The Palo Alto community already carries a majority of the financial and services burden on the Peninsula in terms of homeless outreach. Our local taxes at the tune of a six-figure expenditure helps fund numerous support service organizations, as well as playing home to the Opportunity Center who draws clientele from throughout the Bay Area. For the positive impact that makes there is still a severe downside. Enough is enough. It's for the surrounding municipalities in our region to step to the plate.

If Stanford can host tailgating parties on its land, why not provide space for RV's that are owned by Stanford employees and the contractors working on the new hospital?

Stanford just opened Mayfield Place, with 72 units of affordable housing.

I don't know why any camper would worry about having to move their campers.....There has been a camper parked on the right side of Ash Street going south between Stanford & Leland for at least the last 5 years without moving....... what a joke.......

Why not both? Palo Alto can do a little more to help with housing, but also enforce the law, and regulate overnight parking.

@Mary Atwater - You can see the camper in the google street view in 2009, so at least 8 years. But it does appear to move some years.

I am not sure what the problem is. RV's have sanitary facilities and kitchens, so these people are not using the streets for toilets. They are not parked in front of anyone's house or store. If it's the only place they can live, live and let live, I say.

I have lived in an RV for years. I'm a 73 old software engineer out of work. I regularly send out resumes looking for work but age discrimination is alive and well. I'd rather not live in my RV but as of now I don't have much choice. I've lived in Palo Alto over 40 years. I'd like to stay in the area as I'm regularly seeing a cancer doctor for my incurable leukemia.

As for those who talk of support services here in Palo Alto you don't know what you're talking about. What low income housing there is (and there's not much) the waiting lists are years long.

As for the person who said Palo Alto carries the majority burden that simply isn't true. For instance drive over to Rengstorff park in Mt View along the tracks.

It was nice to read about these people, as I want them cleared-out. My heart goes out to the marine, who served our country. I hope he seeks some help from the government, but I'm unsure if there is any, as the government seems to cast them aside. I hope Trump comes through, because Obama promised but did nothing for the veterans. I even called to volunteer at the VA Hospital but they said there was nothing available. . . rrright! Perhaps the Opportunity Center can help him

It seems they all need some social worker to help them. There is no reason they need to be in the RV; they are perfectly capable of more. There are plenty of people (everyone else) who work hard and live in apartments outside of Palo Alto.

However, I know how hard it is to motivate people. I have a friend from high school who lives in low-income housing, for which there are long waiting lists. He would be homeless if it weren't for his family sending him money. I tried for a year to help him, and others have also tried and failed. I would set up interviews, but he would find excuses not to go (dirty pants, etc.). I finally gave up. This was 5 years ago and he is in the same unemployed situation, just wasting his potential. He is intelligent and capable, with no addictions but laziness. What can be done about the mentally ill if they don't want to help themselves and their family enables them? Can any social worker answer this? Throwing money at them is their candy. They need to work like the rest of society.

@ judith- We should help these people, not by ignoring the law, but by working on real long term solutions.

"They are not parked in front of anyone's house or store." False. Most are along El Camino, but many are overflowing into neighborhoods, and some are parked in front of businesses.

"RV's have sanitary facilities " And what happens when tanks fill up? They have to be dumped.

One wants to be careful before providing "places" for RV's. You run the risk of coming under the state law and city ordinance governing trailer parks.

In the recent Buena Vista case, the city essentially demonstrated the near impossibility of evicting people from a trailer park, raising questions about the need to provide schools of similar quality to PAUSD schools and other amenities. The Jisser family was roundly criticized and even vilified by the City Council.

If either Stanford or the city tries to provide space for RV's, it risks creating such rights. One might go so far as to suggest even allowing the RV's to be parked in their current places would create such a right.

uw7QC

Judith,


A real trailer park must supply electricity, water, sewage, and provide a safe location. Good ones have playgrounds, meeting rooms, etc.

The location along ECR--a state highway--has none of these things.

Further, if trailers can park there, why can't they park anywhere in the city?

This is not a scalable solution.

"There but for the grace of God, go I"

One thing that would GREATLY improve things for everyone, I suspect, would be a sprinkling of dump stations these people could use to empty their holding tanks in a safe and sanitary way. There are, as I recall, few RV dump stations in the bay area, and what is the alternative to using one? Dump at night where you ar not supposed to? While we squabble about what to do with all these RVs, we should at least find a way to relieve this problem. You can't blame these people for dumping illegally when you provide no other way to dump. Last I saw, the few remaining dump stations were closing down, years ago. This is not "enabling", this is just dealing with an issue.

"...who said he came to El Camino Real a few months ago after being ticketed multiple times in San Jose for parking too long."

"He came to this spot about two months ago after "Mountain View started getting all tow happy," he said."


I am so tired of Palo Alto becoming a dumping ground/magnet for these types of issues. I feel for the people in these RVs but they need to move to somewhere it is appropriate to park an RV (RV park).

And Stanford's new hospital with all it's the low wage employees has not yet opened. Stanford needs to own it's expanding employee base. With all their expansion plans, doubt they are going to build housing or rooms to rent for their low-income earners, but they should. Especially those that have homes to far away to commute on a daily basis. And El Camino should not be a de-facto trailer park without hygiene facilities for their construction workers. If Stanford wants construction, then space should be set aside for temporary rv parking.

A few years ago there was much discussion of whether the city should provide for rv's and car campers overnight at Cubberley, but unfortunately there are too many problems for the city to accept responsibility for providing facilities. The people living on El Camino have no where to dump their waste except pump it into the storm drains at night.

For myself, I can see both sides of the issue.

I would say though that there is much more than can be done, by both parties.

I have no idea of what a dump station would constitute, but could we provide somewhere near the utilities place on Bayshore or at the end of San Antonio where the owners of RVs could dump their waste?

Could we tell them that they can park overnight on ECR at this location but they have to be gone for at least 8 hours in ever 72 hours (or similar).

Could we police the area better for littering trash and fine anyone that has littered?

I am not sure how this might alter the problems or if it would make them worse, but just ignoring it or ticketing them may not alter the situation at all.

Stanford is the largest land owner in the county, and yet the vast majority of low income housing they brag about seems to be in Palo Alto or neighboring towns. Why don't they build on their land? Why don't they provide an employee and student-eligible RV park? They provide space for patient's families.

You can't help/change people if they don't want to change. And Palo Alto will NEVER have enough housing for everyone that wants to live here let alone affordable housing.

Santa Cruz is car camper friendly.

You don't want this to turn into Oakland. Read the story on sfgate (S F Chronicle website) about the appalling trash dumping, rats, and multitude of people sleeping rough, hanging out in homeless "encampments," etc. This is with attention from the city: roving medical care, daily food deliveries and fliers offering social and housing assistance services. Oakland is trying to help, setting up porta-potties, but the problem increases. This is NOT the way to live one's life, nor is it safe or sanitary for the public and public health.

It's interesting that all RV dwellers interviewed by the Weekly were Caucasian and formerly middle class. I don't believe this is representative of the ECR RV dwellers. Most of those I've encountered seem to be Hispanic. It's possible that the Weekly deliberately selected RV dwellers they felt would appear more appealing to readers. It's also possible that some of the dwellers (i.e. those with criminal histories or lacking proper documentation) declined to be interviewed.

@article

Shhhh...

I do believe that the interviewees were representative of the RV dwellers on El Camino in my experience (nice people who greet others cheerfully and don't bother anybody) . I don't see otherwise what is the relevance of a possible ethnicity as Article claims without any foundation whatsoever (ah, Article can identify Hispanic how?, and what is an Hispanic anyhow?). In any case if they were what does that matter? Does it offend Article's well displayed race sensibilities that some possible Hispanic amongst RV dwellers are being passed for interviews?
Article's comments taken to their rational conclusion provide an interesting legal argument. Let us hope it's used.

"Add affordable housing, not regulations"

Nice sentiment, but who pays?


"And Stanford's new hospital with all it's the low wage employees has not yet opened. Stanford needs to own it's expanding employee base."

Stanford gave Palo Alto's housing fund million$ in mitigation funds in order to buy its building permit. Palo Alto initially chose to spend that windfall on seniir housing at Maybelle. I'm not clear how housing seniors at the end of town opposite the hospital was supposed to provide a place for Stanford's new employees to live, nor do I know what city hall has done with that money after the referendum mooted that notion.

There is no need to build more affordable housing. There are plenty of other places with affordable housing. No one needs to live in Palo Alto, one if the most expensive cities in the country. Go live where you can afford.

If the mere presence of RVs is this hard on many of these posters imagine having to actually live in one. However the suggestion that they be "moved" seems like they want some other city to deal with the consequences of Palo Alto's failed housing policies.

@ Robert - According to the article, other communities aren't doing their part and are pushing the campers to move to Palo Alto through increased enforcement.

@john_alderman

Clearly the rapidly growing homeless population is a result of not enough parking enforcement...

"... they want some other city to deal with the consequences of Palo Alto's failed housing policies."

Clearly you are worried the campers might move to your city.

So help us out. Describe your fair city's exemplary housing policies, and how they've been realized.

It's not unreasonable that the city ask that RVs move every few days. Not sure why the city should allow non-operational vehicles to fall apart on it's streets. Is that inhospitable? Perhaps, but not unreasonable. Park somewhere else for a night, then come back. What's the problem with that?

@ Robert - or too much, depends which side you are on.

What's the big deal? As long as they aren't parked on your street (or in your neighborhood) who cares?

@R. Winslow,

For one thing, it is a matter of rights and policy.

If people have the right to park and live anyplace, what happens when they decide to park on your street? Do you have the right not to have them occupy your street?

> If people have the right to park and live anyplace, what happens when they decide to park on your street? Do you have the right not to have them occupy your street?

City streets are public entities and as long as the RVs (and their tenants) aren't posing any health/safety issues, I don't have a problem with it as this 'problem' stems more from a visual perception. My neighbors might tend to disagree with my perspective but most of them are upscale-absorbed/motivated residents seeking to protect their precious RE investments.

Having lived in PA most of my life, I don't have a problem with a diversity of socio-economic existences. Palo Alto was once a model city for that.

> Palo Alto was once a model city for that.

Indeed it was. How long ago that seems...