|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Responding to a steady increase of residents living in vehicles, Palo Alto on Friday opened its first “safe parking” site.
Located at 2000 Geng Road, near the Baylands Athletic Field, the site can accommodate 12 vehicles and includes a building with a shower. The site was recently used by the Palo Alto Fire Department while the city’s Rinconada Park fire station was getting reconstructed.
The nonprofit Move Mountain View, which oversees five “safe parking” lots in Mountain View, will operate the site, with Santa Clara County providing the funding. The City Council approved the arrangement in September, when it unanimously agreed to lease the 25,000-square-foot lot to the county.
In addition to providing a 24-hour secure place to park, the site will offer case management and other social services. At its Mountain View lots, Move Mountain View has provided residents with regular COVID-19 testing and a food pantry.
The program was first proposed in 2019 by council member Lydia Kou and Mayor Tom DuBois, who submitted a memo urging their colleagues to identify city sites that could be repurposed for safe parking. While the memo focused on city-owned land at 1275 San Antonio Road, it also identified the Baylands property on Geng Road as an option.
The two council members cited in the memo the substantial increase of residents who live in vehicles, which can be seen parked on main thoroughfares and quiet streets for long periods of time.
“The city of Palo Alto must address this matter from a health and safety standpoint,” the memo states. “The effort must be made to find immediate short and long term solutions. The ultimate goal is to provide assistance to people to get them back on the path to stable housing.”
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, who worked with cities and nonprofit groups to establish the new programs, said Friday that while the lots are not a long-term solution, safe parking “allows residents to have stability in where they sleep each night while they seek permanent housing.
“The goal is to move people through the program, out of the program, into a better place.”
Simitian cited the county’s most recent homeless census, which showed 18% of the county’s unhoused residents living in vehicles. That’s up from 8% in 2015 and 2017, according to the announcement.
DuBois said Friday that the city needs to do more to “help the most vulnerable among us, like those living in vehicles, have a safe base to get back on their feet.”
“This is fantastic progress with hopefully more to come,” DuBois said in the statement.
Great work. Thank you Lydia Kou, Tom DuBois and Joe Simitian – this is putting our votes for you to good use!
Now we just need more safe sites such as this one, used by folks till permanent housing is found.
Why not open up the whole area East of 101 to high density housing? The pressure to build housing from the State, etc will only continue to grow, and a couple of high density complexes here would make significant headway into our “quotas.” This area has offices and commercial, but there is still open land and underdeveloped areas. Granted, there is no public transportation currently, but public transportation is lousy just about everywhere in the city.
Good to see Palo Alto stepping up to address this issue of accommodating vehicle residencies.
The only other option would have been to outlaw these kinds of transient settlements which Los Altos and the township of Los Altos Hills effectively enforces.
Palo Alto is far better suited to assist RV/car campers and their needs based on
ease of accessibility to shopping, public transportation and social services in Mountain View.
Rupert noted Los Altos. Los Altos is on the flat land and has all of the markets and services the same as PA. There is a continual trend to shoehorn all of these type activities which other cities do not allow into PA. Duly noted. That is a trend that cannot keep happening. If any of the Santa Clara County legislators have agreed to shoehorn costly welfare activities into this city then watch out because you will not have a job the next time arounds.
The worst problem on this whole situation is the people trying to tie support from home owners instead of using city, county, state, and federal land for these activities. There is commercial property that is sitting there “for lease’ signs abound. Empty commercial buildings yet you all keep trying to tie this all to church parking lots. Note – a church is a business that has to pay insurance and upkeep of their buildings – bathrooms and kitchens. Continual off-loading of this problem onto individual home owners is not acceptable. The state created this problem due to incompetence. At least this is good news that a small spot has been created with toilets and services.
I strenuously oppose this. No logic to inviting random persons to reside in vehicles in the Palo Alto Baylands.
There is the Palo Alto Business Park east of 101 at San Antonio. It has a huge parking lot that is empty all of the time. There is a city of PA office on Ewell Court. There is plenty of room to install some temporary bathrooms and sanitization stations in that area. But the city prefers to offload this problem on to church parking lots, and the baseball field where children are going to look to be playing ball. What is wrong with this picture? The city is doing something but the something is coming up short.
I strongly support this program by the City and think it needs to do more as compassionate help to thse who have to live in their vehicles, perhaps beause they work here but can’t afford any nearby housing. I’m working with one of the several churches that will allow some vehicles to park in their parking lot, but that is only a minimum help and the City can do a lot more. I don’t see RVs parked along El Camino in Mountain View or Meno Park. Why Palo Alto? Let’s act.
I think they should put more homeless parking in the parking lots of the companies who spent $220,000,000 to ensure gig workers get less than minimum wage and no benefits, especially InstaCart which just raised its rates to cover lobbying costs.
I attended a meeting in which church parking lots were the subject. The participants were concerned that they had to have their own people on-site all of the time. And their buildings would be open 24/7. They did not have the resources at the time and would require some facility upgrades to their churches for the 24/7 use. Most churches are part of a bigger company of churches and some of their funding comes from a “corporate” entity – top level. Then you have the services in which the members of the church participate. You have now coopted the parking lot for others as opposed to the people who are members of the church. This is another example of the city and county off-loading their responsibility onto private entities and residents for the situation that they created.
I believe the Resident-1 of Adobe Meadows has his/her facts mixed up. the parking on church lots will not cost the churches anything as all financial support is from the county via Move Moutain View, the NGO supporting this effort. No facility upgrades are required. Furthermore, parking is limited to 6 PM to 8 AM or shorter hours when a church needs its parking lot for evening events or early morning service. So members of the church will not be inconvenienced.
If there had not been so many NIMBYs around here who oppose any high-density or even just medium-density developments, more housing would have been built and no one would have needed to live in a car.
The support shown to this program by certain “residentialist” council members is especially curious: They seem to be perfectly fine with people living in cars on the other side of 101. Why not this side of 101?
Once again, there’s no proof that increasing density lowers prices. Just look at Vancouver.
And of course people need cars here; even if public transit went everywhere in this spread-out area — which it doesn’t — it would take hours and hours to get there from here.
Besides, how else would the underpaid drivers for InstaCart, Doordash, UberEats, etc. be able to deliver the food and other goods?
quotation….”The support shown to this program by certain “residentialist” council members is especially curious: They seem to be perfectly fine with people living in cars on the other side of 101. Why not this side of 101?”
∆ Because a slew of RVs parked along more ‘visible’ streets makes Palo Alto appear less desirable to visitors, potential home buyers and real estate agents.
Palo Alto is very concerned about maintaining its upscale image as a professional and college town.
I’m glad we’re doing something to help the people who are living in their cars, both with short-term living logistics and with case management and support.
But I’m wondering how the RVs fit in. Is this lot meant for them, too? Living in an RV isn’t as unsafe, uncomfortable, or unsanitary as living in a car. I wonder if these folks are satisfied enough in their RVs, although they may like being in a lot over parking on a street. Or are they like the car dwellers and would really prefer to switch to an apartment or whatever?
Maybe the city council could cut a deal with Castilleja for approval of the school’s controversial expansion plans as long as car dwellers are allowed to park in the proposed garage from 10pm to 6am. Students could help with cleaning, cooking and tuneups as their required community service.
More information is required here.
Are these vehicles roadworthy? Will they be moved each day to enable the occupants to drive to their place of work? Will they be required to move each day? Will they be required to be taxed and insured? If taxed, will the registered addresses of the vehicles have to be Palo Alto addresses?
I think that while it is commendable to do something along these lines, I have concerns about what will happen when children are using the athletic fields, particularly if the occupants of the vehicles are there during the time the children are practicing.
I also think we have to ask whether the vehicles using the lot will be towed to get there and/or dumped unroadworthy vehicles that are basically rotting away and will never be moved.
There is also the question of whether this will become a magnet encouraging more vehicle dwellers into Palo Alto in the hopes they will be given a similar benefit/perk.
Why does everyone have to live in Palo Alto? Housing should be a regional responsibility. We should not have to take in everyone, in our backyard, either literally with ADUs and mandated overlays to single family housing because of ABAG or those with more guilt than pragmatism.
Oracle, Tesla, HP, Palintir have moved all our much of their business out of state. Those that remain in force here — Amazon, Google etc. — should be helping provide housing in the area as they are in San Jose, particularly now that so many are working at least part time from home. Even in the 80’s companies subsidized housing for employees. In 2020 and beyond, companies are leaving Palo Alto and Silicon Valley in droves (pun intended) because of the high cost of living and decreasing quality of life.
In Seattle, the houses of worship earn their tax free status by providing spaces in their parking lots for the homeless and RV dwellers. Why don’t the churches, mosques, synagogues in Palo Alto earn their tax free status and help with the issues of today, here where they are based?
It should not be left up to the City of Palo Alto alone to provide housing and help by itself.
@Anonymous from Duveneck/St. Francis above: “I strenuously oppose this. No logic to inviting random persons to reside in vehicles in the Palo Alto Baylands.”
Your “logic” appears to be animus. Your characterization appears to dehumanize people who have less than you do. Where should these people go, then?
PA Weekly has published a number of articles on this subject in recent years. Please educate yourself on who these “random” (and non-criminal) people are.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/07/12/living-on-four-wheels-the-people-inside-the-rvs-on-palo-altos-el-camino-real
Bill Bucy’s proposal bears repeating:
“Maybe the city council could cut a deal with Castilleja for approval of the school’s controversial expansion plans as long as car dwellers are allowed to park in the proposed garage from 10pm to 6am. Students could help with cleaning, cooking and tuneups as their required community service.”
City Council members, thoughts?
Los Altos wins again! In addition to flooding our once beloved Foothills Park with vehicles, hikers, and trash, they have now imported their car campers to Palo Alto as well. I bet when they were kids, Los Altos used to pants and steal Palo Alto’s lunch money every day. Poor hapless Palo Alto.
Get up close, these are not stable people. A problem of this sort needs a solution, not accommodation for it to grow.
“Why don’t the churches, mosques, synagogues in Palo Alto earn their tax free status and help with the issues of today, here where they are based?”
I agree. Palo Alto could also consider buying some of the motels along ECR to house the homeless and various Palo Alto churches should consider modeling their humanitarian efforts like those of Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco by serving three meals a day to all of the homeless and indigent people in need of healthy and nutritious meals and/or by providing a warm and safe place to sleep overnight.
I believe that Trinity Methodist Church in MV provides showers, laundromat services and an AM brunch for the homeless + meals on Saturday.
Palo Alto should step up to the plate and welcome those less fortunate.
I’m disappointed that Palo Alto still maintains their pre-pandemic limit of four car residents per church parking lot; that should be up to the church, and businesses, especially in the 101 business parks, have had huge empty parking lots, with campers parked in the streets in the Mountain View side that could be better accommodated in the parking lots of companies that want to allow it. (Stepheny – until this year we weren’t even allowed to do that; my church is one of a group that convinced the city to allow them to do that much.)
Even though we may get past this in 6-12 months, we’ve got a lot of churches in the area and they may find it more efficient to provide services jointly at fewer locations than spread out, and businesses I work with expect that they’ll keep a large fraction of their people working from home most of the time even after we restart everything.
And Bystander, it’s pretty common for people who live in campers to also have a car that they drive to work, even if the camper stays in one place.
Oh please no more homeless encampment here! Haven’t we entertained enough of this nonsense!?
Send them to another city
I’m okay with helping vehicle dwellers for a limited time until they can get back on their feet. I think that Mountain View nonprofit has a limit of how long they can stay, right? It’s not right to just allow people who are lifetime vehicle dwellers to take those spots when others are working hard to get out of living in their cars.
Ever hear of the “slippery slope to Hell”??? Given them an inch, they’ll take a mile. Send them all to tRUMPite states — one way. They’ll get Hell, not us.
Now that the city has a solution will they require RVs to move away from residential neighborhoods? If not, this is just an invitation for more cardwellers.
When will Palo Alto realize that it can’t take care of all the Bay Area’s homeless population and that at some point people would have to be told to move?
Cardwellers in church parking lots is a horrible idea as these are smack in the middle of neighborhoods where our kids play. East of 101, Baylands areas, Stanford or corporate parking lots are much better for this.
William Hitchens wrote, “Ever hear of the “slippery slope to Hell”??? Given them an inch, they’ll take a mile. Send them all to tRUMPite states — one way.”
The Red States used to brag regularly about buying one-way bus tickets to San Francisco for their welfare recipients. That was around the time they started calling Blue States free-loaders without regard to the facts that “rich Blue States” send more $$$$ to them.
Someone chooses to attack me above. Umm, recall how random vehicle dwellers installed themselves at Cubberley Community Center/school site? It did NOT prove viable. Major issues ensued.
Look it up.
I’m so sorry some of the negative commenters seem to misunderstand the situation. These persons who use their cars to sleep in are almost always very reliable, stable persons who have just been priced out of the housing market in this area and so either live in their cars or commute from places like Modesto. They usually have low-paying jobs in this area, or are currently unemployed and can’t find anything due to the pandemic. Some are abused women who haven’t found a permanent residence. They have to move their cars every 72 hours on the streets, so safe parking just in the late evenings is very helpful and compassionate. They are not there when children are around and do not disturb anyone. What is there to object to except being mean-hearted. We are not the only community faced with this problem, and all nearby ones are addressing this issue in some way. So don’t say it is being laid onto Palo Alto.
A temporary solution? Since someone living in a car or RV is unlikely to accumulate the cost of local housing, it is likely to be permanent. How will Palo Alto get the occupants to vacate, especially if their vehicle is no longer operable? This is likelt to become a permanent problem.
Reading these posts about sending ALL undocumented immigrants back to where they came from, running RV dwellers out of town, and denigrating the continent of Africa etc.
The Lord has his work cut out for him in Palo Alto as few seem to embrace the true spirit of Christ which includes giving and sharing with those less fortunate.
Denials of racism and elitism do not hold any water and it is no wonder Palo Alto is being branded as a city filled with hatred and bigotry.
Trump would be proud.
“…it is no wonder Palo Alto is being branded as a city filled with hatred and bigotry.”
There’s an anecdote going around downtown Los Altos. I think it started at the Draegers bakery.
A customer asked a bakery clerk if they get very many customers from Palo Alto and he replied that ones that do generally come in to order ‘sheet cakes’.
Bob- if the people you are identifying do not have a job then why are they here? They need to be in a lower cost of living area – central CA, SOCAL – Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. If people have no resources to begin with then why in the highest cost of living area? Because the people at a church want to “help” and draw people to this area? Tell us what is drawing people to the highest cost of living area? If it is the church – then major churches are located throughout the US and can shift direction to support people in the lower cost of living areas. Typically those areas have more property. Is someone telling these people that we are handing out money here? The state is handing put money to people throughout the state so their money would go further in a lower cost of living area.
Some people never address the topic of money and resources – where best spent. Any chair has to stay up on four legs – and money and resources is one of those legs. The individuals ability to determine their fate is another one of those legs.
In the papers today BAN/SJM – Los Altos – Councilwoman under fire for accusing Black activists of threatening her”. Evidentially the Justice Vanguard group has been actively involved in the Los Altos running of the city. Accusations going back and forth with the council member afraid for her safety. Rightly so – earlier this year both the Mayor of San Jose and the Mayor of Oakland had their houses marked up by activist gangs.
So Peter Colton – are you a member of the Justice Vanguard? As a Los Altos resident you appear compelled to report on other cities’ issues as interpreted by you. Los Altos also had the homeowner who was suing the city for what he perceived as racial bias by the city over his home improvement plans. He lost. You all need to recognize that your city is just one newspaper article away from the very subject you are discussing. Sanctimonious statements are just waiting for the next news article that pins the tail on the donkey.
“They need to be in a lower cost of living area – central CA, SOCAL – Riverside, San Bernardino, etc.”
∆ ‘Need to’ as advised or established by outsider opinion VS individual choice and preference of locale are often two different things.
Have you ever been to Riverside County/San Bernardino? Even some of the locals there refer to the area as an armpit of an place to live.
“If people have no resources to begin with then why in the highest cost of living area?”
∆ Probably for the same reasons there are so many homeless expatriates residing in Hawaii.
I suspect that the racism issue among cities and communities is perpetuated by the majority population.
In other words where there is a majority of white residents = real or imagined racism factors cited by minorities while in neighborhoods predominantly populated by minorities = white people don’t feel very welcome.
Economic disparity is another key consideration as poorer folks are generally relegated to living in poorer communities.
There’s a lot of social resentment and anger going on amongst poorer people of color and the target will always those who they feel have subjugated them to the below standard lives they are living and leading.
Don’t kid yourself, cities like Los Altos and Danville are also despised by various social advocacy groups citing pervasive racism and economic inequality factors.
Then again, who would want to reside in Danville regardless of one’s color?
Yes – I have a relative who lives in Riverside County. He has a three bedroom house, 2.5 bathrooms, three car garage, and huge piece of land. A really nice house – shows as $550K on Zillow. He has it made – low property taxes. And the millennials are now building in his direction with new houses. So loan paid off – has a second home now in the Philippines on a golf course. It is all about location, location, location.
Peter Colton: What do sheet cakes have to do with anything?
I think the sheet cake comment had to do with people who wear sheets as evening attire…most notably in the south.
According to this statement the goal of this “safe parking” is good, in my opinion:
“The goal is to move people through the program, out of the program, into a better place. Frankly, to some level of service and housing that’s really lasting and long term,”
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/09/15/safe-parking-for-vehicle-dwellers-approved-on-baylands-lot https://hum2d.com/
This article warmed my heart. It also gave me some nostalgia seeing that photo of the proposed site with the gorgeous clear blue sky.
There are many places to park one’s RV in Palo Alto providing one does not create a public nuisance or hazard.
I move mine frequently and have resided in a number of different Palo Alto neighborhoods.
And by pulling out my bike for getting around, I resemble a typical Palo Alto resident on any given day.
The Geng Road location is a bit out of the way for me as I prefer being situated closer to certain amenities like grocery stores, pharmacies and coffee shops.
Access to free wi-fi is another important consideration as is a service station for bathing and/or when nature calls.
With food stamps, some public assistance and the various stimulus payments issued during the Covid-19 pandemic I have managed to get by and I am considered an official Palo Alto resident as per my mailbox at a UPS store.
I even voted by mail-in for Biden!
Some people may refer to my residency as squatting but since I move my RV regularly, I consider myself just another Palo Alto resident.
Why not move the RV into all the empty corporate parking lots like Google’s?
Church parking lots. If cars are parked overnight then the church has to keep it’s doors open for bathroom use. And Kitchen use. That means that people from the church have to be on site during the night. A church is a corporate business in that it has to pay insurance. When you change up how a property is used then you change up the insurance risk. You are passing the cost of doing business onto a non-governmental entity. That seems to be the theme on housing advocates. What is worse you are bringing car dwellers into the residential areas at night and they end up here in the day.
This city has a huge parking lot at the Palo Alto Business park which is off San Antonio at 101 east. The City of PA has business office on Ewell Court in that vicinity. That is where you put overnight parkers, where you put RV’s, along with some sanitary facilities. The city – a government entity paid for by the taxpayers appears unwilling to put that huge amount of property to use.
What is very offensive is that a MV organization is pushing it’s programs onto other cities because it does not allow those in it’s city? Non-profit organizations are pushing their programs onto to the taxpayers who did not vote on these practices. In Mountain View the people did vote and the city disrespects their wishes.
Please note that major churches are owned by a corporate entity – not the individual church – who is paying the property taxes and insurance for all of it’s locations. The Presbyterian Church main headquarters are in Kentucky because it has a low tax impact.
What does Bob Ohlmann not understand. Direct this effort to the city – a governmental agency. It is the cities job to put these people in an off-site location managed by the city that is providing the bathroom and security.
“Direct this effort to the city – a governmental agency. It is the cities job to put these people in an off-site location managed by the city that is providing the bathroom and security.”
Rather than continually griping about transients RVs, maybe address this matter at the next city hall meeting?
Concerned residents get to speak for about 3 minutes on various topics of concern.
Or collect petition signatures decrying this horrible visual blight and present it to city hall.
Call it a community service effort.
Concurring alicia. Rather than bemoaning a bunch of RVs, more personal and constructive energies could be channeled into other FAR more pressing city issues.
Or spend a day with some of the street residents and get to know us better.
We could arrange a potluck.
I used to park near the Rengstorf Rec Center in Mountain View before an opportunity arose where I could relocate to Palo Alto just south of Town and Country Village on ECR.
Much nicer here and very cordial folks, both in-person and online (except for maybe one).
Those cars all look new and nice. So they are broke when they choose to be? Is there a limit to their stay? It should be for folks to get back on their feet again and into real housing, not a permanent solution for them.
Some people need a place to live and if an RV is their only option so be it.
Constantly complaining about RVs in another vicinity (even though just across the street) borders on obsessive-compulsiveness or possible neurosis.
The RVs do not bother me though we are moving to Palo Alto later this spring.
They were not viewed as a criterion, just another form of alternative living.
LeeAnn, an RV is a Recreational Vehicle. It really is not meant as a long-term housing option unless you have showers, toilets, and trash receptacles nearby.
Living on a busy street like El Camino is not a great option. I think a
ll Bay Area city’s should provide safe RV parking as Palo Alto has. Just my opinion.
Lee Ann – there are designated locations for RV’s throughout the bay area. Those locations provide sanitary stations, electricity if you pay for it. If you look at an AAA map it shows where all of the RV locations are – they are a business.
Cities in the bay area have carved out designated locations.
MV – area behind a fire station on Shoreline Blvd. East of 101.
RWC – lot across from police station and Sheriff’s building – east of 101.
Foster City – lot next to HWY 92 – east of 101.
Sunnyvale – numerous locations.
MP – Lot on 101E next to new apartment buildings.
PA – a designated location OFF ECR which appears in the news all of the time as people wrestle with trying to make it into Apartment buildings.
We all agree that people live in RV’s. The issue is where those RV’s are located.
Not in the middle of a high school and major university on a major thorough fare used by VTA with large buses that are double ups. That street is one of the designators for divisions of r-1 zoning and the building of new apartments.
The city of PA, PAHS and SU run a whole business renting out playing fields to both child and adult teams – coming up here soon in the SPRING. Those fields are in use all day long on the weekends and during the week for team practice – when we get back to “normal” – coming in a couple of weeks. That street should be for the team players.
James’s opportunity to relocate from MV is the result of the MV taxpayers who voted on this topic of RV’s in the central city matrix. He obviously does not want to live on Shoreline Blvd where the rest of the MV people are.
Possibly the vehement commentators can talk to the children and the location between a high school and university which by any definition should be off-limits to roaming RV dwellers who live in units rented to them.
@ Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
FYI…the RVs parked across ECR don’t bother or annoy most students. Who cares?
The RV residents tend to keep a low-profile and do not infringe on our venturings into TC Village.
Besides, with the current limitations on open campus the RV presence becomes even less of an issue or cause for concern.
Only the ‘beautify Palo Alto’ residents seem to be bent out of shape about this trivial matter.
“Only the ‘beautify Palo Alto’ residents seem to be bent out of shape about this trivial matter.”
Now let’s not be overly harsh or judgemental as some folks may not necessarily be against all RVs.
Chances are it’s just a personal perception of visual blight that some RVs reflect along with a certain contempt towards the Palo Alto residents who are forced to reside in RVs due to economic necessities and hardships.
Gee – you fail to read what is on the page. What is on the page is the location of the RV’s – there is a place for all of them if you just read what is there.
What is also there is the use of the fields by both children and adult teams. You just don’t address the obvious and deflect to any other tangent which are irrelevant.
There is a reason those fields are in that location – proximity to use by the whole community. The reason this gets so much attention is because the posters have some type investment in the status quo.
× The reason this gets so much attention is because the posters have some type investment in the status quo.
Yes. While we are not attending school (or trying to) we moonlight as RV landlords.
Seriously?
I find it so sad that the requirements of common humanity, and most religions, imply we must take care of the poorest of us, yet most of the comments above seem to feel that care should be done by someone else; the City, the corporations, make sure they don’t inconvenience me. Yet many others are searching for constructive solutions to the housing problems of these fellow human beings. Many churches are leading the way, as expected, but much more needs to be done. Palo Alto has done less than some of the surrounding cities in this respect so it’s time to step up our contributions.
This city has advocacy groups from one tangent to another. All are looking for funding to support their causes. And yes – churches get federal funding to work specific issues. So let’s assume that the churches that are participating in these activities have received funding from their corporate head organization.
As a taxpayer in this city I am not interested in the various POV’s that are being pushed – sometimes under the table. A lot of the POV’s are working the issues from different positions which are counter productive. At least the safe parking in the baylands is a county produced activity. That is what should be happening. The county making something happen on city land. An activity does that does not tax the individual resident.
I drive by those RVs parked along ECR everyday day while heading off to work.
They do not bother me as my eyes are focused on the traffic with both hands on the steering wheel.
RV neurosis is not healthy.
Well – people who are driving by are in their cars – not on the ground. The students -PAHS and SU, and teams who are using the fields are parked, out of their cars, and on the ground. And right now that is not healthy.
As to homeless at the fair grounds they can be put to work to help at events. A way to pick up some money and be active and engaged in festive events. The goal is to get them out, active, engaged in what is going on, and make some pocket change. And they are not captive to any one advocacy group. WE need them to establish their independence so they can get on with their lives.
“As to homeless at the fair grounds they can be put to work to help at events. A way to pick up some money and be active and engaged in festive events.”
*groan*
I imagine the RV dwellers would just as soon remain on ECR…for convenience considerations and just to get your goat.
Relocation to the county fairgrounds?
Whatever is in your pipe, others would like to know.
This is about homeless people – along with RV people. The homeless people need shelter. The county can provide shelter. Shelter is available – in a hotel, building that is currently empty. What city does ludicrous live in? What is your city doing? What is your county doing?
Sorry to disappoint you Resident 1-Adobe Meadows but we are not leaving our spot on El Camino Real.
The county fairgrounds on Old Monterey Road in San Jose is too far away and shopping very inconvenient.
We also have absolutely no intention of pursuing seasonal county fair employment.
Any other suggestions?
WOW – we have spokespersons for the RV dwellers on ECR. I could care less that you all want to form a union that defines your collective ability to earn money. Earning money in this city must be working because the cost of housing throughout the NORCAL state is so high. SOCAL has a lower cost of housing. Your earning ability is your problem. But how proud you all are.
THE SJM/BAN has an article today on the homeless and how much money that is costing the State – then pushing it off to the federal government for not providing enough funding. Typical CA-D thinking – it is someone else’s problem
Did they forget that pre=pandemic our governor was telling the world that we – CA is the 6th biggest “nation” in the world? Did they forget that the then AG-Becerra was suing everyone if they did not conform to this states positions on social equity?
The city of San Jose is noted for their lack of ability to keep certain sections of the city “homeless free”. One being the Guadalupe River Park. Always someone else is suppose to pay for this – the resident taxpayer. The resident taxpayer is already paying the state to maintain facilities that are randomly used and could house the homeless. And allowing Google to buy up and take over the city planning. The county is the receiver of property taxes – not Google. It is the counties job to provide some type of shelter for the homeless.
One thing that San Jose stipulated is that there should not be any homeless near schools. At least they are getting that part right.
It is time for citizens of the more affluent communities to open their hearts and doors to those less fortunate.
And Palo Alto should be the first to do so because the city prides itself on promoting ethnic and economic diversity. Or so they say.
As a resident along the Guadalupe River, I have been told that Palo Alto is a far safer and convenient location for those who are destitute and homeless.
I am saving-up for a used van and hope to relocate to Palo Alto in the near future. Since the vehicle will hopefully be fully operational, I will not venture near El Camino Real to resituate but instead move about the city and vary my overnight parking options.
The only other consideration would be if the city decided to convert its many motels along El Camino Real in what I believe is Barren Park to homeless units.
This would negate some of the vansters who are hoping to join others in Palo Alto and Mountain View later this spring.
I have taken the VTA bus #22 from East Ridge to Palo Alto on occasions and especially like the Stanford area that is in conflict over RV parking. Unfortunately it appears that there are no spaces remaining.
That said, there will be other areas in Palo Alto to park overnight and the key is not to draw unnecessary attention or create a public nuisance.
We all want to be good neighbors.
Well folks – that says it all – Pico lives in San Jose – a major city – but is gearing up to relocate to PA in his Van – and drive it around where ever. Because we are a more affluent city?
Pico – PA is built out to the borders. WE have no open land here. MV has Shoreline Park – a better bet for you.
Having recently moved here from Santa Cruz, Palo Alto is a far cry from the homeless street scene there.
We are currently wandering about on foot and sleeping wherever it appears safe to do so.
Wishing we had a van or an old RV to crash in and a place to take an occasional shower.
Any offers from the kind residents of Palo Alto?
Santa Cruz is a destination city. You have beaches with public showers on the beaches. You have an immense amount of open land. I know people who are leaving here and moving to Aptos. What possess you to move to PA? We have no beaches, no public showers – someone out there is telling you stories.
After these posting from people who live in cites then decide to come here to be “unhoused and homeless” if any “social equity” person pops up you are probably the perpetrator of this nonsense. You are in big trouble.
Pico – so confused by your message. Do you work? Do you want to work? It makes sense to live near where you work. San Jose is a major city. why aren’t you looking for a job there? there are more jobs in San Jose than PA. I don’t get your thought process.
Santa Cruz is not a mecca for the homeless. There is rampant drug abuse and people with mental health issues on the streets (especially around Ocean Avenue and heading towards the downtown area).
The public showers along the beaches have been closed due to the pandemic and with the public libraries and various restaurants also being shut down, their restrooms can no longer be used for bathing.
Some of my homeless acquaintances in Palo Alto have been able to sneak into various apartment poolside cabanas and college gyms (when open for their sports programs) but this option is limited and the key is not to get caught trespassing.
Nevertheless, I am fortunate and glad to be living in Palo Alto than Santa Cruz or San Jose as the county seat cities often have the worst and most undesirable homeless environments.
It is also very bad in Santa Ana, the county seat of Orange County and I have emailed some friends to join me up here where things are safer and much cleaner.
When someone is arrested locally for arson at a “safe parking” place, it puts into jeopardy all such programs. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/04/17/police-arrest-suspected-arsonist-in-rv-safe-lot-fires
People live where they can best afford and if this means residing in an RV or park who are we to judge as long as the inhabitants are law-abiding and not creating a public disturbance?
Concurring with Mr. Lee as outward appearances are oftentimes not indicative of the individual.
And if someone wants to park their RV along ECR, I am not going to hold that against them because there are far more important things to be concerned about.
“The Geng Road location is a bit out of the way for me as I prefer being situated closer to certain amenities like grocery stores, pharmacies and coffee shops.”
Aw, you poor entitled baby. Maybe they’ll let you park in the Safeway parking lot.
“I have managed to get by and I am considered an official Palo Alto resident as per my mailbox at a UPS store.
Some people may refer to my residency as squatting but since I move my RV regularly, I consider myself just another Palo Alto resident.”
How much do you pay for the space to park your RV? How much do you pay for the utilities you use? How much property tax do you pay? Do you ever benefit from the services of law enforcement or firefighters? Somebody is paying for those things and it isn’t you. You’re more than just a squatter, you’re a freeloader. Let’s compare property tax bills some time.
It’s one thing if a person is legitimately down on their luck, but quite another if they’re a freeloader, gaming the system and mooching off of others as a permanent way of life.
Your attitude is revolting.
Sanitation is an issue that has been missing from this thread. Where do the RV dwellers on El Camino dispose of their sewage? Do they just dump it “wherever” or down a convenient storm drain?
There are reasons we build sewers and dispose of human waste in a sanitary manner, especially during a pandemic. Think there could never be another cholera outbreak? Think again.
Providing proper sanitary facilities for RV dwellers is actually a benefit.
° It’s one thing if a person is legitimately down on their luck, but quite another if they’re a freeloader, gaming the system and mooching off of others as a permanent way of life.
^ I seriously doubt if anyone intentionally strives to live in a rundown RV just to game the system.
I imagine most would prefer to own a nice home in Old Palo Alto and be your neighbor!
Gee Perspective – you don’t provide your neighborhood. You just offer up advice from some distant perch. The people who live in PA are the taxpayers – property taxes indicate all of the bond issue that we are paying on, including for the school system. It is tax time – for this city, for all cities, for all people. Every city has distinct priorities and that is where the money is goin got go – not some other cities priorities that they are failing on. Sanitation and utilities is what we pay for here. It would be nice if it all worked well and people did their part to keep the city cleaner – especially in a Covid time period. As the cities open up we are looking to be in our parks. We want CLEAN.
As a tax-paying Palo Alto resident, I do not harbor any disdain nor contempt for the homeless or those living in their motor vehicles along ECR but it seems reasonable that Palo Alto make some sort of effort to accommodate these folks.
Whether this involves establishing a homeless encampment within the city boundaries and/or a KOA type parking facility with certain amenities for transient RVs remains the overall responsibility of the PACC with resident approval.
Far better to use city revenues for humanitarian purposes rather than for funding the PAPD, various overpaid city administrators, and unecessary consultant services.
Yes – a lot of people are down on their luck. But now the state and cities are opening up again – that means people at parks, amusement centers, restaurants, hotels, airports, etc. That means there are jobs out there. San Jose is the most logical place for job hunting due to the diversity of jobs, along with an airport which has a lot of jobs.
It appears that we have a lot of people trolling for being homeless as a permanent occupation and we are suppose to excuse the lack of looking for a job while the rest of the community is working. Sorry – wrong community. Look for a city that has those jobs for your skill set. Building is up – everything is going up now. Time to return to NORMAL. Normal means that yes we provide some space for the homeless and unhoused but that is not the consuming priority of the city. The consuming priority is every one doing the jobs they are in, and the city is running like a city should.
>> It appears that we have a lot of people trolling for being homeless as a permanent occupation and we are suppose to excuse the lack of looking for a job while the rest of the community is working.
✓ Your viewpoint is an over-generalization as there are several types of homeless situations.
(1) There are the economically depressed who cannot find suitable employment and the inherently lazy which might be the types you are referring to.
(2) Then there are the mentally ill and substance abusers who do not mesh well with conventional everyday life.
I suspect that the economically depressed represent the majority of the RV inhabitants and the latter group (2) the ones we see sleeping and loitering outdoors.
Both groups should receive public assistance in some form whether it be parking permits, homeless shelters, rehabilitation programs, or institutionalization.
With Covid-19 still present, many minor offense (aka non-violent) inmates are being released from county jails with nowhere to go.
So they settle in either San Jose, Mountain View, or Palo Alto, the northernmost city in the county.
After all, the free VTA token issued following release will only take one so far.
Palo Alto is a nicer place to be homeless than either San Jose or even Mountain View.
And the homeless who have access to an RV + a parking space on ECR are the truly fortunate ones.
From the city of SF down to Santa Cruz all counties have large facilities for events. The closest to us would be the San Mateo County fairgrounds. If you are in the south county the Santa Clara County fairgrounds. These are government owned facilities which have extensive parking, heating, bathrooms, kitchen facilities.
Letters to the editor of the SJM indicate that the residents of San Jose city are not happy with how this subject is handled. They want all of the homeless put in a section of the city which is fairly undeveloped.
PA does not have any event facilities – we are not a major city. The closest we come is the farmer’s Markets on Hamilton and California streets. the event centers are on SU campus.
Yet people from other cities think that we need to turn ourselves inside out when the priority now is people returning to a normal life – getting out and going to events.
Santa Cruz is broadcasting their open city and all of the things that people can do there – the Boardwalk, the beach. Other cities are broadcasting their restaurants.
If people need jobs that is where they need to be. I will assume that all of those homeless people would like to have a job of some type to make a little money.
El Camino Park would be an ideal site for a homeless encampment.
There’s plenty of space available and it provides ease of access to both VTA and SAMTRANS at the Palo Alto train station along with being easy walking distance to downtown Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center.
Chances are, the recreational usage of the soccer field and baseball diamond are still limited due to the coronavirus so why not utilize the area?
Palo Alto would then be on the leading-edge of accommodating the homeless population.
A tent city on a nice green lawn with porta-potties provided by the city could accommodate many homeless people and perhaps even a shower facility could be built as there is plenty of water pressure feeding the existing sprinkler system.
Miriam – you want PA to be on the leading edge of homelessness. Other people want PA to be on the leading edge of the educational endeavors and available playing fields for sports – that is team building and that is going to open up next month.
Our children are our leading edge. They have been trapped in their homes and need to be out with other children. There are also adult teams that are going to be out playing. Children here being all K-12, and CC college and SU.
This is a city of families and children that spend a lot of time in group activities – sports, dance, theatre. That is what the taxpayers in this city are paying for. That is the main draw for this city.
Since is it is now Tax time it comes down to what are we paying for and what is the county and state providing. The county and state need to provide county and state owned facilities for the homeless.
The biggest land holder is SU in this location. SU has a lot of open land next to Sand Hill Road going up to Foothill.
MacArthur Park restaurant is next to the playing fields. It is being updated now and is a well loved gathering place for family events.
Perhaps Santa Clara County could lease or purchase a small portion of land in Palo Alto to create either a tent city or modular housing tract for its homeless residents along with the necessary restroom and shower facilities.
It is my understanding that the county purchased or is subsidizing a modest mobile home park in Barron Park to accommodate low-income residents.
This concept could also be coordinated with Stanford University as both entities have lots of money, much of it spent on non-humanitarian frivolities.
My vision for ECR is a giant bus transit parkway. Look at Monroe Park off El Camino at San Antonio. Del Medio St. behind the car wash is wall to wall apartment buildings from beginning to end – good housing for teachers, local city workers, etc. Create a transit center in the San Antonio shopping center where the double length bus can pull in off the street and have overhead covering for the people waiting for the bus.
As you travel up El Camino there would be bus locations that are carved out next to the street so the side street lane is not impacted. Covering over the bus transit location. Keep traveling El Camino going north a bus pull out at PAHS that would allow teachers and students to access the high school and SU without having to drive a car. This would benefit T&C which needs business. Another bus pullout near El Camino Fields so people can go and play without using a car. And be across the street from SU shopping center. Of Course with covering.
ECR traveling South at SU shopping Center a giant carve out for busses, then at Embarcadero – a major transit center – great for attending games, another further down between Serra and Stanford Ave which would put people in that shopping center. As that buss travels south more carve outs at strategic location which puts people at business centers.
For major games at SU people can stay at hotels south of Oregon and take the bus up to SU for the games and events without a car.
The whole point of using ECR as a transit center is consistent with helping business and schools from one end of the city to the other end. And provide car-less transit for teachers, others who live in apartments next to El Camino.
Tika – if you live at Su why are you volunteering PA as a location? Why not SU which has a huge amount of land? PA does not have a huge amount of land.
#Tika – if you live at Su why are you volunteering PA as a location? Why not SU which has a huge amount of land? PA does not have a huge amount of land.
@Resident 1-Adobe Meadow…READ tika’s original comment:
#This concept could also be coordinated with Stanford University as both entities have lots of money, much of it spent on non-humanitarian frivolities.
Stanford University and Palo Alto should team-up on this societal problem. It’s not like they cannot afford to.
There’s plenty of land and financial resources (including corporate donors) to tap into.
Snobbism + NIMBYism are very unbecoming traits and reflective of self-serving mentalities.
Palo Alto, lagging behind more innovative cities, when it could be leading the way.
East PA – is blooming. Drive around that city and what you see are family home locations, and apartments in the commercial zones. A super new school at Bay street and Pulgas, as well as new neighborhoods. A great boys and girls community center. EPA has a lot going for it. Time for EPA to step up to what ever the current political spiel is instead of assigning to other communities. Time for EPA to take ownership of their destiny. a lot of new money is now pouring into that city.
The homeless who settle in Palo Alto and Mountain View are seeking a quieter existence away from the cold harshness of San Jose, Santa Cruz, and East Palo Alto.
And those who are physically able will resituate themselves in cities like Palo Alto and Mountain View because of the conveniences and the relative safety of living in a suburban environment.
So whether one is sleeping in the shrubbery of a park or fortunate enough to have the luxury of a run-down van to call home, nothing will change until society (the state/county/cities) take it upon themselves to accommodate these individuals in cities like Palo Alto and Mountain View with location appeal and conveniences being the primary considerations.
Simply suggesting that they move here or there because of county fair attractions, going back to where they came from, or advocating EPA as a haven is just passing the buck and counterproductive.
The ones currently settled in Palo Alto are not going anywhere barring an arrest or institutionalization and the current drug diversion programs are an effort to place fewer individuals behind bars despite their addictions.
So we need to accept the situation for what it is and strive to accommodate our new neighbors.
The trailer park in Barron Park is a prime example of settling low-income individuals and families right smack dab in the middle of a long-standing neighborhood and others can do the same whether it be in Crescent Park all the way down to Ventura.
The neighborhood situated near Charleston Road between Alma and ECR is certainly no prize and perhaps this area could be designated a homeless section as well.
In any event, it is up to the residents and their respective neighborhoods to grab the bull by its horn and offer some hospitality, assistance, and compassion.
And as far as any residential real estate depreciation is concerned, who cares?
Do you really want to be a slave to excessive capital gains taxation when you eventually sell?
Sharon – lovely speech – but you just “passed the buck”. You live in Duveneck but assigned a different neighborhood to be the location for the homeless. And you also pointed out how tacky you think it is. That is where people live. This whole blog from end to end is people passing the buck and assigning some other location as the point at which the homeless should be located.
There is still a bottom line – it is the county and state who are responsible for placing the homeless – and in county and state property. I keep suggesting the Palo Alto Business Park on East Bayshore at San Antonio but that gets studiously ignored. A huge expanse of empty parking lot near city services who have the ability to service that area. When I suggested that to the county they said two words – NO – ROI. If ROI is the guiding principle of the county then that tells you where this is all going. And ROI is the buzz word from the county.
– There is still a bottom line – it is the county and state who are responsible for placing the homeless – and in county and state property.
∆ Then perhaps the county and state can consider a few options including:
(1) the county leasing various vacant commercial properties in Santa Clara County municipalities (including Palo Alto) to house the homeless and provide RV parking. The only exception would be Monte Sereno where there is no actual commercial or downtown shopping district.
(2) the State of California (perhaps via Palo Alto advocate Scott Weiner) could legislate that ALL cities (except those without commercial districts/zones) provide homeless and RV sanctuaries.
(3) the State of California would then match county funding by 50% and FINE any designated city that refuses to comply with the mandate.
Most exclusive residential communities
in CA without a shopping or commercial district would remain exempt but guess what…Atherton would also be required to provide a homeless sanctuary because
it has a small commercial area along ECR as does Portola Valley on Alpine Road.
And the same requirements applies to Woodside as well.
So not only is the homeless population now spread out and dispersed more evenly but the homeless also have a choice of selecting either a suburban or bucolic setting to reside until the required quotas are filled.
It’s time to contact Mr. Weiner and get the ball rolling as he believes in all California cities taking the moral and ethical responsibility to ease the housing issues we are currently facing.
Archie – you live in EPA. EPA is a growing city with new neighborhoods and a new school at Bay street and Pulgas. Your residential section has no parking signs on street cleaning days which prevents parking of RV’s. Your city does not have any RV’s on Bay street anymore. Only smattering near the Police Station. Your city is in San Mateo County – a different funding agency. What is your city doing now about this problem? Or do you just assign the problem to every other city while yours is growing and cleaning up. Using Mr. Weiner in your comments is an issue – he is clearly a very disturbed person. Why do San Mateo County residents keep assigning issues to Santa Clara Cities and residents? Come on EPA – step up to the to plate and be your own city.