Christians truly care about the homeless. Homeless people are people too.

Sad that they let a cold winter pass to get permission for the summer.

"Homeless people are people too" Um, yeah. The question is, is any particular homeless person a good neighbor?

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

These churches appear to be within one block of Middlefield Road. Can other churches around town do the same?

[Post removed.]

I see no reason (outside of possible crime) why Palo Alto should not become a full-fledged sanctuary city that welcomes everyone onto it's premises.

The responsibility rests with the PACC, local churches, community organizations and residents to accommodate the homeless who are simply seeking refuge.

Any and all actions require funding. Where is the funding coming from? Any one city has a limitation on the amount of available space. The SU property is not under the control of the city. It looks like we have open space but reality says the city does not own that open space. Comparisons to cities which have a huge amount of land that is not developed - Santa Cruz - does us no good. We are built out to our borders.
Then we have people from other cities who are handing out advice on what this city should do. Desmond Phillips should first say what his city of Menlo Park is doing and how they are financing it. Advice givers should first display some grasp of the facts concerning this issue. There are no RV dwellers on ECR in Menlo Park

[Post removed.]

Why is not the cost to taxpayers included in this article?

How is Move Mountain View determining, who have local connections to Palo Alto or a nearby city like Mountain View?

[Post removed.]

Many of the RVs parked on ECR do not want to give up their spaces because it will be difficult to find another one that offers the same degree of convenience.

They are now a part of the Palo Alto community.

Why aren't we welcoming a good deal of the new immigrants here as well? Get them out of the cages and detention centers? Between Pelosi's district and Palo alto, we could help a lot. This is the compassionate thing to do. I am so happy to finally see PA approve this.

Marissa M. has 600.000 million. She could offer to build a shelter.

"Why aren't we welcoming a good deal of the new immigrants here as well? Get them out of the cages and detention centers?"

That would a most humanitarian gesture.

My arrival to the United States was sponsored by a church and a host family.

Palo Alto residents could perhaps consider providing this opportunity with the added assistance of the city and local houses of worship.

The problem I assume is that most Palo Altans do not want to be burdened or inundated with new arrivals from 3rd world countries who are impoverished and unable to speak English.

Being a predominantly white affluent and liberal-minded community, it is also safe to assume that most Palo Alto residents would prefer to express their compassion in kind words rather than any progressive action.

And the miniscule 1.9% Afro-American population seems to indicate that darker people of color may not be welcome in Palo Alto.

Times were very difficult in Somalia but at least we did not have the blatant racism that exists in other affluent white SF Bay area cities such as Danville and Orinda.

Palo Alto is a much nicer community than the aforementioned cities except that the police are pretty much the same wherever a black person goes.

It is like we all have a target on our back and a policeman once told me not to expect any immediate changes in the near future.

Ika is from another community - does not say what that community is. She was sponsored by a church to come to the US.

Churches are not stand alone units in a city - they are part of a large network that is managed at the top level. Immigration issues are managed and funded at the top level. When bringing people over they have to be located in a city that will provide the economical basis and potential job market for that family to fit in. Other people that they will make a community with. They are typically placed in a location that already has an established community of people from the same country. They need to make that person successful and not isolated. We should assume that they have been placed in a location that provides those basic human amenities of community.

Palo Alto is a small suburban city next to a major university. The major university runs their own show as to who they hire and educate. The other alternatives for this city are related to the tech business and people who are hirable based on educational background related to the tech business. Los Angeles is a major, typical city based on the diverse job market and influx of people from all over the world. Los Angeles provides the most logical location in this state.

This city is small and is not Los Angeles. And this city is built out to the borders. It is the churches job to place people in the locations where they will be most successful and not isolated. Palo Alto has an influx of people from India based on the job market. Hopefully Ika has been located in a major city that has an established community that she can enjoy. Targeting this city by churches says the top level management of the major churches needs to review how and where they place immigrants. The immigrant needs to be placed in a community where they will be successful. Los Angeles has large groups of people from all countries and provides the best successful outcome.

Why send them all to LA? Are you advocating the creation of even more inner city ghettos?

In time, Palo Alto will have more housing units and for some recently arrived immigrants, a suburban setting is better suited to their well-being.

While others (excluding myself) are striving desperately to live in Palo Alto, it is the responsibility of the PACC along with the assistance of developers to ensure that certain accommodations (including new housing) can be offered on a limited but practical scale and despite certain opposition, the PACC is striving to do so.

Kudos to the PACC's ongoing efforts as NIMBY Palo Altans need to accept the changes that time eventually brings.

As a former Palo Alto resident (off Stanford Avenue/College Terrace), the city's growth was becoming even more evident during the 1990s and we sold our small home and moved to Piedmont.

And so at times, I read with a certain interest (and sometimes amusement) the number of concerns still troubling various Palo Alto residents.

In closing, some of the comments suggesting that Palo Alto split off into separate North and South cities makes sense as these city sectors vary in terms of individual concerns, priorities, and outward appearances.

"Churches are not stand alone units in a city - they are part of a large network that is managed at the top level. Immigration issues are managed and funded at the top level."

Speaking as a former Catholic, you are correct in that there is an upper tier heirarchy that makes major decisions in the name and on the part of the church.

That said, the Catholic Church could do considerably more to assist in the placement of these refugees from Latin America, most of whom are Catholic.

The upper tier of my ex-religion live "high off the hog" while most of their impoverished supporters continue to suffer.

A concerted effort including the church, county and state social services, local communities, and the Department of Immigration could work wonders if they truly cared.

They don't.

It's been convenient - and wrong - to accept people living on the street. We haven't built sufficient local housing to get them off the street and so there they are, a severe problem getting worse and worse. Living on the street with addiction or mental issues is the worst possible human condition. Whatever new laws are needed, it should be against the law to live on the street. At the same time, the state should mandate homeless facilities as part of county budgets. We closed the mental hospitals because they were horrible and left those people onto the streets. We supply drug addicts living on the streets - a completely bad idea. We accept the 'petty' crimes, assaults, break ins, and general blight of growing homeless encampments because we just give up. We don't want to act. We open the door wide to refugees fleeing other failed societies into our 'sanctuary cities' while ignoring the failures already here desperately lying on our streets.
There are so many instances of good work by churches but like it or not, providing for homelessness is a public obligation. It's well past due to solve this problem.

I am a 4th generation CA resident. Based on family members, extended family members, school and work associates from Marin, SF down to San Diego and Central Valley we know where the concentrations of peoples are. Concentrations are centered on the churches they attend, restaurants they eat at, markets they shop at, schools they attend, and community center events they attend and support. Burbank has the Armenian community and associated eastern European migrants, Olivera Street in LA is where the Latino groups are, there is a China Town, a Japan Town, a black section with Bar-B-Q, a Jewish section that was in the Fairfax area and now moved to the valley - replaced by the middle-eastern group.

LA is the home base for the entertainment business so a lot is associated with that business area which supports a very diverse population. Then there is the beach crowd, and the aerospace crowd. The city of Westchester was partially replaced by the growth of LAX

SF - look in the SFC each day - Ship Traffic-today 15 ships waiting to offload, 11 ships in the departure column. WSJ reporting on the ship traffic in Long Beach area - backed up due to Covid but starting to clear out. Pacific Coast shipping - a main business.

PA is the city supporting SU and the think-tank and government agencies that feed off of SU. San Jose is a different story. Gilroy is the Garlic Capital,
Within the whole state every area has a historic and current role to play - all different. Each supporting a main industry and the people who actively work in those industries.

PA is built out. If you live here and have nothing else to do then looking for fulfillment by "re-imagining" what goes on here is non-productive. Put immigrants in the locations where their skill set is and their supporting communities.

"At the same time, the state should mandate homeless facilities as part of county budgets."

Or at least designate city areas where the homeless can legally establish encampments.

Palo Alto could easily allocate one of its many parks for this purpose.

In Hawaii plane loads of homeless were arriving. The base of the HA business is tourism. Everyone learns some skill set relative to tourism - entertainment, food preparation, working in a store, etc. As the tourist areas filled up with homeless they suddenly were shipped back to the mainland. HA knows what it's business base is and makes sure that all residents, from the children upward, know where the business for the state is. Everyone works, everyone has a job - even of that is to go to school. Life lesson taught in that state.

Hawaii homelessness is irrelevant to Palo Alto issues.

Best to stay on point and focus on the realities here.

-- designate city areas where the homeless can legally establish encampments.

Palo Alto could easily allocate one of its many parks for this purpose.


Yes. Palo Alto should have a tent city for the homeless with porta-potties and regular visitations from social services to ensure their needs (eg. food and medical) are met.

What's wrong with Palo Alto? Such a heartless and self-centered community.

Having a homeless encampment would most likely decrease residential property values in Palo Alto and this consideration is a priority to 99% of the residents.

It's easier to talk of humanitarian ideals rather than actually implement them.

[Post removed.]

"The bay area is one of the highest cost of living areas in the state. All would benefit by placing the homeless in the lowest cost of living places in the state."

Like Kentucky?

Are you advocating moving all of the homeless to some crappy locale just so Palo Alto can remain genteel?

Such compassion on your part.

It is tax time. Everyone is paying taxes - we hope. The problem on the table here- you as an individual can donate as much money as you want to homeless organizations. That is your call based on your financial holdings. When you arbitrarily decide that other people / the city should be tasked with providing funding. That is the cities call - not yours or mine. Or you feel compelled to offer up city resources so you can feel good then that is a problem. Each person can donate what they want to donate but there should not be a price tag of city parks or city resources that are budgeted to the city. you want a feel good at someone elses expense.

@Resident 1-Adobe Meadows. We raise taxes to provide for the common good. We should, and we have, understood that some among us cannot always provide for themselves. Civilized society accepts responsibility for those who cannot manage. We always need to make sure that we are not carrying those who are able but leaving those who can't to lie on the street is totally unacceptable. I am not advocating building massive homeless shelters in PA. Every locale should take some. We have some 80,000 kids in foster care around the state, tragic and so sad for those kids but the system does provide a basic solution. It's interesting how our most concerned can open their hearts and the border to non-citizens while walking past the human tragedies lying on the street and do nothing. A homeless person may have to relocate to obtain shelter but that's still better than the street.

Some of you really are ghouls, you know that? Absolutely miserable humans.

I’m glad that these churches are allowing the homeless to have a place to sleep. It’s the Christian thing to do. Now if only they had homes... But our city council is doing their damndest to make sure that never happens!

+Some of you really are ghouls, you know that? Absolutely miserable humans.

Concurring. Most Palo Altans would rather look the other way than lend a helping hand.

Or send the homeless packing to another state where the cost of living is supposedly cheaper.

NIMBYism is in full bloom and symbolic of this particular city.

But that's OK. What comes around goes around.

"Some of you really are ghouls, you know that? Absolutely miserable humans.

Concurring. Most Palo Altans would rather look the other way than lend a helping hand."

"Most" Palo Altans didn't spend $230,000,000 in the last election to deny gig workers benefits or a living wage.

"Most" Palo Altans DID vote in a new city council that supports rent moderation rather than unchecked development that prices everyone out of the housing market.

"Most" Palo Altans DID vote out those candidates that preferred to give the displaced a moving allowance rather than affordable housing.

Web Link

>"Most" Palo Altans DID vote out those candidates that preferred to give the displaced a moving allowance rather than affordable housing."

^ And just how far has the PACC succeeded to date in providing affordable housing?

Have the RVs and homeless street people all but disappeared?

And has residing in Palo Alto actually been made affordable for those to wish to live here?

It probably would have been better to have accepted a lucrative moving fee (say around $10K) and then wait for hell to freeze over.

The anti-moving fee PACC candidates were simply fiscal restraint types who did not want to shell out any CASH well knowing that the housing debacle would drag on for years.

Progressive Palo Alto residents and PACC members are simply a bunch of "do-gooders" (which equates to "do-nothings") that simply want to look good in a liberal media-based universe.

And as a whole...not very convincing.

We talked about churches while ignoring the gigantic financial cash flows they possess. Right now our city is littered with non occupied low income apartments. Why can’t the church sponsor folks to live in these apartments and establish roots here? Just by parking you still keep them apart and create the opportunity for neighborhood chaos. In fact the Bay Area is not interested in solving the poverty issue. Using capital gains taxation and simply building in cities where there are a ton of land, you can create safe housing for folks. You also have to educated them so they can have the jobs they need to pay for their amenities.

~ We talked about churches while ignoring the gigantic financial cash flows they possess.

The Catholic Church is one of the largest real estate holder/landlords in the world.

They should consider being far more charitable towards the countless poor who support the Church.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

You all are bypassing the obvious - the Santa Clara County. We have fair grounds that have empty buildings with heat, bathrooms, and kitchen facilities. The county should be putting their obvious resources in play here instead of funding non-profits which all have an agenda. The county is pushing it's responsibilities onto businesses which typically operate on the slim thread of profitability. A church is not a money making operation yet they have been tasked to support this operation. If that is their choice then okay. But that still leaves the big question as to why the county is not stepping up to the plate here and putting government owned facilities into play to support the homeless. There are obvious choices but everyone keeps circling those choices and not closing on what the county should be doing. You can include your legislators in this discussion - they have the money and the facilities. They control the funding. You all keep trying to push the job of management of homeless onto any and everyone who has no authority or responsibility for those actions. It is not each cities job here - it is the county and state.

"You all are bypassing the obvious - the Santa Clara County. We have fair grounds that have empty buildings with heat, bathrooms, and kitchen facilities. The county should be putting their obvious resources in play here..."


Only you are bypassing the obvious.

When Covid-19 restrictions are eliminated for large gatherings and the SC County Fair reopens for seasonal attendance, what do you suggest at that point?

Force all of the transient RVs to temporarily resituate and where to?

Back to ECR near Stanford?

Why give up up prime RV parking just because you cannot stand the sight of them?

Hey - Get real the parking lots at the fair grounds are segregated by vehicle size because the space sizes are different. Any time I have gone to the fairs at San Mateo or Santa Clara the parking lots are never filled up, especially with RVs'. When events are planned they do not include all of the buildings. If a building is designated for the homeless then think about all of the fun they will have by being in the fair grounds already and can enjoy the festivities. Hope you are not saying that only the paying people can go to the fairs. The homeless would like to go to the fair to cheer them up - and they are already on the fair grounds.

[Post removed.]

@Resident 1-Adobe Meadows

Send the RVs packing and off to the county fairgrounds so the homeless can enjoy the food vendors, ferris wheels, country music concerts and dirt track racing?

Are you serious?

Joaquin - if we move the homeless over to the fairgrounds and they take one building that has heat, bathrooms, a kitchen section, then that is a good outcome for them. If events take place they can work at the events in some capacity, be working, be out and engaged in the community in a positive capacity. They have shelter, possible work, and some funding from the county. This is for all homeless - not just RV people who can park their vehicles outside in a protected environment. Turn this around as to what is best for the homeless people - they have a better chance in a more protected environment and get some work.

So Joaquin - what community do you live in? Does it have a better solution? Don't point to cities in San Mateo County - they seem to have a good grip on this.

Attn: other RVs parked along ECR.

Just say NO to Resident 1-Adobe Meadows's ridiculous suggestion.

If you leave, someone else will grab your parking space and you will never find a better or safer place to situate.

The area near the fairgrounds is very dangerous and also inconvenient.

If the RV dwellers were willing to pay rent for their long-term parking spaces along ECR, it shouldn't pose a problem.

As for the county fair suggestion, not practical for many of the RV residents who have settled-in along ECR.

This is about people who live in cars. If they are at the Church from 6PM to 8AM where are they the rest of the day? If they had housing in a fair building they would not have to drive away at 8AM. There could be a "game section" near the food court, a children's section outside. There could be a computer in the game section so they could keep up on the goings on, and some books in book shelf to read. They would be inside a building that has a heater, bathrooms. This same type set up has been used for fire victims who had to leave their homes and go to a local rescue location. This is not a new concept - it is the concept used for emergency situations like the fires.
And potential jobs working at events that take place at the fairgrounds - ticket takers, clean-up, food servers, etc.
You want these people to have a secure inside place and jobs.

RV people - the state is scheduling the recovering of El Camino because it is getting very run-down. This includes a more bus-friendly set-up because they want people on busses.

Using the brilliant Resident 1-Adobe Meadows concept, instead of the remote Santa Clara county fairgrounds why not use the parking lots at Oakland Coliseum, the 49er stadium in Santa Clara, and perhaps even Moffett Field?

Until the Covid-19 public gathering numbers are increased (currently at 25%), there is plenty of parking available and during ballgames the RV transients could easily wander about seeking free food from the various tailgaters and even be issued passes to use the stadium restrooms on an interim basis.

Because and as quoted in the first post, "Christians truly care about the homeless. Homeless people are people too."

So we can assume that true Christian sports fans would be more than willing to share and break bread with strangers less fortunate.

This concept could also apply to parking facilities at Stanford Stadium, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, the new Rams/Chargers stadium, Petco Park in San Diego, Dodger Stadium at Chavez Ravine, and the Angel's stadium in Anaheim.

In other words, EVERYWHERE there is a large parking lot with available food and restroom facilities.

Add Shoreline Amphitheater to the mix as well.

And in applying Resident 1-Adobe Meadow's work concept, the transient RV dwellers could simply be assigned parking attendant positions, team jerseys/caps and laminate IDs.

After all, some RV dwellers are sports fans as well.

Picture: Free grilled brauts and free beer on game day (courtesy of the Christian sports fans) + free parking provided by the various facilities.

Jesus would be proud and vigorously chanting "Go Niners" (or Rams, Bruins, Trojans, A's, Chargers, Dodgers, Angels, Padres etc.).

The SF Giants to be included would have to build more parking spaces.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

The the SJM/BAN today is a big article on the homeless. It targets San Jose and their lack of ability to tackle the problem - noting the Guadalupe River Park. In disbanding the homeless they reportedly do not want homeless near schools.

In Palo Alto we have RV dwellers in the middle of the location of a noted high school and University. And the churches noted are directly in the vicinity of a number of both public and charter schools. There is no consistent thought process in this county or state. We pay taxes in and then are left with non=profits that try and fix the problems. Meanwhile our Governor has been telling the world that we - CA is the 6th biggest nation in the world. People are trying - but the state is complicit in the original problem and further compounding it. It is not the federal government's job to correct mismanagement at the state level.

There are still places for homeless vans to park in Palo Alto without drawing excessive or unecessary attention.

Some friends and I take the #22 bus from San Jose to Palo Alto and are currently searching for possible locations.

Others have been recently released from Elmwood due to Covid-19 overcrowding precautions and are also seeking refuge somewhere.

It is hard work to do this on foot after getting off the bus.

Have some compassion for others less fortunate.

Pico - it is comments like yours that confound a person. If you live in San Jose why are you not looking in San Jose to solve your problem? And if people are being let out of Elmwood then why are you looking to come up here to solve Elmwood's problem? Who is telling you that this is the place to come to? Is there some non-profit that is directing people to this location? If so who is it? Your comments are the type that blows up the compassion gig. Look in San Jose. - it is a major city, we are not a major city.

The Guadalupe River encampment is very depressing and unsafe.

My boyfriend just got out of Elmwood (for minor drug possession) and we have situated in Barren Park.

[Post removed.]

It is very difficult to get by these days. With the Covid-19 closures and subsequent loss of jobs, many people are hurting and doing the best they can to survive.

I am one of the homeless but fortunate to have an old van that I can sleep in at nights. And yes I currently reside in Palo Alto, moving about to avoid detection or complaints from neighborhood residents.

To survive, I receive food stamps (about $190.00 per month), and general assistance/welfare (about $150.00 monthly) from Santa Clara County Social Services. This is barely enough to live on and due to my indigent situation, I also received a free Obama-smartphone with unlimited calls/texts and a miniscule allotment of data (about 5gb). So I use public wi-fi at outdoor cafes and grocery stores whenever possible. The key is not be caught loitering about these premises and Palo Alto provides many convenient opportunities.

To supplement my income, I also panhandle for spare change whenever possible and on a good day, I can make about $40.00 in about six hours and then retire to my van.

And as for the recent stimulus checks, I used them to cover my delinquent child support.

So for about $1100.00, one can reside homeless in Palo Alto with or without a moving vehicle.

With the weather getting warmer and the opportunity for a safe and convenient haven, I can understand why the homeless from other areas are seriously considering relocating to the SF midpeninsula.

And BTW, I am not a drug abuser or a person with mental health issues. Just someone who has fallen on hard times having lost my job ( as a computer technician) and apartment due to the adverse economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic.

When things happen such as someone arrested for arson at "safe parking" it puts all programs in jeopardy. Web Link

Accommodating the homeless is the sole responsibility of the various county social services agencies.

We all pay property taxes which in turn subsidize the appropriate safety net programs to assist those less fortunate.

An America with guaranteed fixed incomes and living wages, and Medicare for all will help to reduce many of our social-econpmic inequities.

Tax all of the people making over $300K per year by 50% and our bases will be covered.

Why further reward the greedy and wealthy when others less fortunate are suffering?

America does not need rich people who act and think as if they are never going to die.

A socialist America would ensure a certain degree of economic equality and perhaps alleviate various social problems that arise from dire poverty.

We need fewer wealthy people and more middle income individuals and families.

Then the problematic welfare system would eventually disappear.

No one in America needs to be taking home more than $250K per annum and by ensuring a minimum living salary of $125K a year most folks should be able to get by.

And this can easily be accomplished by severely taxing the extremely wealthy.

I am confounded as to why all of these people focus on PA as a place to live in a van. We have a limited shoreline as comparted to MV which has an extensive shoreline that has a lake, public restrooms, and an outside shower. A cute food location where a person can buy coffee and treats. As a place to go for the day that is better than what can be provided by PA. Redwood City has an extensive shoreline, port, and business section that has a lot of empty buildings and parking lots. Far more interesting than PA which has limited resources. What is the appeal of squeezing into a location that is built out to the borders. A lot of coffee shops are closing now.

° MV which has an extensive shoreline that has a lake, public restrooms, and an outside shower. A cute food location where a person can buy coffee and treats.

^ the public showers remain temporarily closed due to the coronavirus.

and 'buying coffee and treats' is problematic if one does not have the money to do so.

and as for the lake, Foothills Park also has one. why not simply allow this preserve to become a temporary homeless encampment?

just until things get better.

Why does everyone who does not live in this city have a great idea as to how this city can serve one of their goals? Every city has a distinct set of issues and priorities. Please do not volunteer our city for some other city goals. Or regional goals. The cities that surround PA - Los Altos, LAH, MV, MP RWC all have their own set of issues. Even Cupertino - home of Apples - lots of issues.

The two Palo Alto houses of worship on Manuela (a Jewish temple and a Methodist Church) should also make their parking lots available to the homeless RVs with Saturdays and Sundays being the possible exceptions.

Let the RVs park wherever they want providing they keep a low profile.

Old people (aka the older PA residents) are so crotchety.

RV's do not have low profiles. And they take up a lot of room on a residential street. Crescent park has streets full of gardeners, repair people, and other workers. There is no room for RV's on most residential streets if you have to have space for emergency vehicles.
Can we please assume that we are now going to return to a normal life and normal functions in the city. That does not include contorting everything to accommodate people who chose to live by non-conventual means.

Maybe let the movable RVs pile into the parking lots at TC Village and Stanford Shopping Center immediately after 10PM (when stores are closed) and out by 8AM (before the stores open).

This would require that they all be operational, licensed, registered, and insured.

Then the PAPD could monitor the caravan and parking, eventually citing and impounding the RVs that do not meet these requirements.

Chances are the number of RVs in Palo Alto would drop considerably and this measure would undoubtedly satisfy all of the residents who are RV-homeless haters.

I am not a homeless RV hater - I am a critic of people gaming a situation at the expense of the safety of the residents of the city. There are RV camps all over the peninsula which provide electrical power, sanitation facilities, bathrooms and showers. Time and effort was put forth to provide those services. However a group proudly disregards all of that effort and sits in the middle of two educational institutions where students, and the general public will soon be trying to enjoy a return to normal. NORMAL is irrelevant to that group of people. If facilities are provided and then disregarded it puts the whole idea of helping people down the drain. People refuse to go where there is place carved out for them.

Panhandling is another source of income for some homeless individuals and I would imagine that it is not very lucrative near the homeless encampments in San Jose and Santa Cruz.

It's probably more promising in Palo Alto and other more affluent communities.

Pan Handling is not a job. The whole point is to get people in a location where they can get some type of job that gets them going. They should be in a job rich location that has jobs that do not require a major degree. That is major cities which have a diverse economy - and dedicated locations for homeless. San Jose has to get their game up here. They have many unoccupied large buildings near transit centers. If you assume that they do not have cars then being near transit center in a bigger city is important.

* Panhandling is another source of income for some homeless individuals...It's probably more promising in Palo Alto and other more affluent communities.

^ Pandhandling in a depressed area would seem pointless. Like a job, one goes where the money is.

*Pan Handling is not a job.

^ Not an actual job but a means of subsistance for some.

I give to panhandlers (usually a couple of dollars but no more).

Do you embrace a fundamental Christian spirit and do the same?

Or do you look upon these individuals with hatred and contempt?

Giving money to panhandlers is a personal choice and not reflective of any religion.

The question is...when one opts to do so, are we actually helping the individual or perpetuating a bad habit?

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

Are you all getting out and looking at what is happening out there? El Camino Fields had a soccer match going in one section and a baseball game going in the other section. That is what the purpose of that section of land is for - the budget maintains it for games. AYSO is going to be occupying many fields. Little League is getting fired up.

I was at an event and one family just moved here for the schools. They were in a super community in RWC. Education and Schools are what this city is about. People who suggest short-changing our children growth and future are going the wrong way. We are not here to impress the world on every social topic out there. The people who keep trying to impress the world probably do not have children in the schools or investments in the programs that support the family community.

The primary consideration is not to have these RVs parked on city streets where they obstruct traffic and create a potential eyesore for others

On the other hand, if they are parked on private property with the approval of the owners, no problem.

Having recently gotten back from Baja where I lived on the beach in an old Airstream and surfed for over three years, I returned to PA and my buddy has allowed me to park my trailer in the driveway of his front yard...rent-free and I simply step into the house whenever I need to use the bathroom or the kitchen.

My Airstream is situated on a large circular driveway and there is actually room for two more.

My surfing pal having inherited the house from his parents is now thinking of renting the other two spaces out with the stipulation that the trailer tenants seek their shower needs and electricity elsewhere.

Being a contractor, he can easily lease a couple of porta-potties and have them flushed whenever they get full.

All in all, some of the older neighbors may not like the arrangement but since there is no HOA to answer to, he feels he can do whatever he wants and that's cool as he could care less about the predatory RE agents trying to promote the neighborhood as genteel and upscale.

Just think, if more Palo Alto residents rented out their front lawns and driveways to accommodate all of the transient RVs parked along ECR, the congestion problem would be over.

Just think - if all of the RV people went to a dedicated lot where there is electricity, sanitation, and security then the whole point of how we work these issues would be satisfactory for all. Cities devote time and energy to dedicate and fund RV and car dweller locations. Those efforts need to be successful to justify the dedication of land. And to respond to activists groups who say we are not doing enough. If what we are doing is continually circumvented by people doing their own thing then what is the point? Surfer dudes, parolees, homeless, all roaming around and avoiding the locations that are set up for them. Keep it up - at some point people will just stop dedicating land for these efforts.

As to housing - we have all level of cost housing from one end of the city to the other end. San Antonio - solid apartments both high and low end with Del Medio on the backside. Alma, Middlefield, downtown, SU - it is all there - do not say we do not have housing for every working person. We have senior housing - all levels of cost. And more has been approved. We are doing good here. ECR has apartments on both side of the inside tracts - we have more housing than other cities.

*...if more Palo Alto residents rented out their front lawns and driveways to accommodate all of the transient RVs parked along ECR, the congestion problem would be over.

°°I imagine if one had an undeveloped lot in either a residential or commercial area this could also be done, albeit temporarily.

We have an empty 1/4 acre lot that has never been used for anything (except to grow weeds) and though we have received offers to sell it, we've held onto it over the years.

Might make for a good trailer park providing the trailers are decent-looking ones like an Airstream. No ratty-looking RVs or parked cars allowed.

A few Honda AC generators + some porta-potties and boom...an instant Palo Alto KOA style campground in a decent PA neighborhood.

And running water would simply involve extending the sprinkler system line from our house.

Doing the math, it's about a $10K investment with a ROI of roughly $500.00 per month (times 8-10 trailers) and it's profitsville after about 18 months.

With the porta-potties, shared AC generators, and a basic running water allocation included in the seemingly cheap rent, some folks might actually go for it.

@Shark Tank Thinker

Interesting idea but you need to brush up on your math.

All you would need is THREE renters and then you would break even after only twelve months!

After that, it is all profit.

James Davis MBA

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

We are not in Baja using Mexico's rules for housing. We are in a CA suburb that has standards for street use. And neighbors who do not want to go backwards - but forwards. And forwards are all of those real estate ads that show great cleaned-up houses with street appeal. The children on our streets need to be safe. When a person does a search for houses they can do a street scan and look at the whole street. Creativity may be appreciated in some other city regarding trashing the place. Right now every one in my area is investing is really nice front gardens and flowers. Every one is keeping their street appeal spot on and fixing up their homes.

Baron Park is looking good - people there are fixing up. Lots on new homes. BP is not looking to be trashed.

Our congressional leader who came from PA has his offices in Los Altos. Drive through Los Altos - no RV's, all tidy and clean. Sunnyvale - all tidy and clean.
The shark tank people live in great homes in great neighborhoods. So think like a shark tank person.

I've noticed that Mountain View and Palo Alto seem to have ongoing homeless issues whereas Menlo Park and Los Altos appear homeless-free.

Is this based on a city council mandate outlawing the parking of transient recreational vehicles and homeless individuals roaming about?

Excellent point. I went through Los Altos and it is RV free. MP has new apartments east of 101 and a RV Park that provides the services. RWC has a RV park east of 101 across from the sheriff's station.

Parking a streetside RV in a Palo Alto neighborhood for an extended period of time poses some challenges.

One must find a nice secluded place out of view from the homeowner's front window at night and then move to another locale before the sun comes up.

It can be done as the key is not to attract attention.

People like Hector think this is a game. They appear to enjoy the challenge of parking. Other people go park in a designated RV park so that they have full services
and can spend their day doing something productive. How much gas money is spent moving around? A person has to be filling up on a regular basis. Could that money be better spent being in a RV park with all of the services? And no moving around all of the time? A city has to plan for the percentage of people who are busy congratulating themselves for beating the system and breaking the rules.
I know when people have parked in my area - tissue paper left outside, condoms, trash. The is a major problem - trash left behind.

FYI > Parking a transient RV is not a game but one of survival and leaving trash behind is a surefire way to get picked-off.

The key is to park unoticed and this involves either situating your RV near front shrubbery or if one is really fortunate, next to two adjacent homes where one has a front garage and the other, the side of their house.

Arrive late when it's dark and leave early before the sun comes up.

As far as minimalizing gas consumption, if there is a strip mall nearby, swing over there and park during the day.

Parking along ECR between Stanford Avenue and Town and Country in Palo Alto or on Shoreline Boulevard near the Mountain View Library with other RVs is way too congested and the vehicle must remain stationary or you will lose your parking spot.

It is best to remain mobile over short distances with 2-3 alternate parking sites.

I have been doing this for over 5 years now and as a paying customer, I use the restrooms at various service stations and laundromats. The key is to not eat foods that will upset one's digestive tract and a healthy diet ensures this factor.

Lastly, with coronavirus still at large I have dutifully complied with the stay in place public health protocols by remaining inside my RV a majority of the time.

Unless a city ordinance is passed in Palo Alto prohibiting transient RV from parking on certain streets under the penalty of citation, fines, and impoundment nothing is going to change.

Perhaps the City of Palo Alto has simply relegated itself to being an upscale, progressive community that allows those of lesser economic means to park here wherever space is available.

The RVs don't bother me but they seem to raise the ire of others who apparently resent their presence in open view.

Sorry - one person can be neat but that person does not represent the wide variety of personalities that appear here to speak. I think surfer dude is at his parents house - otherwise he would be in Half Moon Bay or San Mateo for wind surfing. Other people have weird reasons for being here - no - we are not that interesting a city - nothing is going on here. There has to be some diversion during the day - other than a job what is it? At least in San Jose you have lot of different neighborhoods with different food. People sneaking around at night - the police will be called. Sneaking around at night is an invitation for wrong doing - or the perception of wrong doing.

I imagine there are also homeless individuals and a few transient RVs in Menlo Park but they are probably more discreet than those in Palo Alto and Mountain View.

There's obviously no need to stick out like a sore thumb or to incure the wrath and contempt aimed at them by others who seemingly despise their presence with a passion.

Let's be clear here - RV's that are housed in a RV park have insurance, ownership papers that are current, and have current DMV licenses. There is an RV park in MP on the east side of 101. RV's that avoid any recognition of current insurance, current DMV registration, and current ownership avoid any RV park. There lies the difference. Those people roaming around have a legal issue relative to the state DMV regulations. If they settle on your street then you had better protect your property.

My street is a target for people who have switched license plates, stolen license plates, and leave trash. I have had the police haul off cars that have stolen license plates - and therefore no recognition of ownership. Had a fairly new GMC truck on the street yesterday that had a 1996 license plate based on the numbers.

Clue to you all - if you take a car to the state give-back program and the license on the car still has some time left in the validity date that plate gets sold to someone with questionable ownership. If you donate a car to a non-profit group and your license plate has time left on it then anything that happens get charged to you - bridge toll charges. Read Mr. Roadshow in the SJM/BAN - people are sending in their complaints about stolen license plates, car parts. Read the police report in the Dailey Post - stolen license plates, stolen car parts.

If you donate a car or sell back to the state get the license plate from the car. That will force any new owner to register with the state and get new licenses. This is a side business - an underground business, and this city is a target because they allow this to happen.

Since my street is a location with a lot of these type issue then I am very aware of it. And I have been to the police department about specific issues which are suspicious. A lot in this area has many non-profits sponsor the migration of people who are very creative in how they solve their transportation problems.

some of us are nomads and proud of our traditional non-conformist culture.

the used RV has replaced our more traditional wagons and Palo Alto is a nice place to live.

there are many opportunities for our people.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

Big picture - each city has a signature element for their city. For Palo Alto that would be SU and PAHS across the street. For Berkley that would be the UC Campus. For Oakland that would be the port system - the third biggest in the state. for San Francisco the tourist locations on the piers and the theatres. In all cases the signature element of a city has been desecrated. Add Portland and Seattle. It is a targeted breaking down of the key foundational elements of the cities. That is big picture. I am not on the side that says that is okay.

Side note - my niece was visiting campuses and though SU was tacky and weird. The city of SF is tacky and weird. And putting the ball park in the middle of the port system is backwards and counter productive to the well being of the city of Oakland. They have a coliseum and should rebuild where they are currently located.

I grew up in LA - West Hollywood. They keep their act up and looking good.

"Big picture - each city has a signature element for their city. "

- That doesn't say a heck of a lot for cities like Newark (NJ), Oklahoma City and some others.

As a flight attendant for United, I detest the layovers in those locales.

New Jersey is Soprano Country. As you roll out of the airport you hear the Soprano song and see the giant pig on the building. Visit Ft. Monmouth and get into Bon Jovi and the "Boss" land. Different vibe but rocking. Good times in New Jersey.

I'll pass on both Asbury Park and West Hollywood regardless of their alleged attributes.

Other progressive cities are leasing blocks of motel and hotel rooms to accommodate the homeless population.

Palo Alto can easily do the same with all of the motels along ECR in Barron Park.

There is a current law stating that homeless individuals cannot be arrested or asked to vacate public areas unless the city provides at least 50% housing availability for them.

It's time for the PACC to step-up and alleviate this condition in Palo Alto.

The hotels and motels along ECR in PA are transitioning ownership. I don't think that the new owners bought property in this city with the intention of housing the homeless. The issue at hand is a county problem not a specific PA problem. The law they are alluding to is a San Francisco City law. Period.

Money has been provided by the state for a low cost housing section in the Leghorn area of MV. There should be some initiation of activity on that project soon. We do have a Navigation Center in town next to the PAMC.
There are four new housing projects approved and waiting for initiation of building activity.
Who is funding the "Accommodate the Homeless"? Barron Park in the residential area is in a new housing boom with great new homes being built. It is ripe for exploitation by the out-of-state buyers.

@The issue at hand is a county problem not a specific PA problem. The law they are alluding to is a San Francisco City law. Period.

- Other CA counties and cities are now taking pro-active measures to alleviate this homeless problem.

Palo Alto along with other midpeninsula cities needs to take some progressive action with the assistance of the county and various church charities.

Of note: the 2019 Supreme Court ruling Martin vs City of Boise which established that the police cannot stop people from camping on the streets or in parks if the city cannot provide them another place to sleep.

This is now a federal mandate and in other parts of the state, San Diego County along with Interfaith Services is striving to establish motel housing for the homeless with a target of 40-50 available rooms.

The Carlsbad City Council also passed a referendum 4-1 to resituate the 500 homeless individuals currently residing in North San Diego County (including Oceanside and Vista).

Also of note: Carlsbad is a more affluent community than Palo Alto and if some of the more desirable CA communities can take these initiatives, so can Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View and others with their countless nondescript motels and hotels along the El Camino Strip.

Or have the city consider booking the two Motel 6s on Mathilda@101 in Sunnyvale and pay the proprietors for their accomodations. The Sunnyvale PD is also quite active in that locale and could keep an eye on things as drug/alcohol abuse, prostitution, and street violence are common predispositions among the homeless.

Or better yet, allow a limited number of homeless to settle in Palo Alto as NIMBYism is not a humanitarian virtue.

Jesus would be proud and an endorsee of any concerted efforts.

[Post removed; excessive commenting.]

Sadly, the former President Hotel cannot be used as a multi-story homeless shelter to ease this crisis. There's plenty of rooms + it's a convenient downtown site.

If other cities and counties throughout California are striving to establish shelter for the homeless, Palo Alto should consider following suit in whatever small way it can.

Though a major California city, Los Angeles now has until October 2021 to clear its homeless streets and encampments.

The mundane motels along El Camino in Barron Park could conceivably ease the problem as many are probably anxious to rejuvenate their businesses following the past Covid-19 closures.

What better way than to receive a subsidy from both the local midpeninsula cities and the county to house the displaced.

It would be both a humanitarian gesture and a viable business opportunity.

The City of Palo Alto can easily achieve this goal if so desired.

It's a small number of cold-hearted and self-serving residents who are against this progressive measure.

[Post removed; excessive commenting.]

@The Big Picture

The real reason North San Diego County is trying their best to get the homeless better situated is because the summer tourist season is rapidly approaching. It has nothing to do with humanitarian gestures or sentiments.

That said, your suggestion in regards to Palo Alto accommodating its homeless population makes sense because Palo Alto is not a tourist city by any means.

Except for those attending Stanford football games and others occasionally passing through town to visit relatives or to attend Silicon Valley business conferences, coming to Palo Alto per se is utterly pointless and lacking in any real purpose or justification.

It is a dull town. Like who would want to kick-back and party in Palo Alto?

This outside visitation factor is also reflective in the local hospitality business as Palo Alto lodging rates are actually cheaper on the weekends as compared to true tourist destinations and resort areas.

So yes, Palo Alto could feasibly accommodate more homeless people and the only ones aghast at the thought are the NIMBYs overly concerned about their residential property values and superficial appearances of a city with zero vacation appeal.

It will take far more than a summer chili cook-off, bucolic Foothills Park, a couple of seasonal street fairs and a piddly zoo to make people want to visit PA.

Does Palo Alto even have a Visitor's and Convention Bureau? Highly unlikely.

Take care of the homeless and do the right thing. Life is too short to be caught up in false appearances.

Dailey Post Opinion section, 05/06 - Tom Elias - "What if the Homeless refuse housing". From one end of this state to the other cities have bought hotels and motels for the homeless that have unfilled rooms. Not all homeless want a room - they prefer the outdoor camps because there are no rules on how they are living. SF is proud of the housing they are providing but in order to move in people have to be subjected to housing advocates who are trying to direct traffic, cure drug related problems, and demonstrate that they are doing the job they are paid to do.

Living in a hotel room provided by the city or county has a personal price on lifestyle which may include a number of illegal activities. Read the article for the enumeration of the issues encountered. Some hotels end up with creative use of the facilities which ups the price tag.

I am assuming that the PA Hills people shop in Portola Valley - That city is trying to prevent SU from building housing in that location - it will ruin the bucolic environment. Are SU personnel tourist?

Housing is an issue no matter where you live and how exciting your city is. Honolulu is a tourist city and is also concerned with where the homeless turn up -at Waikiki? NO! How does a city make money - for PA that is the tech companies that are located here. The buildings are not exciting but the money they produce is. Locations can have a lot of government buildings which are typically closed off to non-badged people. Lots going on that you do not see from the street but humming inside.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]