International cyber threats are real on our country’s large industrial infrastructure plants — so the absurdity that our most vulnerable poor individuals & families will be sheltered in the direct path of these very real, ongoing threats is just humanely, wrong. It’s not safe at all. This seeps of everything wrong in Palo Alto’s lack of empathy, human understanding, human mammal climate crisis. As well, somehow a multi Billion dollar highly guarded infrastructure facility and a low bottom multi million dollar multi family poor shelter will co-exist amicably among is a nice dream — reality. It is among our old outdated fossilized turds and next to our newly engineered, poop water is all plain, farcical. We might as well build these direly needed homes under freeway interchanges, or below a nuclear power plant or next to massive power line grid. We can do so, so much better for our severely “handicapped” residents. How about do such good for the psyche of our souls and embrace a kind of true answer to that which afflicting very hurting people of our region? Idea: now vacant lot on Cambridge in Cal Ave district. The majority of council is hugging the bay land’s turd plant as a emergency home site 2) there is nada a PANA (Palo Alto Neighborhood Association screaming “not in my back yard.” 2) out of sight, out of mind. 3) methane is factually poisonous and combustible. As well the amount of barbed wire needed to lock down the plant will cost even more.

So Council Man Burt is touting a nature preserve as motivation for morale building, job trading services where no busses go, poor people flow — where ? Salt water to the east, waste water to the south, stench from the north, poison will accumulate at the four corners of homeless hell.

This is just the most hideous, awful plan we can come up with in a valley of innovation. It’s like erecting a semi permanent refuge camp near the front of a combat zone. How in this breakdown of common decent human sense did it get to this low bottom point of no return???

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

What is Palo Alto getting out of this?
The City would pay $40 million of the estimated $56 million current price, but get next to no water from it, instead sending it to other towns for their use.
And be a crappy neighbor to the traditional housing residents.
Why in the world we approve this project? I see no sense in it.

Elections have consequences. The political reality is we mostly elect people who would never put a homeless shelter within several blocks of a single family home. Which means they cannot exist close to transit or amenities, and can only happen on the extreme fringes of our community.

Another example of this in the 5th Cycle Housing Element. (And 6th.) By law, there has to be a place in the city where it's legal to build a homeless shelter. Palo Alto chose -and continues to choose- industrial-zoned swampland North of 101. But not By San Antonio --up around Embarcadero.

So it's a pattern of behavior.

It will never not be this way until we start choosing better people. But when the sorts of people we do choose to represent us allow a homeless shelter in a compromised location like this, we should support it and see it through. Because we need the facility, and the compromised location is better than no location.

Com’on @Scott. I believe in my heart you r better than “good v evil” generational housing endemic. Or better, bowing 2 lesser of 2 evils. Planting our most vulnerable in a precarious, climate unfriendly,, flood shore surely is not a solution but a delusion meeting an end to a long arduous process, Nimby v Yimby. The city through mechanisms of AI, tech stock options, a string hold of PANA have forced a less solution. While waste water gets diluted, city governances get polluted w expedient answers 2 generational/economic challenges.
“It will never not be this way until we start choosing better people. But when the sorts of people we do choose to represent us allow a homeless shelter in a compromised location like this, we should support it and see it through. Because we need the facility, and the compromised location is better than no location.” Make it workable, cohesive. We can construct a quality structure yet who will & how will the services b administrated & thus successful. The vulnerable may have a wall 2 the elements yet how is the supportive services going to be facilitated, coordinated, connected? Provide internal, safety yet 2 overcome the barriers set in place long before a wall erected is a whole other story. This should not b a composite structure,? yet a place/enviro from which families & individuals can forward life. “Camping” a pod shelter next to a poop factory on the edge of sea level rise is not a path but a wall of disfunction. Instead of connection it’s a cut off checking a box. All else is up 2 the responsibility of low wage non profit workers (a few or 2 certified) 2 help tie the broken. Modular design is one thing, longevity of success is another. PA commits millions 4 what? 7 years. Look at The Opportunity Center. Mess after mess of disfunction, passing a buck, disorganization, City’s blind eye 2 economic uncertainty, internal wage disparity, unskilled crisis management hourly wage hires. This is a time 2 make it right & good. GIT.

First of all, I'd like to ask Palo Alto Weekly/Online/Town Square what the posting rules are again. We surely got a big dose, an overdose, of "Native to the BAY".

I don't like the plan for it's location, and it has nothing to do with being near the water treatment site. It's the isolation and disconnection with shopping and services, only available by crossing over Highway 101. And not a park with playgrounds and green grass near the units or any other things to make them feel welcomed as members of our community. I understand it's meant to be transitional housing, but what are the rules and limits on that, and what is the City doing to advance their situations to get them out of transitional housing and into permanent housing?

Gale do you know how to scroll down the page? What is your personal beef against someone expressing relevant and timely thoughts on the subject at hand?

@Native I saved this page to savor later. I will comment when I have more time to go into deep thinking mode. I will quote your passages so your comments won't get completely lost.

I am vehemently opposed to putting transitional housing next to a huge full toilet.

Dear Editor,
Monday night the Palo Alto City Council discussed the Water Purification Plant with its size and impact on its location at the San Antonio Baylands. In side comments questions were raised about the LifeMoves facility for homeless persons that will be located nearby.
When persons are homeless and living in such a facility they, with the help of staff, will want to try to solve their difficult challenges (such as income, health care and housing). This will mean they will need to go to many offices/services in the area. How will they get there? Staff, services and transportation will be key to any success and we have to admit their challenges are huge with housing so scarce.
Suggesting that placing this facility at the Baylands next to a large water processing site and at a place where transportation and services are very hard to reach is a sad lack of recognition of the many real needs they have.
Patty Irish
850 Webster St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Site is glitchy today. You may want to remove personally identifying information above for privacy's sake. I tried to email the moderator but apparently I'm barred from doing that at the moment.

The premise of shoehorning in a transitional homeless shelter in built up Palo Alto was ridiculous from the start, but promoted and approved by our odd county and city “representatives.” It IS an odd location: I notice the desire by certain politicians to “punish” a successful city.
- Now complaints about the location.
As we all know, Palo Alto is a highly educated, highly employed community.
The future residents of this installation should indeed be located near social security, drug counseling, public clinic, police department, bus lines, basic employment services… But it’s too late.
And this should NOT be in Palo Alto. It doesn’t make sense.
Millions allocated to this from array of government, including this city. We are plenty generous.
Time to quit complaining as outsiders are brought in to Palo Alto to this shelter. Meanwhile San Jose is spread out, under-built, FAR cheaper land and cost of living and likely better basic employment prospects.

What's that old saying? Beggars can't be choosers.