Town Square

Post a New Topic

Housing agency eyes complex rehabilitation of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park

Original post made on Oct 17, 2019

A complex rehabilitation lies ahead for Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto, where the Santa Clara County Housing Authority is parting ways with Caritas Corporation and taking charge of park improvements itself.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, October 17, 2019, 6:57 AM

Comments (15)

25 people like this
Posted by Winter
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 17, 2019 at 8:15 am

Caritas deserves a big thank you for its good work at Buena Vista. That it gave a place to the community as its own was a great help, and its reading program and small college scholarships were appreciated. It really added to BV.

One clarification - the after school tutoring program, the Homework Club, was started and continues as a project of Amado and Deborah Padilla with help of volunteer Stanford, high school students, some from BV.

It's important to remember that a primary goal in the effort to save BV by Friends of Buena Vista, City, County, and BV residents was so all residents could remain. There were no qualifiers to that, including income. It would be entirely counter to that effort to have anyone forced from their homes.

The infrastructure upgrade was in the plan, and now includes replacing homes as needed as Buena Vista as it glides toward its 95th year here in Palo Alto as a mobile home park.

Buena Vista has less space now because about half an acre of it was retained by the former owner and soon a few residents still with homes there will need to move into BV proper. But on the other hand, some residents have chosen to leave, so some space has opened up.

I look forward to a nice playground for the children, a real community room, and trees!

Thank you Housing Authority and welcome John Stewart Co. - may you come to appreciate Buena Vista for its warm heart.


9 people like this
Posted by gail
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 17, 2019 at 11:21 am

like Winter's comment regarding BV


14 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 am

I'm having an arithmetic problem here. Someone please help me out! It is quite likely that I am missing or misunderstanding what I am reading in the above article.

What I see is a site with 93 units. The land was already purchased for $40M, correct? There is an additional $40M available for redevelopment, correct? $40,000,000/$400-per-sq-ft (should be more than enough even at current excessive rates for new construction at standard rates) = 100,000 sq-ft, correct? For 93 units, that is 1075 square feet per apartment-- almost the exact same size as a standard mobile home, and, enough for nice 3BR 2-1/2BA apartments.

What I'm wondering is why we don't just demolish the trailer park and put in a nice, new apartment complex? Anybody who understands this better than I do please explain it. And no, GD, I'm not interested in replacing it with 30 units for the very wealthy or whatever.


6 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 17, 2019 at 12:39 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

How does each and every resident feel about their situation...what has happened to date and their outlook about their future? Questions I would like to ask and have answered: What was your rent before the sale? Did it go up after Caritas got involved? If you're in the group whose incomes are over the 80% income limit, what are your plans? And @Winter..."a primary goal in the effort to save BV by Friends of Buena Vista, City, County, and BV residents was so all residents could remain. There were no qualifiers to that, including income. It would be entirely counter to that effort to have anyone forced from their homes". A noble goal but it looks like that might be a tough goal to meet. Do you propose a way to circumvent the law? Lawyers are in the wings, anxious and waiting.

The tone of the article leads me believe that there is a possibility that we should expect to be asked to contribute more, maybe a lot more, to the project. There is no mention of the cost of the work remaining. Infrastructure updates don't come cheap. There should have been a preliminary number put on that before PA ever got involved. I had begged, a few times online, for an update on the status and progress of the BV project. No response! Finally we get an ort of information. This is a start, but please be transparent and current on your reporting...and 'dig down deeper to get to the bottom to stay on top'. lol! Okay, any of you old timer, faithful Frank and Mike listeners would recognize that I stole that line from their morning radio spots...comedic news!


18 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Oct 17, 2019 at 1:14 pm

Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to buy out all residences and bulldoze the place and build new apartments.
Maybe irs me but that seems like a win win.


5 people like this
Posted by history repeats
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 17, 2019 at 3:52 pm

@Roger, knocking it down and building apartments is what the old owner was willing to do. If the housing authority trys to do this, then its purchase of the park would be a complete failure


8 people like this
Posted by Oldster
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 17, 2019 at 4:23 pm

Most interesting is the unexpected percentage of BV residents with 80% of average local income. That factoid conflicts with the narrative we were told 2 years ago.

Prediction 1: the housing authority will eventually kick out all residents not meeting - and maintaining - low income criteria in order to build with strings-attached government funding 2 story "low income" multi-family structures owned by a govenment agency. Goodbye American Dream on that land of homeownership where current residents can own their mobile homes and any striving by residents to be independent of taxpayer charity, ever shifting government rules on who is poor enough to live there, and what structures meet ever shifting housing codes.

Prediction 2: Mobile homes will be illegal in Palo Alto within 20 years as ADU rules become ever more flexible and car camping is frowned upon.


30 people like this
Posted by Downfall
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Oct 17, 2019 at 8:09 pm

I agree with Oldster that it is shocking that almost 1/4 of BV residents earn more than 80% of Santa Clara County median income. I thought all these tax dollars, $40+ MILLION, were going solely to affordable housing. In fact I recall at the time articles stated that this money could not be used for anything but affordable housing. The article clearly states that being over 80% of SC county median income puts these residents over the cutoff for affordable housing income limit. So why are these residents allowed to stay? Shouldn't they have to move to make space for people that actually qualify for affordable housing? Why was this not disclosed when all the discussions regarding funding the purchase of the park were taking place? How convenient for BV supporters.

And this line is just such a classic example of wealth transfer entitlement that is so rampant in this state: "Buena Vista residents said on Thursday that they are frustrated by the slow pace of redevelopment." Not only were these residents enabled to continue to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country via a massive public subsidy. Now they are not happy with how quickly they can cash in on the freebies provided by the public funds. The level of entitlement is almost unbelievable.


14 people like this
Posted by Oldster
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 18, 2019 at 12:08 am

Indeed, Downfall.

Maybe our City will declare the last BV mobile home "historic" and bus tours will drive by it as a monument to do-gooders and their unintended consequences.

The County housing agency will probably wait a couple of years to see how many of the 80%ers contest eviction orders, then sell most or all of the land at a big profit, and build low income public housing in another County town to get more bang for its bucks. I wonder if any of the 80%ers would be allowed to buy a long term ground lease given the blurb about them having to go to a bank for financing to stay.

Looking forward to the Weekly's next installment in this saga.


14 people like this
Posted by Better Use of Tax Money
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 18, 2019 at 8:42 am

Such an inefficient use of money but when you are paying with other people's money and not accounted for...who cares!

I can't believe I heard that old run down mobile homes will be move out of the lot and then moved back. First there is a high cost to moving the homes. Then who would want to return to old crappy mobile home sthat is structural compromised when move. Would building new homes on site cost that cost a little more be a better investment? The new apartments will be better quality and last longer the low quality mobile homes.


13 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 18, 2019 at 9:20 am

As predicted the Buena Vista is a disaster. All this was pointed out a couple of years ago by the people who could count. On the Palo Alto online. The Buena Vista is a classic already. Next: get those stumble bum Santa Clara Board of Supervisors out of town before they commit more economic havoc. Stanford: stand firm you don't have to provide subsidized housing for those who want to live in a super high priced area like Silicon Valley. Numbers count.

George Drysdale initiator and educator


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2019 at 10:23 am

Posted by Better Use of Tax Money, a resident of Barron Park

>> Would building new homes on site cost that cost a little more be a better investment? The new apartments will be better quality and last longer the low quality mobile homes.

Agreed. My simple arithmetic says we could build nice new apartments for what this is costing us. Why don't we do that?


5 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 19, 2019 at 11:00 am

As part of the number one lesson plan in secondary but mainly graduate social science classes. The Santa Clara board of supervisors looking to get the Hispanic vote wanted to provide the Buena Vista. Chump Palo Alto government went along with this conspiracy. Laws protect other states from this cynicism by allowing the property owners to develop at the "highest and best use." Not California. By the way, it looks like development of apartment houses in California is crashing. Would you invest in California's rental housing with the customer determining the price? Return to basic economics classes. The internet will destroy rent control in California because you have an instant reminder (if you are literate).

George Drysdale initiator and educator


2 people like this
Posted by Oldste
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 19, 2019 at 5:54 pm

Mr, Drysdale, Yes, the BV deal included Santa Clara County Supervisors wanting to say, "We care!" about hispanic voters but the deal started with BV residents and their allies using the full Palo Alto Process to stay as long as possible despite their trailor park home having reached physical obsolecense years ago making renovation economic nonsense, a renovation believable only by do-gooders spending other people's money. Fact the Couny is already plannig to tear down all the BV mobile homes in phases to build apartment buildings proves that fatal obsolesence of the mobile homes,

The working orchards and farms have all disappeared here. So have tarpaper shack houses with outhouses out back. The last single room occupany homes were cleared out at The President. So, too, will all mobile home parks be gone here unless city halls declare them historic, worthy of maintaining forever. Anyone think that will happen?

Rereading the Weekly article I'm struck by the number of BV residents who have left since the deal was signed. Normal attrition rate? How many knew they'd be evicted for having "too much" income? And, how many might not have had the legal residency required to live in government agency subsidized housing? They probably wish they'd taken the Jisser buy-out offer instead and are cursing the do-gooders who engineered the deal.

Meanwhile, our City Hall is salivating over $25M of Zuckerberg/Facebook cash to build low income subsidized housing for the latest " most worthies" like teachers and fireman. Everytime I pass the new Rinchonada Park firehouse with its nice hotel rooms for firemen pulling overtime pay (and higher pension rates) while living in cheaper locales I shake my head and wonder whom our City Council will favor next with taxpayer largesse.


3 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 21, 2019 at 9:19 am

The worse thing about public sector labor unions is that they have too much power. Hence California's huge unfunded liabilities. It goes on and on and it not "Republican heartless" but simple economics, and history and psychology. Private sector workers suffer while the public sector workers feast on their entitlements. FDR said: no public sector unions.

George Drysdale initiator and educator


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

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

From Tokyo to Cupertino: Afuri Ramen's first California location debuts tonight
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 3,083 views

Disposing of Disposables
By Sherry Listgarten | 13 comments | 1,327 views

Couples Counseling, Al Pacino Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,185 views