at San Antonio. It has a huge parking lot that is empty all of the time. There is a city of PA office on Ewell Court. There is plenty of room to install some temporary bathrooms and sanitization stations in that area. But the city prefers to offload this problem on to church parking lots, and the baseball field where children are going to look to be playing ball. What is wrong with this picture? The city is doing something but the something is coming up short.


Bob Ohlmann
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:04 am
Bob Ohlmann, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:04 am

I strongly support this program by the City and think it needs to do more as compassionate help to thse who have to live in their vehicles, perhaps beause they work here but can't afford any nearby housing. I'm working with one of the several churches that will allow some vehicles to park in their parking lot, but that is only a minimum help and the City can do a lot more. I don't see RVs parked along El Camino in Mountain View or Meno Park. Why Palo Alto? Let's act.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:14 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:14 am

I think they should put more homeless parking in the parking lots of the companies who spent $220,000,000 to ensure gig workers get less than minimum wage and no benefits, especially InstaCart which just raised its rates to cover lobbying costs.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:26 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:26 am

I attended a meeting in which church parking lots were the subject. The participants were concerned that they had to have their own people on-site all of the time. And their buildings would be open 24/7. They did not have the resources at the time and would require some facility upgrades to their churches for the 24/7 use. Most churches are part of a bigger company of churches and some of their funding comes from a "corporate" entity - top level. Then you have the services in which the members of the church participate. You have now coopted the parking lot for others as opposed to the people who are members of the church. This is another example of the city and county off-loading their responsibility onto private entities and residents for the situation that they created.


Bob Ohlmann
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:45 am
Bob Ohlmann, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:45 am

I believe the Resident-1 of Adobe Meadows has his/her facts mixed up. the parking on church lots will not cost the churches anything as all financial support is from the county via Move Moutain View, the NGO supporting this effort. No facility upgrades are required. Furthermore, parking is limited to 6 PM to 8 AM or shorter hours when a church needs its parking lot for evening events or early morning service. So members of the church will not be inconvenienced.


Anonymous
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:58 am
Anonymous, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 11:58 am

If there had not been so many NIMBYs around here who oppose any high-density or even just medium-density developments, more housing would have been built and no one would have needed to live in a car.

The support shown to this program by certain "residentialist" council members is especially curious: They seem to be perfectly fine with people living in cars on the other side of 101. Why not this side of 101?


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:16 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:16 pm

Once again, there's no proof that increasing density lowers prices. Just look at Vancouver.

And of course people need cars here; even if public transit went everywhere in this spread-out area -- which it doesn't -- it would take hours and hours to get there from here.

Besides, how else would the underpaid drivers for InstaCart, Doordash, UberEats, etc. be able to deliver the food and other goods?


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:22 pm
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:22 pm

quotation...."The support shown to this program by certain "residentialist" council members is especially curious: They seem to be perfectly fine with people living in cars on the other side of 101. Why not this side of 101?"

∆ Because a slew of RVs parked along more 'visible' streets makes Palo Alto appear less desirable to visitors, potential home buyers and real estate agents.

Palo Alto is very concerned about maintaining its upscale image as a professional and college town.


Midtown Local
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:27 pm
Midtown Local, Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:27 pm

I'm glad we're doing something to help the people who are living in their cars, both with short-term living logistics and with case management and support.

But I'm wondering how the RVs fit in. Is this lot meant for them, too? Living in an RV isn't as unsafe, uncomfortable, or unsanitary as living in a car. I wonder if these folks are satisfied enough in their RVs, although they may like being in a lot over parking on a street. Or are they like the car dwellers and would really prefer to switch to an apartment or whatever?


Bill Bucy
Registered user
Barron Park
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:28 pm
Bill Bucy, Barron Park
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:28 pm

Maybe the city council could cut a deal with Castilleja for approval of the school's controversial expansion plans as long as car dwellers are allowed to park in the proposed garage from 10pm to 6am. Students could help with cleaning, cooking and tuneups as their required community service.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:34 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:34 pm

More information is required here.

Are these vehicles roadworthy? Will they be moved each day to enable the occupants to drive to their place of work? Will they be required to move each day? Will they be required to be taxed and insured? If taxed, will the registered addresses of the vehicles have to be Palo Alto addresses?

I think that while it is commendable to do something along these lines, I have concerns about what will happen when children are using the athletic fields, particularly if the occupants of the vehicles are there during the time the children are practicing.

I also think we have to ask whether the vehicles using the lot will be towed to get there and/or dumped unroadworthy vehicles that are basically rotting away and will never be moved.

There is also the question of whether this will become a magnet encouraging more vehicle dwellers into Palo Alto in the hopes they will be given a similar benefit/perk.


Stepheny McGraw
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:42 pm
Stepheny McGraw, Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:42 pm

Why does everyone have to live in Palo Alto? Housing should be a regional responsibility. We should not have to take in everyone, in our backyard, either literally with ADUs and mandated overlays to single family housing because of ABAG or those with more guilt than pragmatism.

Oracle, Tesla, HP, Palintir have moved all our much of their business out of state. Those that remain in force here -- Amazon, Google etc. -- should be helping provide housing in the area as they are in San Jose, particularly now that so many are working at least part time from home. Even in the 80's companies subsidized housing for employees. In 2020 and beyond, companies are leaving Palo Alto and Silicon Valley in droves (pun intended) because of the high cost of living and decreasing quality of life.

In Seattle, the houses of worship earn their tax free status by providing spaces in their parking lots for the homeless and RV dwellers. Why don't the churches, mosques, synagogues in Palo Alto earn their tax free status and help with the issues of today, here where they are based?

It should not be left up to the City of Palo Alto alone to provide housing and help by itself.





vmshadle
Registered user
Meadow Park
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:46 pm
vmshadle, Meadow Park
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 12:46 pm

@Anonymous from Duveneck/St. Francis above: "I strenuously oppose this. No logic to inviting random persons to reside in vehicles in the Palo Alto Baylands."

Your "logic" appears to be animus. Your characterization appears to dehumanize people who have less than you do. Where should these people go, then?

PA Weekly has published a number of articles on this subject in recent years. Please educate yourself on who these "random" (and non-criminal) people are.

Web Link


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 22, 2021 at 1:01 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 1:01 pm

Bill Bucy's proposal bears repeating:

"Maybe the city council could cut a deal with Castilleja for approval of the school's controversial expansion plans as long as car dwellers are allowed to park in the proposed garage from 10pm to 6am. Students could help with cleaning, cooking and tuneups as their required community service."

City Council members, thoughts?


Aletheia
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 1:22 pm
Aletheia, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 1:22 pm

Los Altos wins again! In addition to flooding our once beloved Foothills Park with vehicles, hikers, and trash, they have now imported their car campers to Palo Alto as well. I bet when they were kids, Los Altos used to pants and steal Palo Alto's lunch money every day. Poor hapless Palo Alto.


David V
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 2:29 pm
David V, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 2:29 pm

Get up close, these are not stable people. A problem of this sort needs a solution, not accommodation for it to grow.


edith hensley
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Feb 22, 2021 at 2:41 pm
edith hensley, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 2:41 pm

"Why don't the churches, mosques, synagogues in Palo Alto earn their tax free status and help with the issues of today, here where they are based?"

I agree. Palo Alto could also consider buying some of the motels along ECR to house the homeless and various Palo Alto churches should consider modeling their humanitarian efforts like those of Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco by serving three meals a day to all of the homeless and indigent people in need of healthy and nutritious meals and/or by providing a warm and safe place to sleep overnight.

I believe that Trinity Methodist Church in MV provides showers, laundromat services and an AM brunch for the homeless + meals on Saturday.

Palo Alto should step up to the plate and welcome those less fortunate.


Bill Stewart
Registered user
Mountain View
on Feb 22, 2021 at 2:45 pm
Bill Stewart, Mountain View
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 2:45 pm

I'm disappointed that Palo Alto still maintains their pre-pandemic limit of four car residents per church parking lot; that should be up to the church, and businesses, especially in the 101 business parks, have had huge empty parking lots, with campers parked in the streets in the Mountain View side that could be better accommodated in the parking lots of companies that want to allow it. (Stepheny - until this year we weren't even allowed to do that; my church is one of a group that convinced the city to allow them to do that much.)

Even though we may get past this in 6-12 months, we've got a lot of churches in the area and they may find it more efficient to provide services jointly at fewer locations than spread out, and businesses I work with expect that they'll keep a large fraction of their people working from home most of the time even after we restart everything.

And Bystander, it's pretty common for people who live in campers to also have a car that they drive to work, even if the camper stays in one place.


anonymous123
Registered user
Community Center
on Feb 22, 2021 at 3:20 pm
anonymous123, Community Center
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 3:20 pm

Oh please no more homeless encampment here! Haven't we entertained enough of this nonsense!?

Send them to another city


Paly Alum
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 22, 2021 at 3:34 pm
Paly Alum, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 3:34 pm

I'm okay with helping vehicle dwellers for a limited time until they can get back on their feet. I think that Mountain View nonprofit has a limit of how long they can stay, right? It's not right to just allow people who are lifetime vehicle dwellers to take those spots when others are working hard to get out of living in their cars.


William Hitchens
Registered user
Mountain View
on Feb 22, 2021 at 4:54 pm
William Hitchens, Mountain View
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 4:54 pm

Ever hear of the "slippery slope to Hell"??? Given them an inch, they'll take a mile. Send them all to tRUMPite states --- one way. They'll get Hell, not us.


dak
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 22, 2021 at 5:25 pm
dak, Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 5:25 pm

Now that the city has a solution will they require RVs to move away from residential neighborhoods? If not, this is just an invitation for more cardwellers.

When will Palo Alto realize that it can't take care of all the Bay Area's homeless population and that at some point people would have to be told to move?

Cardwellers in church parking lots is a horrible idea as these are smack in the middle of neighborhoods where our kids play. East of 101, Baylands areas, Stanford or corporate parking lots are much better for this.




Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 22, 2021 at 6:05 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 6:05 pm

William Hitchens wrote, "Ever hear of the "slippery slope to Hell"??? Given them an inch, they'll take a mile. Send them all to tRUMPite states --- one way."

The Red States used to brag regularly about buying one-way bus tickets to San Francisco for their welfare recipients. That was around the time they started calling Blue States free-loaders without regard to the facts that "rich Blue States" send more $$$$ to them.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 22, 2021 at 8:41 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 8:41 pm

Someone chooses to attack me above. Umm, recall how random vehicle dwellers installed themselves at Cubberley Community Center/school site? It did NOT prove viable. Major issues ensued.
Look it up.


Bob Ohlmann
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 22, 2021 at 9:28 pm
Bob Ohlmann, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 9:28 pm

I'm so sorry some of the negative commenters seem to misunderstand the situation. These persons who use their cars to sleep in are almost always very reliable, stable persons who have just been priced out of the housing market in this area and so either live in their cars or commute from places like Modesto. They usually have low-paying jobs in this area, or are currently unemployed and can't find anything due to the pandemic. Some are abused women who haven't found a permanent residence. They have to move their cars every 72 hours on the streets, so safe parking just in the late evenings is very helpful and compassionate. They are not there when children are around and do not disturb anyone. What is there to object to except being mean-hearted. We are not the only community faced with this problem, and all nearby ones are addressing this issue in some way. So don't say it is being laid onto Palo Alto.


Squidsie
Registered user
another community
on Feb 22, 2021 at 10:14 pm
Squidsie, another community
Registered user
on Feb 22, 2021 at 10:14 pm

A temporary solution? Since someone living in a car or RV is unlikely to accumulate the cost of local housing, it is likely to be permanent. How will Palo Alto get the occupants to vacate, especially if their vehicle is no longer operable? This is likelt to become a permanent problem.


Estelle
Registered user
East Palo Alto
on Feb 23, 2021 at 6:56 am
Estelle , East Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 6:56 am

Reading these posts about sending ALL undocumented immigrants back to where they came from, running RV dwellers out of town, and denigrating the continent of Africa etc.

The Lord has his work cut out for him in Palo Alto as few seem to embrace the true spirit of Christ which includes giving and sharing with those less fortunate.

Denials of racism and elitism do not hold any water and it is no wonder Palo Alto is being branded as a city filled with hatred and bigotry.

Trump would be proud.


Peter Colton
Registered user
Los Altos
on Feb 23, 2021 at 7:14 am
Peter Colton, Los Altos
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 7:14 am

"...it is no wonder Palo Alto is being branded as a city filled with hatred and bigotry."

There's an anecdote going around downtown Los Altos. I think it started at the Draegers bakery.

A customer asked a bakery clerk if they get very many customers from Palo Alto and he replied that ones that do generally come in to order 'sheet cakes'.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 25, 2021 at 11:57 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 11:57 am

Bob- if the people you are identifying do not have a job then why are they here? They need to be in a lower cost of living area - central CA, SOCAL - Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. If people have no resources to begin with then why in the highest cost of living area? Because the people at a church want to "help" and draw people to this area? Tell us what is drawing people to the highest cost of living area? If it is the church - then major churches are located throughout the US and can shift direction to support people in the lower cost of living areas. Typically those areas have more property. Is someone telling these people that we are handing out money here? The state is handing put money to people throughout the state so their money would go further in a lower cost of living area.

Some people never address the topic of money and resources - where best spent. Any chair has to stay up on four legs - and money and resources is one of those legs. The individuals ability to determine their fate is another one of those legs.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 25, 2021 at 12:55 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 12:55 pm

In the papers today BAN/SJM - Los Altos - Councilwoman under fire for accusing Black activists of threatening her". Evidentially the Justice Vanguard group has been actively involved in the Los Altos running of the city. Accusations going back and forth with the council member afraid for her safety. Rightly so - earlier this year both the Mayor of San Jose and the Mayor of Oakland had their houses marked up by activist gangs.
So Peter Colton - are you a member of the Justice Vanguard? As a Los Altos resident you appear compelled to report on other cities' issues as interpreted by you. Los Altos also had the homeowner who was suing the city for what he perceived as racial bias by the city over his home improvement plans. He lost. You all need to recognize that your city is just one newspaper article away from the very subject you are discussing. Sanctimonious statements are just waiting for the next news article that pins the tail on the donkey.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Feb 25, 2021 at 2:13 pm
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 2:13 pm

"They need to be in a lower cost of living area - central CA, SOCAL - Riverside, San Bernardino, etc."

∆ 'Need to' as advised or established by outsider opinion VS individual choice and preference of locale are often two different things.

Have you ever been to Riverside County/San Bernardino? Even some of the locals there refer to the area as an armpit of an place to live.

"If people have no resources to begin with then why in the highest cost of living area?"

∆ Probably for the same reasons there are so many homeless expatriates residing in Hawaii.

I suspect that the racism issue among cities and communities is perpetuated by the majority population.

In other words where there is a majority of white residents = real or imagined racism factors cited by minorities while in neighborhoods predominantly populated by minorities = white people don't feel very welcome.

Economic disparity is another key consideration as poorer folks are generally relegated to living in poorer communities.

There's a lot of social resentment and anger going on amongst poorer people of color and the target will always those who they feel have subjugated them to the below standard lives they are living and leading.

Don't kid yourself, cities like Los Altos and Danville are also despised by various social advocacy groups citing pervasive racism and economic inequality factors.

Then again, who would want to reside in Danville regardless of one's color?


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 25, 2021 at 4:49 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 4:49 pm

Yes - I have a relative who lives in Riverside County. He has a three bedroom house, 2.5 bathrooms, three car garage, and huge piece of land. A really nice house - shows as $550K on Zillow. He has it made - low property taxes. And the millennials are now building in his direction with new houses. So loan paid off - has a second home now in the Philippines on a golf course. It is all about location, location, location.


Pat Markevitch
Registered user
Downtown North
on Feb 26, 2021 at 10:57 pm
Pat Markevitch, Downtown North
Registered user
on Feb 26, 2021 at 10:57 pm

Peter Colton: What do sheet cakes have to do with anything?


esther phillips
Registered user
another community
on Feb 27, 2021 at 8:18 am
esther phillips, another community
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 8:18 am

I think the sheet cake comment had to do with people who wear sheets as evening attire...most notably in the south.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.