Town Square

Post a New Topic

New homeless census shows a spike in population living in vehicles

Original post made on Jul 13, 2019

The percentage of people living in their vehicles in Santa Clara County has more than doubled in the past two years, accounting for 18% of the county’s unhoused population, according to a new Santa Clara County homeless census.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 12, 2019, 10:45 PM

Comments (30)

70 people like this
Posted by Joyce
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 13, 2019 at 3:22 pm

Hello,

It's dangerous for these campers, trailers, etc. to be parked on El Camino Real.

VTA oversized/double-sized and Stanford Marguerite buses, UPS trucks, cement trucks, dirt hauler trucks (due to all the construction), cars, etc., need to drive in TWO LANES TO GET PAST THE CAMPERS/TRAILERS PARKED ON EL CAMINO.

Today, I was almost run off of El Camino, as a VTA bus needed to drive in two lanes to get past a huge blue bus and trailer, both of which have been parked in the same location on El Camino Real

Since July 2, 2019 a huge blue school bus, with broken windows has been parked on El Camino near Maybell Ave, License # 6VMJ483, and a trailer was dumped in this same location, on July 9, 2019, License # HH6595. Kids are attending camps at the pre-schools, elementary, middle and high schools in this area.

These vehicles have been parked for more than 72 hours, and yet, they are still parked in this same location.

On this stretch of El Camino Real, bicyclists riding on El Camino, are squeezed between the campers parked on El Camino and vehicles traveling on this road. It's a dangerous stretch of road.


21 people like this
Posted by Homelessness is a safety concern
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2019 at 9:00 pm

Heaven forbid someone seek shelter on YOUR road. The 1 second when you felt scared must’ve been really hard, Joyce. Those poor people should go somewhere else...wherever that is. The mythical elsewhere. Sounds wonderful. Somewhere else, that the ticket!


20 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 15, 2019 at 9:34 am

Posted by Homelessness is a safety concern, a resident of Barron Park

>> Heaven forbid someone seek shelter on YOUR road.

ROAD is the operative word.

The road belongs to the public, not the RV that is illegally occupying it. It is a state highway, and, it happens to be three lanes wide in that stretch, plus, a parking/breakdown/shoulder area. I'm not enthusiastic about how auto-centric we are around here, but, if that state highway only needs two lanes in that stretch, let's convert the additional public right of way to light rail to make it an actual, true transportation corridor. In no case does it make sense for that extremely useful right-of-way to be a parking lot for RVs, and, the people who allowed it to devolve into that should be ashamed of themselves.

>> The 1 second when you felt scared must’ve been really hard, Joyce. Those poor people should go somewhere else...wherever that is. The mythical elsewhere. Sounds wonderful. Somewhere else, that the ticket!

A while back, some of the RVs made a habit of extending their driver's side pullout (dining room seating, bedroom, whatever) into the right hand lane. Very dumb. Fortunately, I haven't seen that lately, but, the giant construction trucks and buses don't always have enough room in the right lane.


8 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2019 at 10:30 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

[Portion removed.] People who use El Camino on a daily basis are impacted.
I wish people would define what the level of impact is to them so that their comments can be evaluated in light of the impact. As to Barron Park I have driven through that area and it has very close streets that are not amenable to RV's to begin with. I can't see that specific area as being inundated because it does not have regular sidewalks and streets. It is very country.


23 people like this
Posted by Barry
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 15, 2019 at 2:02 pm

The homeless numbers are up in Mountain View, Palo Alto and the entire Bay Area despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on ending homeless. According to a report released by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute it would cost $12.7 billion to eliminate homelessness in the Bay Area which is one-fourth of the State’s homeless population. It would cost $50 billion to eliminate homelessness statewide and who knows how many hundreds of billions more to move people out of the threat of becoming homeless; families who are living pay check to pay check. And Governor Gavin Newsom wants us, Californians, to believe that his $1 billion dollar spending spree will have a meaningful effect of mitigating the homeless crisis. There will be some token success stories to deceive the naive however the only people who will make out like bandits will be the homeless service providers who are dependent upon the continued existence of the homeless to ensure they get their sizable share of that $1 billion. Year after year, decade after decade the more money that is spent on ending homelessness actually causes homelessness to grow even worse. Something is not working and yet Gov. Newsom wants to continue to apply that which does not work.


Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by VS
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 15, 2019 at 5:17 pm

VS is a registered user.

Maybe we should call them 'houseless', instead of 'homeless'. To many of these folks, their RV is their home. Home implies something more soulful. They do have a home, just not a house.


13 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 15, 2019 at 11:17 pm

I cannot believe 39 recommendations so far for someone who says the danger is basically her own driving because she cannot drive past the RVs parked on El Camino without going into the next lane.

This must be one of the drivers I see driving down the middle of the road on Channing or Homer in their giant SUVs. I don't know, I've never had a problem missing RVs on El Camino. Sounds like another fake argument ... fake news perhaps?


2 people like this
Posted by Shawn
a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Jul 16, 2019 at 6:21 am

Shallow Alto at its finest. RV's are blocking El camino.?


12 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 16, 2019 at 7:11 am

Always go into the next lane, because if you hit someone suddenly stepping out from between those completely visibility-blocking RVs, it is your fault.


8 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 16, 2019 at 8:53 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

I like the point about the giant SUV's. Any parking lot at any shopping center has the parking space line drawn up for mid-size cars. Also the lanes in the street are drawn up for mid-size cars in the non-commercial sections of the city. I can see spaces in the parking lots that I do not want to use because my car will be dinged when other people will be getting in or out of their giant SUV's. For any attempt to go forward there are unbelievable forces dragging every one backward.

For starters - we have the city of San Jose tearing itself apart so it can build a giant Google city. This goes back to prior times when there were company towns. But if the company leaves then the town collapses. Long time small family businesses are being displaced.

Sunnyvale has an uptick in homeless - is that coincidental with all of the building that is going on there? Why does city expansion and building somehow accelerate the degree of homeless? Does the impending degree of city expansion some how suggest that the city is now richer and therefore more able to provide housing and services for the homeless?

Palo Alto was built out before all of the other cities affected because of the proximity to SU. This city was built around the support system for the university. Remember that next time other cities pitch comments about the city - we were built out before anyone else on the peninsula. Don't get dragged into comments about nimbyism.


9 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2019 at 9:45 am

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> For starters - we have the city of San Jose tearing itself apart so it can build a giant Google city. This goes back to prior times when there were company towns. But if the company leaves then the town collapses. Long time small family businesses are being displaced.

Unfortunately, we live in a semi-plutocracy, where the top 10% control most of the governance, own 70%, or 76%, or [several large % choices] of all wealth, and an even greater fraction of the income. Cisco, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, ... a huge amount of revenue flows through these large corporations to the top 10%, while the bottom 50% own very little.

Pushing these giant companies to contribute to housing in these quasi-company-towns is a way to redirect some of the income of the rich towards the middle class. It seems to be the only politically acceptable way to do it right now. The highly-graduated income tax (see Eisenhower-- who would be a "leftist" by today's standards), did a much better job of it, but, the super-rich have spent the last 50 years de-clawing it.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 16, 2019 at 11:54 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

So let's go back in time. What is now SSL on Fabian used to be Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp. They consumed the whole space which includes the Oshman Center and buildings on the East Meadow Circle and across the freeway on Charleston. Much of South PA was housing for this organization. Then the Government decided that it had too many defense organizations to keep afloat and wanted to reduce the number of contract sources. Ford sold to Loral who made a number of bad business decisions. Those bad decisions ended up in a sale of a part of the contracts to Lockheed Martin and another part to another organization. And if you have not noticed Lockheed Martin has moved a number of contracts to different locations in the country so reducing the number of employees in this area. That is a CA tax issue at play.

We can go back further in time to McDonnell Douglas who had facilities at what is now the Santa Monica Airport. That facility was moved to Huntington Beach and eventually sold to Boeing. We can celebrate because all directly involved in the space programs. Of course that then created a housing boom in Huntington Beach.
So major companies can make major decisions based on what the current need is for their products and the general state of government finances. And those decisions drive the housing market.

It would be helpful if some of the companies could locate a part of their product line to outlying areas in the central valley. Cheaper homes, less taxes. And less taxes is a key issue.


4 people like this
Posted by Kenny
a resident of University South
on Jul 16, 2019 at 1:10 pm

"The road belongs to the public"

And the people parked on the side of the road are members of the public.

"The homeless numbers are up in Mountain View, Palo Alto and the entire Bay Area despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on ending homeless."

That is because the NIMBYs have repeatedly stalled housing development. Less housing means higher rents, more housing means more affordable rents. Don't want people living in RVs? Build affordable housing.


3 people like this
Posted by Not a NIMBY issue
a resident of Ventura
on Jul 16, 2019 at 7:14 pm

“That is because the NIMBYs have repeatedly stalled housing development. Less housing means higher rents, more housing means more affordable rents. Don't want people living in RVs? Build affordable housing.”

This is rhetoric, not logic. ‘Those damn NIMBYs! It’s all their fault!’

Suppose these RV dwellers could rent a unit as big as their RV for 2500/month. That’s quite affordable for this area.

Would they do it?


4 people like this
Posted by In The Public Interest
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jul 16, 2019 at 11:52 pm

The interviews w the RV residents show many are working in the bay area due to higher pay here. They have homes elsewhere that they return to on the weekend. They aren't homeless. And it's temporary.


13 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 am

Posted by Kenny, a resident of University South

>> "The road belongs to the public"

>> And the people parked on the side of the road are members of the public.

Sure, and, if the public wants to allow a tent city on the shoulder pavement of ECR, it can do that. But, the point you keep ignoring is that RVs have no special rights or privileges. They have to obey the law. Whatever the public decides. If the public decides that RVs are the BMR housing of the future, well, that would be really stupid of the public, but, if that is the law, so be it. But, the reality today is that RVs are illegally occupying the road. RVs have a lot of negative externalities, Web Link, are an inefficient use of an expensive resource, and, should be deconstructed and recycled.

>> "The homeless numbers are up in Mountain View, Palo Alto and the entire Bay Area despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on ending homeless."

>> That is because the NIMBYs have repeatedly stalled housing development. Less housing means higher rents, more housing means more affordable rents. Don't want people living in RVs? Build affordable housing.

No, it isn't. Developers can develop all the affordable housing they want. They don't, because, they don't make as much money doing it as they do developing luxury housing and, of course, office space. If you believe that NIMBYs are the source of the problem, then, you've been deceived by developer propaganda. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.


4 people like this
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 17, 2019 at 11:38 am

"Developers can develop all the affordable housing they want."

Seriously? Some people really live in their own little bubble.


2 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 11:48 am

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> "Developers can develop all the affordable housing they want."
>> Seriously? Some people really live in their own little bubble.

Web Link

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 17, 2019 at 12:02 pm

I guess you don't read the articles - just the headlines? Also, not impressed by internet linking to buttress a point. Anyone can do that.

From your first link:
"Rising construction costs and flattening rents have made development increasingly difficult"

From your second link:
"Mountain View's mayor, however, told KTVU at the meeting, that the developer's project met all of the city's zoning requirements."

Bottom line is that with all the neighborhood activism (see: Maybell) and the increasing cost of building (see: new demo recycling ordinance that just passed), developers can't pencil out affordable housing. That's why PAHC has to do it so they get government funding to subsidize construction.

In the end we have just squeezed out the middle class - people who qualify for BMRs will get theirs. Rich people will always be able to afford to pay. Middle class? See them commute from Manteca.


9 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 12:27 pm

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> I guess you don't read the articles - just the headlines?

Actually, I did. I could quote them at length, but, the bottom line is that developers don't make money building affordable housing. In fact, sometimes they make money tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with higher-end housing. And, they make money building office buildings.

>> Also, not impressed by internet linking to buttress a point. Anyone can do that.

It is called "evidence".

>> Bottom line is [...] developers can't pencil out affordable housing.

We are agreed. But, you don't want to admit that the elephant in the room is an elephant. We are suffering a major market failure. The market is signaling developers to do the wrong thing. Developers are building new office buildings whose occupants will have to commute from Manteca, as you admit below:

>> In the end we have just squeezed out the middle class - people who qualify for BMRs will get theirs. Rich people will always be able to afford to pay. Middle class? See them commute from Manteca.

OBTW, "the market" includes the wrongheaded city governments around here who are actively encouraging more office space development when the workers will have to commute from Manteca.


1 person likes this
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 17, 2019 at 4:12 pm

"We are suffering a major market failure."

Actually we are suffering a major regulatory failure. Continually more restrictive policies that make construction more expensive and, of course, Prop 13.


10 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:11 pm

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> Actually we are suffering a major regulatory failure.

Correct about that. We keep allowing construction of new office space when the workers will be commuting by auto from Tracy. The expectation that land can and will be developed as office space drives up the price so that new affordable apartments will never be constructed on that land. Excessive office space development has led directly to the RV problem.

-No more office space.-


8 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:43 pm

Yay for 13.
It’s the way I can afford to live here.
Repeal 13 and ifd be living in an RV.


7 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:53 pm

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Yay for 13.
>> It’s the way I can afford to live here.
>> Repeal 13 and ifd be living in an RV.

Anyone can be Anon. Anon's arguments stand on their own. That was a different Anon than me, Anon, however. In my case, I will vote to repeal Prop 13 if the corporations and their plutocratic masters ever give me a chance to vote on it. Which, they don't plan to.


9 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 7:40 pm

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> I will vote to repeal Prop 13

Then you will put many of us out of our homes.
Nice thinking.


5 people like this
Posted by C.Walters
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jul 18, 2019 at 11:59 am

osted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Anyone can be Anon.
>> That was a different Anon than me,

You should register if you want a unique name for posting.
Short of that, use your real name and community.


7 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 18, 2019 at 1:09 pm

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> I will vote to repeal Prop 13

>> Then you will put many of us out of our homes. Nice thinking.

Repealing Prop 13, the chief beneficiaries of which are corporations and the super-rich, doesn't necessarily imply that other, more logical ameliorations could not be implemented. It just has to be more thoughtfully designed so that the chief beneficiaries won't be the super-rich including out-of-state and even out-of-the-country super-rich. A reasonable approach, given California real-estate prices, would be a graduated tax on owner-occupied houses, resulting in ~25% say, of the general rate, for the first $1M, and ~50%, for a $2M house. Corporations pay the full rate. Other adjustments could be that property tax only pays for services that protect property property-- police, fire, flood control, etc., and income tax be increased to pay for other budget items. Lots of options. Prop 13 was sold, -I remember it well-, as this thing to protect the middle class, and the result has been to protect the rich and rich corporations. Law of unintended consequences.


5 people like this
Posted by better paid
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 18, 2019 at 1:49 pm

It appears that at this point every incoming better paid employee companies hire will effectively displace someone who already lives here but is less well paid. All the way down the line. Within a reasonable time frame, does anyone really think it is possible for housing construction to keep up with the rapidly expanding population created by certain large companies without continuing to create a rapidly increasing homeless population? Why are local politicians supporting the continuing expansion of commercial space? Oh yes, some of them have strong ties, either professional or personal to the office building industry, and then there is the benefit of substantial donations to election campaigns.


18 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 18, 2019 at 7:45 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

I am sick and tired of the Nimby name calling. When FACC got sold to LM we were moved to the old Atari buildings in San Jose. We were surrounded by fields. We watched as new buildings went up. And new apartment complexes. There was nothing there before, whereas Palo Alto was totally built out. If you do not get that then too bad but it is fact - PA was built out when the rest of the valley was fields. So the rest of the valley can build itself out to it's borders now - we have done our part in the great Silicon Valley experiment. The rest can catchup at their own pace.


2 people like this
Posted by Moochie
a resident of another community
on Jul 19, 2019 at 3:27 pm

"I am sick and tired of the Nimby name calling."

Sometimes the truth hurts.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong 2.0? Former waiter reopens Chinese standby under new name in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 4,157 views

Living as Roommates? Not Having Much Sex?
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,677 views

What gives you hope?
By Sherry Listgarten | 4 comments | 1,493 views

Do city officials ever consider giving taxpayers a break?
By Diana Diamond | 19 comments | 1,472 views

Expert witnesses are more than experts. Plus my 7 fundamental impeachment questions
By Douglas Moran | 17 comments | 1,373 views

 

The holidays are here!

From live music to a visit with Santa, here's a look at some local holiday activities to help you get into the spirit of the season.

VIEW