I am in favor of assisting those less fortunate. However, this was a terrible way to spend money. Including the cost of the land and these upgrades (it will for sure cost more than $30m, these units, which are mobile homes, will end up costing $1,000,000 each. That same $100,000,000 could buy a building with 200 NEW units or 250 older units. Great intentions but a huge waste of resources.

Please replace the trailer park with 110 3-story 2-car rowhouses. Same density, much better living conditions. For this much money, let's do it right.

How are all the current homes going to be moved off-site? I thought that one of the problems with closing the mobile home park was that some of these homes were not in a condition that could be moved.

I hope the Weekly also covers how the mobile home upgrades will work. Right now, the residents own their own mobile homes. If all the mobile home are being replaced, will the residents still own the new mobile home (presumably through Caritas financing). If a resident does not qualify for financing or cannot otherwise afford to replace their mobile home, will they be forced to sell out and then the new mobile home will be owned by Caritas?

For a currently estimated total cost of $70M which is surely to increase a lot of high density housing could have been built. The cost of upgrading the infrastructure was the original reason the Jissers sought to close Buena Vista. Sounds like the politicians and those cheering the "victory" forgot to factor in the cost of the upgrades to bring the park up to code.

Also, I thought that the Jissers were forced to pay the residents for the value of their mobile homes. Why are residents getting new homes as part of the upgrade? I sure hope that no public funds go towards replacing these privately owned mobile homes.

“Everyone will get a new home,"

Told you so.

$ 70M and counting so far.

Told you so

I predict $100M before they’re done

so to recap, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority now owns the park "for $40.4 million, using $14.5 million each from the city of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County and $26 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)."
Note that "$14.5 each + $26" = $54 million. I am assuming that the 'extra' $13.6 million is what is set aside for upgrades (see below).

The park operator (brought in by the Housing Authority) is Caritas Communities. From their web site: "For more than 33 years, Caritas has helped fill the need for safe, secure housing in Greater Boston."

The (necessary) park upgrades are expected to cost approx $30 million.

Here is what the article says about the source of the funds:

"We have $14.5 million in county funds set aside for upgrades. We expect we'll need more, and Caritas will likely approach the need in the same way most affordable housing developers do: They will look around for available sources at the time, determine what the best terms are and apply for those funds," she said.

So part of Caritas' job is to find and obtain that additional $15.5+ million for the upgrades. That's OK. It just should not be on our tax bill.

More evidence that a standard apartment building design would have been more cost-effective.

Will these changes mean that people can no longer bring in their own units?

Will BV no longer quality as an "RV park" under the city and state ordinances? This is relevant because it would mean that the owner could raise rents and shut the park down without going through hoops (some of which are, as we have seen, impossible to jump through)?

"The organization has also put an end to much of the drug dealing that was taking place, although staff said more must be done to eradicate the problem."

"The park now has security..."

Gee, when the purchase of this park was being pushed it sounded like a bunch of saints lived there. Now the truth is coming out. So glad public funds have been spent to preserve a drug dealing/using element in our community. And before people cry out that the dealers are not from BV park, the dealers would not be going there if there were not buyers.

"Caritas is also working with the Buena Vista Park Residents Association to develop new rules for parking, trash, noise levels, loose animals, unattended children, parties and other conditions"

Very concerning that these basic competencies of neighborhood living need to managed by Caritas rather than the BV residents managing themselves.

"Caritas will look at the possibility of adding a small park and other amenities that residents said they want."

[Portion removed.]

Two weeks ago there was an article about how workers were repairing trailers, putting in new floors, fixing plumbing ect.. this article has a picture of a guy carrying new laminate flooring into a trailer. But it also says they are all getting new trailers. Why are they spending money repairing trailers they are going to get rid of?

Just consider this an installment payment in a bottomless pit of funding. Sad that folks haven't learned that hand outs in the form of subsidized housing make problems worse for people, not better. Helping people succeed on their own is a noble and effective goal, but, entitlement to handouts will errode the dignity and self-respect of these good folks, if not in this generation, certainly in the next.

From my discussions with Caritas and county Housing: The existing units are being repaired to bring them up to federal codes, a mandate of receiving HUD funds. This is just to make them livable and safe, as some units had damaged electrical systems or leaking plumbing and didn't have smoke detectors, for example. The work is minimal overall -- not remodeling.

The logistics of ownership, rental agreements for the land underneath the units and what will be done with the existing units still remains to be seen. Much depends on how much money Caritas can raise and the individual ownership agreements that are currently in place. My understanding from talking with Caritas is that there was no standard to these agreements under the previous owner.

The residents were only to be reimbursed for their units and relocation by the Jissers if they were being evicted. Since the county took ownership and doesn't plan to evict the residents, they didn't get money for their units.

It's possible that the residents will:

1. Have their units appraised as to value and then that amount might be given to them to be used toward the purchase of their new unit. The county/Caritas would take possession of the old units, which would then be sold off for habitation or scrap or demolished.

2. The residents could sell their units on their own, but they would have to remove them from the property to do so. They could use that money toward the purchase of the new unit, space rental, or move out.

3. If the new units were to be owned by the county or Caritas, then the residents would get the compensation for the sale price of their old units and they could do what they want with the money, such as use it toward rent. In some below-market-rate programs related to homes and condominiums, inflation is kept down because when an owner moves out of the home they can't sell for more than the original purchase price. This is one way the homes are kept affordable.

4. Whether additional mobile homes would be allowed to come in remains unknown at this time. Caritas must weigh many factors, including space for new units.

Please note: None of the scenarios, 1-4, have been communicated to me by Caritas. I'm just pointing out how these scenarios might work. It could be that none of the above will happen.

P.S. I forgot to add that we'll continue to follow and report on the progress and decisions related to Buena Vista.

We all lost as the Jisser's are living in dream! what a joke and waste of public funds.

How does Joe Simitian screw the few of us paying taxes like crazy while working 80 hours a week. Oh ya, give homes away to people that will vote for him.

[Post removed.]

I do not trust the weekly coverage of BV. Up until now their coverage had been one sided and biased, with liberal doses of jisser family bashing.

Well, well, well, another 'a nice dilemma we have here' situation, referring to Gilbert and Sullivan's "Trial By Jury". The project is moving along in muddied waters...who owns what? who will pay for what? who will pay for the rest of it, and how will it be determined what the new units will be, i.e., how will they be sized for particular family needs? How much will they cost the residents and what will the new rental fees be? Where will the tenants be housed/moved to during the period of change? Where will their kids go to school? A horrible thought...not being able to graduate from Gunn. Their lives will be ruined!

These are all questions I asked, and many others did also, that never got answered before. Now that they have to be answered, there's so much waffling going on and not much wiggle room left. I would like an honest poll taken of the current residents, on how they think this is working out for them. They don't seem to be in control anymore. That must be a little disconcerting after the jubilation they showed at CC meetings.

Why doesn't the weekly interview winter dellanbach about what is happening

Another epic fail by the guilt ridden liberal progressives who run the City of Palo Alto as well as the County of Santa Clara. I need some decking replaced. I wonder if they'll bail me out.

Ridiculous plan , likely never-ending for an odd, select few. Makes zero sense to us taxpayers who must fund this nonsensical scheme. But this is the way in California government.

[Post removed.]

Allow the developer to build enough market rate housing to replace the same number of affordable units currently there.
Don’t throw good money after bad.

What did these people do to deserve $70m in tax payer dollars. What message are we sending to Developers who buy the old and restore with new.

I hope that dealing with the inoperable/abandoned vehicle problem will free up enough space to stop the overflow of parking onto the nearby streets -- where vehicles are regularly being parked illegally on sidewalks, obstructing driveways, etc.

[Post removed.]

Let me shed light on a few things in this article -

As has been written of before, drug dealing to people outside Buena Vista was done by a few homeless people who nightly illegally occupied BV before and awhile after the property was sold. Along with so much else, the former owner left it to the residents to deal with. Their Assoc. Board of Director's even initiated a meeting with the PA police Chief to enlist help before BV was sold, but only when Caritas hired a security guard has the issue been effectively addressed.

The people of Buena Vista are hard working adults and parents, or elders (some needing extra support), or children in our schools. There are as many good hearted, aspiring, and civic minded folks living there as on any block in any other neighborhood of Palo Alto. Most have been living at BV for a long time. For those who are lucky to know BV or people there, know it as a close, lively place of mostly families, with children often playing among the very modest homes, many with lush container gardens of shrubs, vegies and flowers buffering homes from the asphalt.

Does BV need serious upgrading - yes. That was well understood before the purchase. BV is 92 years old and wasn't maintained well in the last decades. The homes are what residents could afford and met the legal California state standards, but not the federal standards that are now required under the new ownership.

It's a big undertaking, but just as Stevenson House on Charleston Rd. successfully just completed its massive (and certainly extremely expensive) retrofit and remodel in which all its senior low income residents were moved out in stages and housed elsewhere for 2 years, so too will BV successfully achieve it's upgrade.

Buena Vista's nearly 4.5 acres will, by legal agreement, remain affordable housing. It has never had the legal designation of a RV park.

Posted by Concerned Observer, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> Another epic fail by the guilt ridden liberal progressives who run the City of Palo Alto as well as the County of Santa Clara.

Lots of liberals, such as myself, never thought this BV project was a good idea or a good use of city and county resources.

Unfortunately, -nobody-, including market fundamentalists (presumably yourself?), conservatives, developers, moderates, or liberals, have come up with a good method for dealing with the housing situation we have right now (which is -not- unprecedented BTW). Another solution doomed to fail is rent control, but, I understand why people are tempted to try. I guess the real answer is ever increasing RV's in the streets...

[Post removed.]