Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto asserts housing growth mandate is a recipe for 'failure'

Original post made on Nov 18, 2020

Faced with a mandate to plan for 10,000 new housing units, Palo Alto officials vowed early Tuesday morning to lodge a protest, even as they acknowledged that their resistance will likely prove futile.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 18, 2020, 3:59 PM

Comments (36)

66 people like this
Posted by Pat Markevitch
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 18, 2020 at 4:18 pm

Pat Markevitch is a registered user.

ABAG is not even taking into account the effects of the pandemic and how a large portion of high tech workers are working form home. This means that they can basically live anywhere in the country and still "dial in" to work. ABAG needs to pump the brakes on these allocations until the world settles down and we can see how everything plays out. My opinion is that if any housing is built in Palo Alto it needs to be BMR housing. I would also look into rent control on any ADU units that are built in Palo Alto.


73 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 18, 2020 at 5:07 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Pat is absolutely right that the targets shouldn't be adopted during a pandemic where people are working remotely, where moving vans are booked months in advance to get out of here and rents are tanking.

It's amusing to see the shills continue to ignore reality about where the jobs will really be while they continue their push for more offices and car-light fantasies. Will they support making the EMPLOYERS bear the costs of THEIR growth? Of course not. That's not what they incentivized to do.

Palo Alto should just say no to these absurd numbers and join with the all the other communities opposing them.


27 people like this
Posted by YP
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 18, 2020 at 6:28 pm

YP is a registered user.

Hah Hah, the liberals that run California that decry unaffordable housing, inequality, social injustice..... but wait you mean we have to build housing in our city to help fight those issues...

no!!!!!!
Look up definition of hypocrites in the dictionary, there will be a picture of our local California officials next to it


63 people like this
Posted by Ruinous and Irrational
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 18, 2020 at 9:33 pm

Ruinous and Irrational is a registered user.

Since Kelsey Banes is cheerleading for this forced unfunded mandate to add 10,000 units of housing to the 27,500 we already have that will bring about 22,000 more people here within 10 years, I have a question for her -

Will she conjure up the land needed and pay for more school’s, parks, libraries, etc., or does she just advocate with no concern for these consequences?

This amount of housing and people will overwhelm Palo Alto’s ability to plan, finance and accommodate. It’s a fact not a political view. It’s also a fact that our town will be worse off if this happens.



14 people like this
Posted by Alex
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 6:13 am

Alex is a registered user.

I have no sympathy. This is what the city gets when they drop the ball on housing year after year after year. This is just those residentialist clowns reaping what they sowed. Actions (or lack thereof) have consequences!


28 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 19, 2020 at 8:17 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Kelsey Banes is noted as an "advocate". Who is she - what are her qualifications to be an "advocate". WE recognize the people in this article who are elected officials of the city - past, present and future. Please give your press attention to those people who are recognizable to most city residents and have the authority to make decisions concerning the outcome.

What we have seen of late is people who assign themselves the "activist" role who come from other locations, pop into the city and make a lot of noise assigning themselves as experts. And worse - the press gives them all types of space with no verification concerning who they are, their credentials, and their history concerning these topics.

Reality is that "advocates" have no funding, no valid projections of impact of any idea. They are just making noise.

We have elections coming up in two years and the programs that are being pushed now will be used to eliminate the current management of this state. Buckle up for the ride. And make no concessions to advocates who have no established authority.


38 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 10:01 am

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

>"the anticipated allocations would "result in the need to plan for a population growth equivalent to building a new small city in eight years within existing built-out jurisdictional boundaries."

>"If Palo Alto meets the regional targets, it would see its population go up by 23,000 residents over the eight-year period, or nearly 3,000 annually."

^ To pacify both Palo Alto NIMBYs & housing advocates, why not just create a new & different town...the area/region roughly south of Page Mill Road (including Barron Park & Ventura) all the way down to the Mountain View border at San Antonio Road?

This area bears no semblance to the more 'traditional' sections of Palo Alto with its ubiquitous commercial zoning, proliferation of apartment complexes & new housing developments.

Even the county-subsidized trailer park is not reflective of Palo Alto.

And besides...given its proximity & ease of access to downtown Palo Alto & California Avenue, property values property values would still remain on the higher side as compared to other less desirable neighborhoods in Santa Clara Valley.

Secession or enforced secession has it benefits.


3 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:13 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Back in the day the city of Palo Alto did not include California Avenue - then known as Mayfield. Mayfield was annexed to Palo Alto as it was the shopping extension of college terrace. Stanford Research Park is in part south of Page Mill Road. Creating a "city" map that includes the California and SRP properties, and then excluding the remaining property to some other "city" is a problem - back in the day Ford Aerospace / SSL/ Oshman / JCC in the San Antonio/Fabien section were major tax payers to the city. If you cut the city at Oregon you are eliminating the "business" section of the city and tying the city to SU as the single focus point of the city. Of late we know how that has gone - SU has carved out their section and protects their investment in that section.


21 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:20 am

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

>"If you cut the city at Oregon you are eliminating the "business" section of the city and tying the city to SU as the single focus point of the city."

^ This is true, in which case there is no choice but to accept the southernmost section of Palo Alto for what is is...overdeveloped, mundane, overly congested & not reflective of the older & more traditional residential areas of Palo Alto.


5 people like this
Posted by Gary G.
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:27 am

Gary G. is a registered user.

I live on Skyline Boulevard. My property can support additional housing for two college students/research assistance who might want to live in the Open Space and work at Stanford. Pagemill can easily support that increase in traffic, utilization of the road is at about 5% of maximal capacity. The key is the relationships. A beautiful community is more than just homes and temporary visitors, and must embody the pride of social contribution and association that occurs with homesteading. That's the American Dream, a dream of belonging.


31 people like this
Posted by Here SInce 1979
a resident of Green Acres
on Nov 19, 2020 at 12:13 pm

Here SInce 1979 is a registered user.

I once again ask: where will the water come from? I have lived through 3 major droughts and it was tough. Water resources are finite. We can't build our way past that given. I understand we need to build the economy, have bmr housing etc., but we can't make water. In the last drought we had contracts with other states to buy water. However, they reneged because they were in a bind too.

There a lot of millionaires in PA, we don't need more from developers joining their ranks. We need sane water protections.


13 people like this
Posted by Barron Parker Too
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 12:26 pm

Barron Parker Too is a registered user.

I think Lee Forrest's idea is brilliant. As he says, our little, slightly rural, friendly community of walkers, donkeys and bikers, known as Barron Park, is "overdeveloped, mundane, overly congested & not reflective of the older & more traditional residential areas of Palo Alto". Wow, he hit it on the nail!

Unlike areas, such as Crescent Park, where Forrest lives.

So yeah, someone has to step up and say that our slightly rural part of town is already wrecked as a nice place to live, so let's face the carnage and step up to the challenge.

Let's preempt the preemption of local governance by SB 50 (you know this is all about Senate Bill 50, right?), and let's embrace ABAG's 5 story apartments in a one-half mile wide strip along El Camino. If it becomes too ugly and embarrassing for the rest of our fair city, they can kick out Barron Park and Barron Park could henceforth be the great blighted urban landscape to be called South Palo Alto.


28 people like this
Posted by Time to sue the Sacramento government
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 19, 2020 at 2:10 pm

Time to sue the Sacramento government is a registered user.

It is past time for local cities throughout California to band together to sue the state of California to settle the matter of which entity can determine zoning and growth in individual cities and counties. Human overpopulation is driving worsening pollution, climate change and mass extinction and is making quality of life issues untenable for people living here.

Residents of individual cities need to be able to establish growth limits and boundaries. It is unreasonable to imagine that human growth can continue uncheck forever. These mandates that come from unelected boards but are broadly supported by the state need to be stopped and most like only a court case that establishes who gets to decide these questions will be needed.

Let's start saving city monies to pay for all the lawyers that will be needed or have some lawyers who live in the city volunteer to start to review what is needed to win back local control of our zoning and development.


31 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 2:58 pm

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

>"So yeah, someone has to step up and say that our slightly rural part of town is already wrecked as a nice place to live, so let's face the carnage and step up to the challenge...If it becomes too ugly and embarrassing for the rest of our fair city, they can kick out Barron Park and Barron Park could henceforth be the great blighted urban landscape to be called South Palo Alto."

@Barron Parker Too...
^ Having grown up in Palo Alto, I recall the days when Barron Park was still an unincorporated area with specialty restaurants along ECR (i.e. Ming's, Rudolpho's, L'Omellete, Big Al's Pizza, Horky's Mexican Restaurant, Rickey's etc.)...not to mention a number of specialty stores like Peninsula Honda (motorcycles), Yamaha Peninsula (pianos & early Sony products), The Old Barrel (liquors) and a bit later, the original Gryphon Stringed Instruments (vintage & new Martin guitars) both of whom were on ECR Way.

It was a noteworthy Palo Alto dining & shopping region of its own...not the 'mundane' area it has now become.

And yes, residential Barron Park was reminiscent of older Los Altos in many ways.

Blame the PACC & Planning Department for ruining/destroying the original 'down to earth' nature of South Palo Alto but the question remains...what can be done to prevent things from becoming even WORSE?

Demolish all of the new tacky-looking housing developments that are spreading like wildfire?

All things considered, you folks still have a Palo Alto zip code so all is not lost.




14 people like this
Posted by A resident of Barron Park
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 3:54 pm

A resident of Barron Park is a registered user.

Lee Forest, did I understand correctly that you, while sitting up there in your "exclusive" Crescent Park, are proposing that all that excessive development that ABAG is trying to push down our throat, will be dumped into the south Palo Alto area? It's already crowded and congested, so us lesser beings will not notice the difference?

If the R1, R15 etc in South Palo Alto is converted to PC and more zoning to support this abomination, there is nothing sacred about the more exclusive neighborhoods in Palo Alto. There is no law of nature that should prevent building a large multi story apartment building in your backyard. The burden should be shared equally by all neighborhoods in Palo Alto, yes even your little corner of heaven.


15 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 19, 2020 at 4:49 pm

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

>"Lee Forest, did I understand correctly that you, while sitting up there in your "exclusive" Crescent Park, are proposing that all that excessive development that ABAG is trying to push down our throat, will be dumped into the south Palo Alto area?"

^ IMO...there should no further ABAG (or other) sanctioned housing development in the South Palo Alto/Barron Park area as residential quality of life issues & concerns have already been severley compromised due to increased traffic gridlock, growing population & questionable architectural designs to accommodate 'low cost' housing demands.

> "...there is nothing sacred about the more exclusive neighborhoods in Palo Alto."

^ Concurring...just higher property taxes.

>"There is no law of nature that should prevent building a large multi story apartment building in your backyard. The burden should be shared equally by all neighborhoods in Palo Alto, yes even your little corner of heaven."

^ I imagine there would be some resistance among Crescent Park residents regarding backyard apartments but few would sell their properties to developer interests. Besides such an endeavor would probably require multiple properties/tracts adjacent to one another.

I probably won't be around for any potential 'rage in heaven' as we are planning to relocate & already have a buyer-in-waiting.

Life in Palo Alto has gotten too complex.


20 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:08 pm

Annette is a registered user.

Time to disband ABAG, or at least its say about housing. Unrealistic, impossible demands that ignore reality, particularly infrastructure reality, waste everyone's time, create impasses, and fail to move the needle on the housing conundrum. Not to mention the most serious shortfall: affordable housing.

Covid is replete with lessons, and one is that remote work is feasible. In fact, it has Silicon Valley walking its talk and using technology to facilitate remote work. Yet, ABAG appears stuck in a pre-Covid mindset. How helpful is that?


9 people like this
Posted by Amie
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:24 pm

Amie is a registered user.

Mountain View has 5,000 units planned JUST for the East Whisman area alone. It isn't impossible for PA to build 10,000 units, merely a failure of vision and creativity.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:39 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

WOW - crazy discussion. I think of moving every day. But most of the places I would like to move to have had great fires. But thank you Lee - you have provided the rationale by which we can exclude additional building in the area south of Oregon. Since the city hall is north of Oregon then circling the city hall with new housing would work - it meets the qualifications imposed by the state.

One thing to do is upgrade el Camino from Oregon down to Charleston. That whole line of one story buildings which are so old they will fall down in an earthquake need to go.

And yes - life in PA is getting weird. All type of people put their focus on coming to this city and changing it. Why do we have such a high ABAG number? All types with no relation to this city just pop in with their agendas.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 19, 2020 at 11:54 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

One friend who had a great house in Saratoga and lots of parties also got tired of it all, sold it in two weeks and bought a house down the coast near Aptos in a great location on the beach. Santa Clara County has some very weird problems. Change counties. That changes some of the politics.


22 people like this
Posted by Citizen PA
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2020 at 1:55 am

Citizen PA is a registered user.

Just driving up El Camino today, not during rush hour, even during the pandemic with stay at home orders, the traffic was terrible (albeit so much better than before the pandemic when it was wall to wall all day).

Pushing for this kind of overdevelopment before the pandemic was already unreasonable. The answer to the housing problem always was finding a way to deal with the demand side -- the propensity of tech companies for all crowding together in one place -- and getting them to better distribute their workforces. The pandemic has done that for them. All people seek quality of life, and cramming in more housing where we just don't have the infrastructure is going to make disruptions like that much, much worse. I highly doubt most of those who resettle elsewhere for the quality of life will come back. Companies are likely to naturally redistribute anyway, and if they don't, government should be involved in facilitating THAT, not in trying to force major unfunded mandates and destructive land use changes that will never ever result in the Polyannish goals.

I do think office space should be encouraged to convert to housing. But this is a drought and disaster prone part of the world. Our own disaster czar has said the density we already have will cause loss of life in a disaster. No one from the state is really minding the store on this.

The pandemic started a process we should have pushed for a long time ago, which is to get our government to deal with the bigger issue of investing in more communities so that workforces can be better distributed across the state and nation.


8 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2020 at 7:39 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Amie - Mountain View has open land and access to Moffat Field. However that location is in a clean-up of toxic waste which has sunk into the underground sewer systems. The Navy and EPA are working those problems but it is slow going. In PA there have also been issues with toxic sites. The fact that you see "open land' does not mean all of that open land is suitable for housing.

If you are living here now and can already see the problems then why are you looking to exacerbate the problems? People come here then try and change it.

The Silicon Valley companies need to start building more facilities in the east CA locations. FB has bought property in the east bay. A company I worked for looked at moving major facilities to the Pleasanton area where a lot of new housing has been built. But due to tax issues decided that it was more advantageous to move out of state. Companies look at how much it costs to be in an area that they can trade for a different lower cost area.

SU is moving more facility space up to RWC - San Mateo County. Check it out - all new buildings in the location between Veteran and El Camino around the shopping center and Caltrain.


3 people like this
Posted by Citizen PA
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2020 at 8:44 am

Citizen PA is a registered user.

@Time to Sue,
Isn't there a proposition that passed that requires the state to pay for mandates (no unfunded mandates)? Make them pay for the existing mandates.

You have the right idea, but I've found that unless you yourself back it up with action, nothing will happen. The person who gets the ball rolling in the first place is the heaviest lifting. Once going, it's much easier. Then you have a bandwagon.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2020 at 9:19 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

In the SFC today - 11/20 - "Audit says billions in housing bonds lost." State Auditor Elaine Howle is on the job and discovered that $2.7 billion in potential bond funds was not used and is now lost. The systems that demand housing are disconnected from the agencies that have the money with no communication between the two. Billions of dollars get "lost' in the CA government systems.

So the requirement for cities is to have knowledgeable, experienced people who can track bond dollars available against their potential projects. I see the problem in CA in part is hiring people to satisfy a quota vs hiring people who are experienced in the job they are going to do. This state hypes high level topics to make good press then can't hire the right people to do the jobs.


8 people like this
Posted by J94306
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 20, 2020 at 9:27 am

J94306 is a registered user.

What is the penalty of ignoring these growth mandates from other organizations and doing what we feel is best for our city?


12 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 20, 2020 at 9:59 am

Online Name is a registered user.

Why not put all of the required new housing on Stanford property and in the parking lots of the big companies who no longer need those huge lots since noi one needs cars and they tell us all their new employees aren't generating a single new car trip?

Seriously, look at the literally HUNDREDS of millions of dollars spent during the last election to ensure those companies aren't paying their fair share by lobbying against paying gig workers benefits, to oppose paying the HIB visa contractors the same as US workers WHILE pushing to double the number of same.

Why are WE paying to house THEIR employees while sacrificing our quality of life?

Watch what's happening in San Jose and the Shark's fight AGAINST yet more Google and office developments which are pushing them out. When is enough enough? The roads are gridlocked even in a pandemic. There's no water, fire danger etc.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2020 at 3:59 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The Sharks are extremely popular and have well attended events. The fact that sports organizations pay big bucks to locate their teams and then can be pushed out by Google is truly bizarre. The city of San Jose gets good revenue from the Sharks so why do they allow this to happen? Is there no planning in that city? Is it out of control? All the more reason to hold fast here and not allow who ever to come in and take our quality of life away.

Santa Clara is having big trouble with the AT&T park with the team arguing over how much rent is owed, noise and time of events, etc. They even pushed their own candidates for city council and mayor.

Oakland is arguing with the Warriors on payment of bond issues going back in time for the Oakland stadium.

What a JOY. And no one can go to any games anyway. Time to recalibrate why sports organizations can come in, take over large pieces of land, then up and go somewhere else.

I have been to Petco Park in San Diego, that location actually works, all of the restaurants and bars benefit.


16 people like this
Posted by StarSpring
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2020 at 4:12 pm

StarSpring is a registered user.

People don't work where they live. All of my professional life I have lived in either Mountain View or Palo Alto and not once have I worked in either city.

Evict Google and Facebook, they don't need the office space, and build housing there if you must. Easy access to the freeway, Less traffic in Palo Alto and Mountain View proper. Make it ALL BMR. Make ABAG pay for a desalination plant in the South Bay.

Problem solved.


13 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 20, 2020 at 4:40 pm

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

>"The Sharks are extremely popular and have well attended events. The fact that sports organizations pay big bucks to locate their teams and then can be pushed out by Google is truly bizarre. The city of San Jose gets good revenue from the Sharks so why do they allow this to happen?"

^ It's called 'redevelopment'. San Jose wants to refurbish the surrounding area of the arena & 'gentrify' it.

>"Santa Clara is having big trouble with the AT&T park with the team arguing over how much rent is owed, noise and time of events, etc. They even pushed their own candidates for city council and mayor."

^ Santa Clara wanted the 'prestige' of having a professional sports franchise in their fair city & it came back to bite them in the ass. And all things considered, Levi's Stadium is a lousy place to watch an NFL game.

>"Evict Google and Facebook,"

^ Sounds good to me.


17 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2020 at 10:37 am

Annette is a registered user.

Various pro-growth City Councils facilitated the evolution of Palo Alto's jobs rich, housing poor reality. The social impact of this is pretty awful: housing insecurity for many, extremely limited housing opportunities for people with community-serving jobs, loss of retail, loss of diversity, infrastructure deficiencies, and now this "solution" that completely ignores reality, overlooks the enormous impact of Covid, and continues to give short-shrift to affordability.

Some of the same people who helped create the jobs:housing imbalance that put Palo Alto in this bind are part of ABAG or weighing in in support of the mandate. Said differently, the problem makers now want us to believe that they have the smarts to be the problem solvers. That is pretty darn audacious, particularly since we aren't adequately meeting the needs of our current population. For instance, the PAFD is under-staffed. I don't have the answers but there are some good suggestions and comments of concern noted in many of the above posts and posts following other articles about this. I think it would be prudent for Palo Alto and other cities in this region to pause on all but affordable housing for at least a year so that Covid's true impact can be assessed.

Remember the expression: what if they had a war and no one came? Well, what if we followed this mandate, densified Palo Alto, increased infrastructure deficiencies, and the current vacancy rate continued? I don't think it possible for the "experts" at ABAG or in any other group to know what future housing needs will be until after Covid is under control.


32 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 21, 2020 at 10:55 am

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

What I don't get...

Since when did it become a citizen's RIGHT to live in Palo Alto even though one cannot afford to do so?

Does erecting Legoland highrise dwellings all over the southernmost section of town resolve the issue of economically systemic housing discrimination?

Back in the day, people bought 'starter homes' in OTHER areas & upgraded accordingly based on their income & affordability factors.

Things have changed...now it appears that countless Millennial wannabe PA residents are seeking to 'move on up' to their preferred locales of residency without starting from the bottom first...and they don't seem to mind or care about living like rats.


13 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 21, 2020 at 11:24 am

Online Name is a registered user.

@Annette, absolutely. And just this week, business groups forced the MTC to drop work-from-home plans at a time when they're STILL dramatically increasing hiring BECAUSE "it would decimate transit ridership." (Who knew THAT's one of the reasons we should sit in gridlock!) Web Link

"...the problem makers now want us to believe that they have the smarts to be the problem solvers." Read the details he SJ Mercury article on the Leaders" plans that include everything from taking away personal desks so they can pack in more people.

Your tax dollars at work.


21 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 21, 2020 at 11:37 am

Online Name is a registered user.

"Millennial wannabe PA residents are seeking to 'move on up' to their preferred locales of residency without starting from the bottom first...and they don't seem to mind or care about living like rats."

Until they have kids. Or wake up to the density problems related to pandemics like covid? All the articles on real estate trends claim people are looking for more remote bigger spaces and that sales of small, dense condos and apartments are falling.

Re company housing, what happens when they change jobs? Do they get kicked out of their Google/Facebook "village" housing?


17 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2020 at 1:34 pm

Annette is a registered user.

Online Name's comment, "until they have kids" makes a good point: the stack-and-pack, dorm-like housing appeals to a limited demographic for a limited period of life. Are the planners assuming that there will always be churn and the 10,000 units that will forever alter Palo Alto's built environment will always be in demand? Per the news, people are abandoning dense housing in favor of single family homes, privacy, and space. Are we to ignore that phenomenon? Dismiss it as fake news?

Covid has redefined our lives in myriad ways, including housing. How about paying attention to that, ABAG?


23 people like this
Posted by Lee Forrest
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 22, 2020 at 8:30 am

Lee Forrest is a registered user.

>"...the stack-and-pack, dorm-like housing appeals to a limited demographic for a limited period of life."

>"Are the planners assuming that there will always be churn and the 10,000 units that will forever alter Palo Alto's built environment will always be in demand?"

^ Chances are the 'planners' are oblivious to a future scenario when the younger generation either opts to relocate or move on to larger properties.

And so with thousands of vacant, high-rise units eventually becoming more readily available (with decreasing demand), the county could then intervene via subsidized housing for extremely low income applicants of diversity & presto...there will now be 'projects' in south Palo Alto to pacify ABAG, bleeding-heart liberals, & anti-systemic poverty advocates.

In which case, South Palo Alto could become a distinct district all it's own & potentially non-reflective of Palo Alto in general.

If these changes are on the horizon, it might be a good time to consider selling & getting the hell out of Dodge...before property values decrease & no one wants to reside there except for the aforementioned project dwellers.






2 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 22, 2020 at 5:16 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The extensive Eichler properties are in South PA. These are designated as heritage neighborhoods. No one is racking and stacking on these properties. Given that the majority of the house is glass the backyard then becomes an extension of the total house. If done well then it is a pleasure both day and night. Any house anywhere needs maintenance and if not done well just means a person has a bigger house to fix up. And if bigger property then more work to landscape and light up at night. Bigger does not mean better.

If you look at the real estate ads of properties in Woodside, etc you are looking at houses that are surrounded by trees which in today's world means high fire content. And people are selling those homes because they know they are vulnerable.

During the power shut offs this area was okay. That is an advantage. So are you herding everyone out of South PA? A lot of big homes going in now -tearing down the one stories and building new two stories. Lots of turnover. Lot of opportunities.


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

Email:


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.


Get the most important local news stories sent straight to your inbox daily.

How to Buy a Used EV
By Sherry Listgarten | 5 comments | 3,034 views

Premarital and Couples: Giving Thanks
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,988 views

Gates sets an example for local billionaires to emulate
By Diana Diamond | 5 comments | 1,495 views

Pie Brings People Together
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,258 views

Tree Lighting Ceremonies
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 811 views

 

Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 26 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away more than $7 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. When you make a donation, every dollar is automatically doubled, and 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.

DONATE HERE