In January 2009, about 100 south Palo Alto residents met inside Palo Verde Elementary School to discuss, and possibly shape, the future of their neighborhood.
The meeting focused on an effort by Palo Alto officials to revamp the zoning laws in this portion of the city to accommodate a recent crop of large residential developments. Planning staff and consultants solicited suggestions from residents, who happily obliged. A few lobbied for a new footbridge to span U.S. Highway 101; one proposed a sandwich shop; several lobbied for a bike path and park space.
Participants did agree on one thing: The last thing the neighborhood needs is new housing. One resident, Ben Lerner, won nods of approval from other attendees when he complained about changes in Palo Alto always entailing the city becoming “bigger, taller, more crowded, more dense and with more stories.”
The demographic data that the U.S. Census Bureau released Tuesday is likely to confirm and quantify the observations of residents in Palo Verde and other south Palo Alto neighborhoods. Over the past decade, Palo Alto has become more populous, adding nearly 6,000 residents citywide but particularly impacting the south. It also became more diverse, with the city’s Asian population going up by 73 percent, or about 7,000 people. An analysis of census tracts indicates that Palo Verde and the neighborhoods next to it are at the forefront of these changes.
The census showed the city’s population growing by 9.9 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 58,598 to 64,403. The city’s Asian population, meanwhile, grew from 10,090 to 17,461 residents. While the city’s Asians made up 17.2 percent of the city in 2000, they comprised 27.1 percent in 2010. The city’s white population, meanwhile, dropped by more than 3,000 over the past decade. White residents made up more than three quarters of the city’s population in 2000. Now, they make up less than two thirds.
City officials, much like residents, view the new census results as not so much a revelation as a pretext for a larger conversation with the community. They praise the increased diversity, while acknowledging the need for “smart growth” and transit-friendly developments to accommodate the overall population increase.
“I think this region in general expected this type of growth,” Mayor Sid Espinosa told the Weekly. “We knew that the city has seen growth, and the numbers aren’t shocking.
“The good news is that Palo Alto has done a good job in planning for this type of growth and working to do it in a smart way.”
Espinosa said the city is already addressing the recent population spurt by using zoning regulations to encourage housing and mixed-use developments near transit corridors — encouragements that they hope will promote vibrant neighborhoods near train stations and mitigate some of the traffic impacts.
At the same time, Espinosa said the city still has plenty of work to do to address the city’s most dramatic demographical shift — the sharp increase in its Asian population. The trend has already been documented in school data, which shows an influx of students of Asian descent. One of every three high-school students in Palo Alto is Asian, and in eight schools in the city, Asian students make up more than 40 percent of the student body.
At Hoover Elementary School, which is located on East Charleston Road in south Palo Alto, Asian students comprise 78 percent of the student body.
Some members of the Asian population have recently become involved in civic life. Yoriko Kishimoto became the first Asian mayor in Palo Alto’s history in 2007. Vice Mayor Yiaway Yeh is slated to become the second next year.
But most members of Palo Alto’s growing Asian community have been far less visible in civic affairs. Espinosa said he hopes that trend will change.
“While we’ve seen that increase in the school-district data, we haven’t necessarily seen a broader integration of the Asian community across the different traditional groups and agencies,” Espinosa said. “We’re talking about active involvement in neighborhood associations, serving on the board of nonprofit organizations, taking on business leadership in the Chamber of Commerce and having a greater representation on boards and commissions.
“I think it behooves us as a city to really have an open dialogue about the changing demographics of our community and how we can make sure that everyone is made welcome in our community.”
Both trends have been particularly visible in south Palo Alto, where several large housing developments opened their doors over the past decade. In the census tract that includes Palo Verde and the area around East Meadow Circle, the overall population went up by 17.5 percent (787 people) over the past decade. That area accommodated four new developments: Altaire, BRIDGE Housing, Vantage and Echelon. At the same time, the proportion of white residents in this tract fell from two-thirds in 2000 to half in 2010 while the Asian population nearly doubled, going from 1,069 to 2,045.
A nearby tract that includes Ventura and Charleston Meadows neighborhoods experienced a similar shift. The long and narrow tract, which is bounded by El Camino Real and Alma Street and which stretches from Oregon Expressway to Adobe Creek, saw its Asian population spike by 92 percent, from 928 to 1,785, while the overall population grew by 13.5 percent.
The area, much like the neighborhood around East Meadow, has been a magnet for new housing and the new anxieties that accompany this housing. Recent projects include 181-home Arbor Real development, which went up on the site of the former Hyatt Rickey’s hotel, unleashing a wave of criticism from area residents and land-use watchdogs about emerging parking and traffic woes.
The demographic changes in south Palo Alto could, in some ways, be epitomized by an October 2008 public hearing on a then-proposed (now approved) development for low-income residents on West Charleston Road. At that hearing, Arbor Real resident Jenny Zhang brought in a petition signed by 75 neighbors who expressed concern about the new project’s potential traffic impacts.
“We really have to consider our children’s safety,” Zhang said at the public hearing — the same concern other area residents shared several years prior, when Arbor Real was receiving its own approval.
A tract-by-tract analysis of census data showed more measured growth in Palo Alto’s northern neighborhoods. The tract that includes Downtown North (north of University Avenue) and University South (south of downtown) grew by 5.8 percent overall, with its Asian population increasing by 89 percent. Just east of Middlefield Road, in the affluent Crescent Park neighborhood, the overall growth was 3.9 percent. Its Asian population went up by 74 percent.
At the opposite end of the scale is Old Palo Alto, which did its name justice by remaining virtually frozen in time. The population remained flat over the past decade (increasing by 34 people), and white residents continue to make up more than 80 percent of the affluent neighborhood between University South and Midtown. By comparison, white residents constitute 64 percent of Palo Alto’s overall population.
The Midtown neighborhood, meanwhile, stood out as a demographic microcosm of the city as a whole. The new census showed that white residents made up 61.8 percent of Midtown, while Asian residents made up 28.8 percent. The neighborhood grew by 7.2 percent over the past decade, according to the census.
Matthew Snipp, a Stanford University sociology professor who focuses on demographic changes and who lives in Palo Alto’s Barron Park neighborhood, said the new census was consistent with the trends he has personally observed around the city. Though he noted that California’s overall population growth fell to its lowest level in the last decade than in any other decade since World War II, growth was stronger in Bay Area.
In many cases, people come for jobs, Snipp said. Not surprisingly, cities like Palo Alto, which have a wealth of high-tech jobs, tend to attract more people, he said. It also helps that Bay Area has traditionally been a popular destination for Asian immigrants, particularly since American immigration laws were relaxed in 1976, he said.
“If you look at the new housing that has become available and the number of new businesses and industries and the fact that Asians are a fast-growing segment of the American society, it appears that many of the people are coming here for jobs,” Snipp said.
The influx of Asian residents isn’t unique to Palo Alto. Statewide, the Asian population grew by 31.5 percent, and its share of California’s total population went from 10.9 percent to 13 percent. California’s Hispanic population also went up by 27.8 percent over the past decade, from 10.9 million to 14 million. That trend has been a bit less dramatic (though no less true) in Palo Alto, where Hispanic residents now make up 6.2 percent of the population, compared to 4.6 percent in 2000.
Snipp said these California trends could ultimately extend to other parts of the nation.
“The state is become ever more diverse and, in some ways, I think California is leading the nation in terms of the turnover in the demographic composition of the country,” Snipp said. “The rest of the country will most likely catch up to where we’re at.”
• Census 2010: Quick facts about Palo Alto
• By the numbers: Tract-by-tract race and housing figures
View the map for the location of each tract.
In many cases, people come for jobs, Snipp said
My personal observation has been that the Asian population comes here for the schools NOT the jobs. I have 2 neighbors who rent homes here so their children can attend our schools while the main wage earners work in China. These were homes of Caucasian people who could no longer afford to stay in their home town because they could not find jobs.
City leaders want more “Smart Growth” i.e. more houses we have no room for, more people, and less room for people to drive comfortably from place to place in a reasonable amount of time (I’m a bike commuter, but acknowledge that driving is most usually the fastest way to get from A to B).
City leaders don’t care what you think about the growth of residential development here– or anything else because you keep voting for them and all of their utopian schemes.
Vote instead for those who want to preserve the quality of life this town should have, rather than those who want Palo Alto to be their little plaything to experiment with.
A rental unit in my neighborhood was purchased by a family from Hong Kong. They installed their 14 year old son in the house alone for the next four years just so he could attend Gunn.
How many high school students actually live alone in homes owned by their absent parents, just so they can attend Palo Alto high schools? Unfortunately, this is perfectly legal, they are residents of Palo Alto and their family owns the property.
…and why did the owner of that house opt to rent rather that sell their home as they would if they lived in any other state in the nation? Prop 13 provides unfair tax relief to the long-term land owners who rent to young families at exhorbitant prices. The renter puts kids in our schools, but the property yields no additional property tax for the city and PAUSD. The landlord pockets the profits and laughs all the way to the bank. Young families and PAUSD and the city are screwed once again by long-term property owners (including and especially corporations)who happily dip into their pockets, using our services and not paying for them.
Population growth would be far less of a problem if we were capturing tax dollars that allowed us to mitigate traffic impacts, build adequate school capacity, improve safety services and public works, improve parks, expand libraries. Instead we do this with parcel taxes and bond measures which young people have to pay at the same rate as longer-term property owners even though younger folks are already burdened with 2-3 times more in property taxes. The burden that falls to young people increases with each passing year. This is NOT a sustainable situation.
As long as we have Prop 13 there will not be money to adequately mitigate the impacts of so-called “smart growth.” It is time to stop excessive development and put pressure on Sacramento to change the tax structure so that there are funds to mitigate the impacts of growth. Instead they pass legistlation (SB375) that creates an unfunded mandate for infill development, pretending that this is a move toward “smart growth”. Without revenues, it’s not “smart”. It’s just “growth.”…and that is not necessarily a good thing.
The change in racial/ethnic demographics is not the news in this census report. That change is evident to anyone who walks around with their eyes open. The change that is important is GROWTH. I would like to see an in-depth story on THAT. What has come, what is projected, and how we are going to fund the mitigation of growth?
FYI…I am a long-term resident who believes Prop 13 is unfair. Though I benefit from it, I want it changed. It is destroying our state and our wonderful city.
Resident,
Shouldn’t you report that to child welfare or PAUSD central attendance centattendance@pausd.org or
(650) 329-3707
? He’s not an adult. Is there a grandma there with him?
>>> Wake-up Palo Alto: Some components of Prop 13 probably are unfair; however, without it seniors would be taxed out of their homes. The BIGGEST unfairness isn’t the new vs. long-term homeowner, but the loopholes big enough to drive trucks through that protect large corporations when a company is sold. They have found ways to pretend that there was no sale of land, and thus companies sitting on properties worth many millions of dollars are paying tax rates on only a fraction of the value when they purchased the land. This has costs California millions in tax revenue every year. Fixing this may well fix our budget problems, but no politician dares approach reform.
14YO alone in a residence for extended periods of time (months, etc.) sure doesn’t sound legal to me…
for those with longer memories, like early 2000’s, don’t you remember sad story of PALY boy (age 16 or 17?) from an overseas family – he committed suicide – had had been left in the “care” of older sister who was all of 18…perhaps these practices are legal in Asia? I believe for all practical purposes these two were on their own. Anyway, at the time, I recall there was a sense that this was an unfortunate practice.
Time to split Palo Alto in half.
Too large,
Palo Alto is already split in half at Oregon Expressway.
Let’s formalize it. Two cities. City of South Palo Alto and City of North Palo Alto.
I have a couple of comments:
If anyone notices a child living alone without adults on the premises, one can contact Child Protective Services within one’s county that one lives in, and let them know about the situation. A social worker will investigate this.
Prop. 13 is something my parents voted against, yet if the tax amount were increased to what new buyers buying into Palo Alto would pay, my parents would not be able to afford to live as they have very modestly all these years. It would be an extreme hardship for many seniors living in our community to pull the rug out from under them, so to speak, and many wouldn’t be able to hold onto their homes. So, it is the “house rich, cash poor” scenario.
For those people who complain about people who enjoy Prop. 13 taxes, at least know that people who have that status are mostly seniors, so unless the property is passed down and kept within the family, then the numbers of homeowners who have the low tax base will eventually dwindle as the seniors pass away or retire elsewhere where cost of living is more affordable. In time, things will even out amongst homeowners as far as Prop. 13 is concerned.
Sounds like the Tea Party is trying to kick all the non-white people out of Palo Alto.
On Monday, I wrote a review here about Da Sichuan, a new Chinese restaurant in South Palo Alto. PaloAltoOnline deleted it.
Either they allow restaurant reviews ONLY if the restaurant has bought paid advertising in the paper, or they don’t want reviews of Chinese restaurants.
I checked their list restaurant reviews at the website: yep: no Chinese restaurant has ever been reviewed. (See http://www.paloaltoonline.com/restaurants/recentreviews.php )
I wrote to the webmaster: no response whatsoever. I ask that my review be restored.
Andreas – why are you reviewing a restaurant on a thread about the census and demographics? Stick to the topic.
Andreas, check out the “best of” awards before throwing around spurious comments: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=18046
The topic is diversity in South Palo Alto. However, the PaloAltoOnline deleted a review of a new Chinese restaurant. The PaloAltoOnline doesn’t allow diversity.
Look at the list of reviews that I posted. That’s the PaloAltoOnline’s list. No Chinese restaurants.
Not sure why restaurant reviews is being discussed here but if you click restaurants on the side bar and then type in Chinese into the cuisine selector, this is what appears. http://www.paloaltoonline.com/restaurants/restaurant_detail.php?module=searchResults&boorah_r=Chinese&boorah_l=Palo+Alto%2C+CA&search=Search
Since reviews are read by readers, I suggest that anyone interested in Chinese restaurant reviews starts reviewing them and putting them in the restaurant review section and not here.
Andreas – there are 10 chinese restaurants reviewed on this site, if you’d like to add one, you can using the above link posted by resident, scroll down to the bottom of the reviews. Are you the owner of this new restaurant looking for some free advertising?
I’ve said it before and I’ll scream it again. EVERYBODY has a Prop 13 house. EVERYBODY. The people who bought before 1978 and those who bought yesterday or 1990 or 1995, 2008 or any other year. Residents who bought before 1978 have a Pre-Prop 13 house. Are those the ones you are targeting?? When Prop 13 was passed, the ‘assessed valuation’ rolled back to what it was in 1975 (and taxes had been going up as much as 30% a year!!) and taxes were rolled back to reflect that. After 1978, and from that time on, the initial tax was and still is 1% of the sale price and cannot go up more than 2% a year. But remember that parcel taxes and additional bond issues like Foothill College, etc. get added on. Look at you tax bill!! Get rid of Prop 13? You might get what you ask for and rue the day. There was no spending too little for the cities and counties and school districts before Prop 13 passed – and it’s been upheld by the US. Supreme Court. And also remember, those who have those Pre-Prop 13 houses – who moved in after WWII, Korea, etc were the ones who footed the bill for every basic elementary, middle, and secondary school in town after WWII except Paly, Jordan, and Walter Hays *(which were built before WWII )….maybe some of Addison. They also built the libraries and the city hall. So if you paid $450K for your house in 1994 and one in your neighborhood recently was bought for $1.5, you both have Prop 13 houses, and that neighbor is probably angry at YOU. and in five years the newest neighbor will be angry at them. Before Prop 13, it used to be that if anybody in a neighborhood did anything to enhance the value of his home, EVERYBODY’s assessed valuation in that neighborhood went up. Did you KNOW THAT? It’s the commercial property that’s a problem – not residential. Change that? Companies are fleeing California as it is now. Do you want that too?
yeah, the topic is Prop 13.
Resident replied “Not sure why restaurant reviews is being discussed here but if you click restaurants on the side bar and then type in Chinese into the cuisine selector, this is what appears.” (and a link was added).
What appears in the link is a feed from Yahoo reviews. That text comes automatically from another site.
I’m not the owner of the restaurant. It opened a few months ago near my house. I went there, I liked it, and I wrote about it. But PaloAltoOnline deleted the review.
The topic of this thread is diversity in South Palo Alto (not Prop 13.) I’m pointing out that if you try to engage in diversity, such as write about Chinese restaurants, PaloAltoOnline will delete it. They don’t review Chinese restaurants.
I asked two Chinese friends about Palo Alto. One has lived here for nearly 20 years; another has worked here for three years. They both shrugged their shoulders and said “Palo Alto is a white city.”
Palo Alto used to be a “white city.” But according to census reports and what many have observed, it’s been rapidly evolving toward a more diversed population, with a sharp increase in Asian residents. It’s a reality, and the trend is only going to continue. Whining and complaining about your Asian neighbors won’t make them go away, or stop them from coming.
If you plan to stay in Palo Alto for the long term, why not adopt a more open-minded attitude and learn to embrace the change?
Insteading of complaining about Asians socializing only with their own race, why not take a look at yourselves — if you’re white, isn’t it true that your friends and relatives are mostly white? In schools or other public places, if you see three or four Asians talking in their native language, you frown and note that as a sign of nonassimilation. Have you noticed that there’re also a lot of European immigrants here, and they too tend to speak their own native languages in public?
Resident,
Excellent posting, especially, these two points:
“Insteading of complaining about Asians socializing only with their own race, why not take a look at yourselves — if you’re white, isn’t it true that your friends and relatives are mostly white?”
“Have you noticed that there’re also a lot of European immigrants here, and they too tend to speak their own native languages in public?”
Prop 13 is surely unfair, but ending it in one fell swoop would be more unfair. There are a lot of people of all levels who would be forced to sell their house if they all of a sudden had to pay many times the taxes they are not paying, leading to a glut of homes on the market and drop in prices probably for a long time.
I benefit from Prop 13, but I think it does need to be ended in some way that is fair, equitable and not traumatic to the economy of people’s lives.
Resident,
I thought your post was not so great and a bit short sighted.
“Insteading of complaining about Asians socializing only with their own race, why not take a look at yourselves — if you’re white, isn’t it true that your friends and relatives are mostly white?”
Yes. It’s also true that if you’re black your friends and family tend to be black, and if you’re Latino your friends and family tend to be Latino. This is especially true in terms of the family aspect due to being related. Not really mind bending stuff there.
“Have you noticed that there are also a lot of European immigrants here, and they too tend to speak their own native languages in public?”
No, can’t say I have. I have seen European immigrants around town on occasion who speak their native tongue, but to say that the two are equal in numbers is to be dishonest. Also, many European immigrants embrace American culture and customs, while many Asian immigrants don’t. I don’t know of any European supermarket chains like Ranch 99. I’ve also never seen a European person wearing a dark black netted shield over their face while they drive or walk.
Just thought I’d share my thoughts since another poster is using my ID without periods. I love all people including Asians, I just don’t like embracing their cultures and traditions if not all of them are willing to do the same.
@REsident of another neighborhood. I think you are missing the point. Most of the posts weren’t complaining as much as trying to understand the reasons for a tendency for Asians to isolate more than those of other racial/ethnic heritage. It is a tendency (NOT an abolute) that many have noticed in their neighborhoods. Although all neighborhoods (of any racial makeup) have individuals/families that prefer solitude, the comments here were about a tendency that seems more pronounced in Asians (mostly Chinese) that has been noticed not only noticed by whites, but confirmed by several Asians as well. By increasing our understanding of the values and preferences held by others, our understanding, our tolerance for differences, and our ability to interact in meaningful ways can increase. There’s a difference between trying to learn/understand (which takes asking difficult questions) vs. judging others who may be different than ourselves.
Hmmm, well, yes, as a matter of fact I do have friends who check another box on the census form than I do. Always have. I grew up in an ethnically diverse area and find it a little strange, actually, when I’m in a single-race group–even when it’s mine.
That said–I also see why people see a certain insularity to the recent East Asian arrivals. Honestly, I feel more of a white/Asian divide now than 30 years ago and I don’t see as much cross-over socially among the teens.
I see various reasons for it–one, for more recent immigrants, there’s a language barrier. Yes, English is spoken by everyone, but it doesn’t mean people feel truly comfortable chatting in it. It’s easier to talk to someone in your native language.
Second, among the kids, there is an extreme amount of academic competition. That situation just doesn’t create a big feeling of camaraderie and fellow-feeling. Back when I was in school, if you were a good student you got into Berkeley and you could definitely get into a top school. It didn’t matter that other kids were also good students–there was room. The competition is isolating in and of itself. Plus, of course, if you’re studying and doing various extra-curriculars, when do you just hang out and bond? Particularly with someone of a different background–where you have to move beyond assumptions.
And, let’s face it, schools are the big draw here. The competition’s only getting sharper.
Third, I think there are some real feelings of ambiguity about assimilating. This is very different from when I was kid. Immigrants from where ever were here with the notion of staying–they didn’t always assimilate, but their kids did and wanted to do so. I think it’s different now–it’s a lot easier and cheaper to spend each summer, for example, in the homeland. The mentality’s a little more get-rich-quick, take advantage of the US university system and then be able to bring it back “home”. This doesn’t apply just to Asian immigrants, by the way, it’s also true of many of the European immigrants I know.
One more note–I think Indian immigrants have an easier time than Chinese immigrants–more extroverted culturally and, as a friend of mine who falls into that category points out, they are very used to the British, which makes Americans a little easier to comprehend.
The authors of this piece barely mentioned the latino population and made absolutely no mention of blacks (let alone the reasons for such discrepancies). What’s behind those blatant omissions?
P.S. Could the discrepancies be considered a part of this “surge in diversity?”
Interesting article about this subject.
http://paloalto.patch.com/articles/will-booming-asian-population-equate-to-greater-civic-responsibility?ncid=wtp-patch-headline
What I find most interesting is that the author of this piece feels it necessary to describe her own ethnicity and her own reasons for living in Palo Alto.
Could this article have been written if the author were not Asian?
The writing of the Hong article is interesting–but very in keeping with the kind of stuff I hear from Asian-Americans who were born in the U.S. and feel American. The influx of immigrants who look like them, but have more in common with, say, their grandparents culturally brings forth its own set of conflicts.
There’s both a sense of solidarity and having kind-of arrived as an ethnic group, but also a certain anxiety about cultural traits against which they rebelled when they were younger.