Town Square

Post a New Topic

Ban on car dwelling loses support in Palo Alto

Original post made on Nov 21, 2012

Palo Alto is preparing to abandon a deeply divisive proposal to ban vehicle dwelling and to explore instead a program in which businesses, churches and possibly city lots would provide space for residents who live in their automobiles.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 11:28 PM

Comments (60)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of University South
on Nov 21, 2012 at 7:42 am

Are churches and businesses going to sign up?

What about those who live in their cars, but don't participate in the program?

Barton said. "If you want to ask the churches and the nonprofits and the businesses to step up, why isn't the city stepping up? I think the city needs to show the way on how to help those who need temporary help."

Many posting comments on the car camping threads suggest that this isn't just a temporary problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by They are too scared
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:35 am

Thanks, Mr. Klein, for trying to help out our residents.

I think the rest are too cowardly. They are pretending they are compassionate and when the proposal fails, they will be able to say they tried.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A-Vehicle-Is-Not-A-Home
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:36 am

It is intellectually dishonest to call people "living" in vehicles as "residents". While it may offer some "legitimacy" to their situation--these are not people who contribute to their "fair share" by:

1) paying utility bills/taxes
2) paying property taxes.
3) provide security to a neighborhood through the sharing of common values--such as looking out for suspicious vehicles likely to be engaged in home robberies.

People who are vehicle-based can easily move from city to city over the course of a week, making them "residents" of just about anywhere that doesn't run them out of town.

The City would be more honest if it called these folks what they are--transients, homeless or vehicle-occupants. But "resident" is clearly not appropriate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:45 am

Questions. Are these vehicles taxed, registered and insured? Do they need an address to do this? Are the drivers licensed? What addresses are on the licenses? Do the vehicles get moved each day?

Do we have laws against cars parked on sweeping days?

These are obvious questions to me, but I never see them mentioned. I would imagine that it is not legal to own a vehicle without an address, but then I am not an expert.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by follow menlo park ftw
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:58 am

Just ban overnight parking on streets as per Menlo Park.
Problem solved.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 9:34 am

Someone dropped the ball on this. You are ruining the city by allowing the homeless and transient to live and pollute the city with their presence. Consistence among neighboring cities is the key. Palo Alto is too lenient and accommodating, and these homeless and transient will continue to take advantage of the city and blight the neighborhoods and parks. MISTAKE!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stephano
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Nov 21, 2012 at 10:54 am

This is a big mistake! Our city is quickly going downhill


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Retiree
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:22 am

As I said before, there are enough services and places for the homeless already provided by Palo Alto. I have seen no support for allowing car dwellers to live in parking lots of businesses and churches, except from the Streets Team.

And isn't "homeless resident" an oxymoron, supported by morons???

This is another disincentive to live and work in Palo Alto, much less locate your business here. Thanks to Larry Klein for voicing a sensible opinion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Remove non-operating cars
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:26 am

follow menlo park: I am in favor of this as it would get rid of the non-operating cars parked here and there. There are two Cadillacs on the Oregon frontage road (vintage with tarp over the convertible) that are an eyesore and haven't moved in months. The police dept. doesn't even enforce the law about vehicles needing to be moved within a certain period of time. The owner must have finally got enough complaints about the really ugly hearse that made this a trio of dead cars as it was moved a few weeks ago. I have a neighbor who habitually leaves cars out that he has no intention of operating. Maybe he would rent the space to people who need a place to sleep? My heart goes out to unhoused folks especially with the colder weather coming up. We need to find a compassionate solution.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Demise of the City
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:33 am

One more step towards Palo Alto morphing into the People's Republic of Bezerkeley. We've already achieved public urination. Now all we need is People's Park, open drug dealing and casual nudity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Silvie
a resident of Menlo Park
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:34 am

I agree with Stephano, it's a very big mistake.

There's an uptick of families moving to Menlo Park from Palo Alto. At the beginning of this school year I was surprised to learn how many kids were moving from PAUSD to Oak Knoll and Hillview. Isn't that backwards? But apparently not anymore. Palo Alto is faltering on a range of fronts and families are selling now while the market it crazy in Palo Alto and buying homes in safer neighborhoods in Menlo Park. This is just adds to the reasons. Very sad to watch these types of policies.....I grew up in Palo Alto.... as an adult I couldn't afford to buy a house in Palo Alto... and now I fee like a dodged a bullet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:38 am

In order to maintain their political correctness images, the newly elected Councilmen and Councilwoman are not helping Palo Alto residents. The pilot program is wasting Palo Alto residents' tax money. There's no clear agenda that should benefit PA residents in this pilot program. This is one of records PA voters should consider in the next election.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by vehicle-can-be-home
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:39 am

re A-Vehicle-Is-Not-A-Home
Although nice, and maybe preferred by some, a 'home' or 'permanent address' is not a requirement of living in the US. And living in a vehicle does not necessarily make one 'homeless' (in the sense that it is currently used). I lived in a van for 18 months, but I was not homeless. It was my home. I traveled the country, visiting states, cities, national parks that I would never have seen otherwise - sometimes staying weeks at a time in an interesting place. I utilized the local economy: bought gas, groceries, used laundromats and occasional camping facilities. But most times I parked on the street or in some lot. Being frugal extended my time on the road.
Now you might argue that the object of concern in PA are "squatters" and not "travelers". But what is the difference, other than time spent in one place? We have to figure out what the true issues are, and separate them from what we may dislike about other people being different.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:45 am

The council subcommittee punted...to nowhere.

Larry Klein said it is not a problem, except for those residences that are directly affected by it (car campers). He said he asked about a dozen of his friends if it as a problem, and they said "no"; he then reversed the question and asked if it would be a problem if the campers were in front of their own homes. Guess what, they reversed themselves and said it would be a problem. In other words, for Larry, it is whose ox is getting gored...to hell with the current complainers. Thus far, nobody is parking in front of his house, but that could easily change.




Then I saw that clergyman from the church in College Terrace. He came off as a religious fanatic to me, claiming that we should all open up our hearts to the car campers. However, why was his church parking lot not offered as part of the solution? Hypocrit, IMO.

The City and the churches do not want to touch the issue (too complicated and expensive). Explanation: We don't want our ox to get gored, just let 2-3 neighborhoods suffer the consequences.

One of the issues they did not want to discuss is the devalution of property values, when campers set up camp. Just the other day, Larry Klein was talking about the increased property values, if a neighbohood has parking limit controls (he seemed to want the neighborhood to pay a fee, relateed to their increased property values). Thus, Larry understands property values, related to various parking/camping issues. As long as it doesn't affect him directly, he is quite willing to turn a blind eye.

One positive thing came out of last night's meeting: There was mention of placing 'no parking between 1-4 AM' to cover various commercial zones, especially including the JJ&F area. This would be a very welcome action. That dude that has set up his parking lot for his many vehicles would get nailed. Maybe he could just move his junkers over to Larry Klein's neighborhood...nice little cul-de-sac at the end of his street, very near his own home. Larry might get the message, at that point.

Bottom line: Put it to a vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:48 am

As a business owner on University Ave (not resident of Palo Alto), I am sick of all the homeless people peeing and defecating in the alleys. It is disgusting, but they need to go "somewhere" when they don't have a home!! Living on the streets is a bandaid problem that needs to be fixed by the government, and allowing them to live on the streets only prolongs this state of uncertainty.

This town needs to get it's act together before it goes downhills along with San Francisco. Ban the vehicle dwellers!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:49 am

This city is going downhill!!! I can't believe the council thinks this is going to help the homeless. All it's going to do is make the homeless situation worse and Palo Alto will become a magnet. They will set up camp, cost the city money to clean up after them, and create sanitation issues! Get ready for Occupy Palo Alto!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chrisc
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:51 am

There are lots of vacant businesses with vacant lots. The city could manage who can park where. These people could buy permits, putting money into the city. What about portapotties? I think these junk camper people already have a network in place as they seem to move in caravans to the next stop after three days.

I do feel sorry for the residents who have to see the unsightly vehicles leaving and returning to their homes. Let them park in crescent park awhile and see how quickly the issue is resolved.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:52 am

This most definitely should be voted on! Just like the pot shop measure!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth Maulick
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm

There is definitely something wrong with the city laws when the city spends time and effort to ban basketball hoops off our neighborhood cul de sac where kids can have something productive to do in a safe environment -BUT allow to have cars and vans with garbage spewed and parked throughout the city without any consequences. Look no further than Cubberly football field parking. It just doesn't seem consistent!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Force A Vote
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm

As A-Vehicle-Is-Not-A-Home has clearly pointed out, a vehicle is NOT a home no matter what anyone says.

People living in vehicles are squatting on public property and are not residents of the town in any way that the rest of us are (property owning / rent paying). People living in vehicles need to classified as either homeless OR people who have chosen this as a lifestyle.

Clearly as a society we should help the homeless find food, clothing and shelter - and provide them assistance to get on their feet. People for whom this is a lifestyle choice need to leave town - this town is not a slum for them to squat in.

The City Council has done WRONG by the citizens of Palo Alto by these decisions that represent a poor use of public money (who pays for the cost of cleanup / liability etc), public property and impact on residents. We need this to come on the ballot so we can all make our voices clearly heard that this is intolerable.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Another issue: We are often attempted to be shamed, by the shamers, about trying to "ciminalize" homelessness. Don't be cowed by that guilt trip. If it is not criminalized, there will be no solution. How can we possibly compell a complete solution, unless it is criminalized? Giuliani, in NYC, understood this basic truth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol
a resident of University South
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Given the cost of living in Palo Alto and the surrounding area, and the lack of sufficient affordable housing, job and income supports, how can we be surprised that some people and even families must now call a vehicle home? It is cruel to tell someone who is struggling to just go someplace else when there is no place. We as a community must come together to provide that place and the supports to help people build a better future for all of us.

The Downtown Streets Team has done impressive work in assisting many homeless people gain homes and jobs. Let's support this important program in helping more of us without homes. I say this as someone who is now a homeowner who once lived with my young son in an old school bus and in a long abandoned office building without electricity while we were homeless and struggling to survive. We need to help people without homes, not blame and shame them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by vandweller
a resident of another community
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm

Most every other city in the bay area has laws against van dwelling and they do not work. Go to San Francisco and drive around the Great Highway, Golden Gate Park, or Hunters Point. Blacked out vans and RVs are everywhere. Cops are not going to break into a van because they suspect someone is living inside - all they can do is mark the tires and post a notice saying the vehicle must be moved within 3 days. The person living in the van then moves one block and the cycle repeats. Police time is wasted and nothing changes.

Why not identify places where a few extra vans won't be in anyone's way and let them stay there. Kick out anyone who causes problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frustrated
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm

More idiocy and cowardice from the city council. Residents do not want homeless people living out of their cars in town. It's a public health, safety and quality of life problem.

The city council shows idiocy, not compassion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm

> how can we be surprised that some people and even families must now call a vehicle home? It is cruel to tell someone who is struggling to just go someplace else when there is no place. We as a community must come together to provide that place and the supports to help people build a better future for all of us.

Carol, just open up your own home! This is NOT an unreasoanble request. Walk your talk! Same for all the liberal do-gooders that want to dump the problem off on all of us homeowners. What is your address? I can certainly announce that you are willing to take in an individual or family. Or are you just one more hypocrit?

Do you support putting it to a vote?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cubberley Neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Many of these posters don't get it. The Cubberley parking lot is being used continually by people sleeping in their cars over night.

The residential neighbors of Cubberley are fed up; we want the rest of Palo Alto to take their fair share of the vehicle dwellers. Why aren't vehicle dwellers allowed to stay in the Lucie Stern parking lot? This is a case of a predominantly northern biased City Council dumping the problem on a small area of south Palo Alto.

Meanwhile, the Police were recently stopped by the City's Manager at Cubberley from enforcing the parking restrictions at Cubberley, and removing the long time vehicle dwellers. That Manager should be fired.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Palo Parent
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Cubberley Neighbor: I have news for you; try walking around Cubberley between the hours of 10PM and 6AM. There are easily 6-10+ additional people sleeping in sleeping bags in the hallways and bushes at Cubberley! It's not limited to the people sleeping in their cars.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RT
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Let me know where the petition is to put this on the ballot - I'll sign it!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Craig Laughton and others believe that we should criminalize the homeless. Okay, we send them to jail where we house, clothe and feed them at a minimum of $20,000.00 per person per year. Are you going to pay for that Craig?

One of the first things Nazi Germany did was to remove all of the Gypsies, mentally ill and homeless from society. But they employed a much cheaper solution to the problem.

Everybody is complaining about the existence of the homeless yet no one is complaining about the cause to the rapid rise in homeless.

For some reason the municipalities, environmentalists, developers, property owners and other special interests don't want to provide an abundance of housing commensurate with the number of people and jobs.

The anger directed at illegal behavior is justified, directing anger at those who have no place to exist because society has intentionally excluded them a place to exist is an illogical and dishonest justification to hate them into jail at a much higher cost to society then producing a consistently adequate supply of housing.

Due to significant rise in incomes from the local tech industries property owners, who did not need any more money then what they were currently receiving, decided to increase their rents not once, not twice but multiple times in order to take away a significant portion of the tech workers' incomes. The property owners could do this because the tech workers could afford it.

However the employees at the local cleaners, restaurants, grocery stores, hardware stores and coffee shops could not and cannot afford the high cost rent, which is not exclusive to Palo Alto but common to the entire bay area.

Some municipalities have an extreme lack of enforcement in their housing codes enabling as many as 10 adults to pack into two bedroom apartments. Palo Alto does not allow such violations to take place. This perpetuates the problem and ultimately increases homelessness.

The solution is to create a surplus of housing compared to the number of jobs and citizens, not in Palo Alto alone, but the entire Bay Area just as we had in the 1970s and early 80s.

I am not talking about subsidized housing, or below market housing but a supply of housing to meet the needs of everyone citizen.

The question that I put to Craig and those who hold to his perspective is, why have you allowed the property owners to exploit you by taking away significant portions of your incomes unnecessarily?

Why have you allowed local and state officials to create policies which have resulted in a shortage of housing for the benefit of property owners by forcing you to hand over the fruit of your labor unnecessarily?

If you would actively protect the incomes of your own hard work from being taken away unnecessarilly then perhaps homelessness would simply disappear back into the framework of an economy which enables everyone to afford a place to live without the necessity of expensive a social service or prison industry which we all have to pay for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm

>Craig Laughton and others believe that we should criminalize the homeless. Okay, we send them to jail where we house, clothe and feed them at a minimum of $20,000.00 per person per year. Are you going to pay for that Craig?

Unless we criminalize homelessness, we cannot compell the homeless to accept help. The original John Adams would probably agree with me, in the curent era. At least Giuliani does. Without compulsion, there is no solution. The cruelty of the liberal mindset, on this issue, is palpable.

However, let's keep our eye on the car campers:

Time to put it to a vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Craig,

What kind of help do they need?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Agree With Craig
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm

John Adams: My stance through all of my comments (and I believe Craig) too has been clear. If homelessness is the result of someone falling on hard times society should lend a hand - and there are already plenty of places that do. If we need for the city and citizens to contribute something more to provide basic assistance then that should be done. This is a matter of compassion and the person in hard times would probably be glad to live somewhere other than their car while they find their bearings quickly.

On the other hand if living in cars is a lifestyle then that cannot be supported in this town. I am sure that there are other places where it would be welcome but I dont welcome it here.

Put this to a vote!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RT
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Craig- what's the process for getting this on the ballot?
I'm ready to sign a petition today.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Emanuelle
a resident of Southgate
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm

What happens if few or no churches sign up for this? Theircongregations may not want this in "their" parking lots.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Catriona
a resident of Stanford
on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by no car sleepers
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Kick them out of their cars so noone knows where they are sleeping - or trespassing for a place to partake in the biological necessity of sleep.......


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Norm
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:19 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joh Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm

>Please explain how you are going to help the 500 Palo Alto full-time employed individuals obtain housing?

What an absurd argument. Simple answer: Commute from Salinas or Tracy or EPA, or anywhere else they can find housing that meets their income. Like everybody else! Stop complaining!

Put the car camping issue to a vote!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Agree With Craig
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm

John Adams: What world are you living in? Have you heard of the word "commute"? All of us commute to our places of work wherever that is. And whether you like it or not no one is entitled to live anywhere other than where their means allow you to do so. Millions of people live in that manner and have a perfectly good life.
Quit complaining and dont conflate issues. This is quite simply a discussion on people that want to live in their cars in neighborhoods that they have not paid to live in. Pure and simple.

Time to get a measure organized.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by local gurl
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm

So you pass an ordinance allowing people to live in their cars but at the same time I can't make a small improvement to my house without paying through the nose for a permit, and code enforcement has the right to tell me how tall my grass can be. Just not equitable. Let's focus on finding people places to live that are clean, safe and a solution to this problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by local gurl
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm

And last I looked, there are no public bathrooms where folks are camping out!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm

>Time to get a measure organized

I am in discussions to do exactly that. If you want to join the effort to put the measure on the ballot, please let me know. We will need to collect approximately 5k signatures, once the petition is ciruclulated. Some of these signatures will come via the Internet (from individuals who simply sign their own petition, but we will still need to put feet on the ground).

Let me know if you are serious. It will take a critical mass.

Regards,

Craig Laughton
claught1@earthlink.net


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 4:37 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Matt Zuckerberg
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2012 at 4:56 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by English Teacher
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2012 at 4:56 pm

@Craig Laughton

Regardless of my political views, I hope that you proofread the petition. Hypocrite has an 'e' at the end, something you have neglected twice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm

>Regardless of my political views, I hope that you proofread the petition. Hypocrite has an 'e' at the end, something you have neglected twice.

You are correct. I stand corrected.

Now, do you support a vote on the issue?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cid
a resident of another community
on Nov 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm

cid is a registered user.

John Adams , a resident of the Professorville neighborhood said why do folks allow landlords to take so much of your pay?

I believe it's due to supply & demand.

FOLKS could go live more frugally in MO, for instance,,, but then you would no longer be living in California!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm

John Adams is a registered user.

I wish to reiterate that which I stated earlier because the Palo Alto Weekly removed my remarks by falsely claiming that I was using multiple names.

So Craig,

make sure that when you write your initiative that you make it illegal for for homeless people to exist in Palo Alto or anywhere in the United States.

If you limit your initiative to taking away vehicles from vehicle dwellers you will not be solving the problem of them, urinating, defecating, littering, sleeping and eating in public.

Please keep in mind that your vote doesn't truly count for California voters enacted Prop 8 to have the courts rule it Unconstitutional just like they will should you enact a law that takes away people's property solely based upon their status.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 10:16 pm

John Adams is a registered user.

As far as the cost of housing goes, if your kid's teacher had to commute from MO then you wouldn't have anyone to educate your kid.

If your gardeners and housekeepers had to commute from Manteca then you would have no one to clean your house or mow your lawn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 10:25 pm

John Adams is a registered user.

Posted by Maria, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, 10 hours ago

As a business owner on University Ave (not resident of Palo Alto), I am sick of all the homeless people peeing and defecating in the alleys. It is disgusting, but they need to go "somewhere" when they don't have a home!! Living on the streets is a bandaid problem that needs to be fixed by the government, and allowing them to live on the streets only prolongs this state of uncertainty.

This town needs to get it's act together before it goes downhills along with San Francisco. Ban the vehicle dwellers!

You see as Maria points out, it is not the Vehicle Dwellers who are peeing and defecating, its the homeless.

So lets all vote yes on Craig's initiative and place all of the homelesss into jail at a cost of $20,000.00 per person per year.

I expect Craig to be the first person to pony up his share of the cost.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:01 pm

John Adams is a registered user.

Craig has made the assertion, "The original John Adams would probably agree with me,"

Below are quotes from John Adams: Second President of the United States, Founding Father and Signer of the Declaration of Independence, will the Palo Alto Weekly allow these truths, these freedoms and histories of our Nation be published to our community to demonstrate the lack of legitimacy to Craig's position?

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty."
John Adams

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
John Adams

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." John Adams.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
John Adams

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
John Adams

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
John Adams

"The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea."
John Adams


"There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society" John Adams

Me thinks John Adams and Abraham Lincoln would oppose Craig.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln


 +   Like this comment
Posted by W Dean
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm

W Dean is a registered user.

Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a former resident of midtown.

Christ said the poor will always be with us.

In today's world that largely means the homeless and disenfranchised.

Having lived in both Palo Alto, a very progressive/liberal community some 40 years+ back and now in a bastion of conservative thought and action (Phoenix, AZ) I see two different approaches to fair and equitable treatment to the persons of whom Christ was speaking.

Living in cars, sanctioned or not by the city,and sleeping in parks surely is not a long-term solution.

While many have demonized Phoenix and Arizona for its conservative political thought, few have examined what the city has done to address the needs of the poor, homeless, and transient population for which it is a magnet.

I won't try to explain to you how the Human Services Campus operates to meet these folks basic needs, but will direct you to the link www.humanservicescampus.org and to the "history" section to get a flavor of what the compassion of half a dozen non-profits and the city and county can accomplish.

In complete transparency I'll admit I'm a humble member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul since 1986, the "food" element of the campus (SVDP in Phoenix has provided over 40 million meals since 1952, never missing a single day to those "except by the grace of God" we might indeed be.

I realize Palo Alto is about 5% the population of Phoenix, but in conjuction with Menlo Park and Mt. View and other adjacent cities might build an HSC on a smaller scale to meet the temporary housing, nutritional, medical and job training needs of this most vulnerable segment of society.

What you see and read in the media about Phoenix and our infamous County Sheriff Arpaio does not reflect the real compassion of the city and county.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by homeless
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 23, 2012 at 7:52 pm

homeless is a registered user.

Please post info if you know a rental place: small apartment or studio; 400 sq ft or more, full kitchen and full bath, balcony or yard. In-Law-Unit? No thanks. I like privacy, peace and quiet space.Also need parking for my v-e-h-i-c-l-e.Will pay uo $1000 per month plus utilities. Month to month lease.
Thanks
Vehicle Dweller


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 23, 2012 at 8:59 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

" Please post info if you know a rental place: small apartment or studio; 400 sq ft or more, full kitchen and full bath, balcony or yard. In-Law-Unit? No thanks. I like privacy, peace and quiet space.Also need parking for my v-e-h-i-c-l-e.Will pay uo $1000 per month plus utilities. Month to month lease.


I do.

But you will have to use that vehicle for it's intended purpose and drive it to the Denver Metro Area.

Cubberley was always problematical for the REACH program. Now I know why it had a " ripe " reputation and smell while I was in the REACH program.

You better figure out something before the " professional homeless snowbirds " start showing up. Your climate and your willingness to share all you have in Palo Alto will draw people from the colder areas of the country just like San Francisco has. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by bru
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 25, 2012 at 12:02 pm

bru is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff because it referenced a now-deleted portion of another post.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

What is the problem with dealing with FACTUAL INFORMATION about Golden Gate Park in San Francisco? About becoming a magnet like M.V.? Are the FACTS about what the homeless do in GGP so horrible that you have to censor them. That is a REALITY you have to face in Palo Alto if nothing is done about this problem. Grow a pair and keep ALL the facts you are given. Don't slant your journalism. ( you have not been REPORTING for years )


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Trainspotting
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Trainspotting is a registered user.

City Council is failing us. For a period of time this year, the police had routinely checked on the car campers at Cubberley and various places throughout the city. That was until City Council had told the police to stop because articles were written about the police encounters. In addition, City Council cited Cubberley is not technically managed by the city is managed by the school district, as the school district has deeper pockets for insurance.

Web Link

I'm ashamed of inviting friends to throw a baseball around at Cubberley because of the yellow van that is permanently parked there. Has anyone seen it lately? The piles of trash keeps growing. I can't imagine what it'll look like after this weekend's storm.

What are the other cities around doing or not doing for the homeless compared to Palo Alto? I'd be interested to know as the homeless problems aren't as obvious or in plain sight as Palo Alto's problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by thompsonr
a resident of Los Altos
on Apr 25, 2013 at 7:56 pm

thompsonr is a registered user.

I work 60 hours a week and if I worked three times that much I wouldn't be able to afford a studio. aldo, my last 5 landlords have been foreclosed on and were embezzling the rent. typical spineless behavior of their stock. it is not scrupulous to pay a fortune for sub par housing in a paranoid socialist living community. The decisions made by community,education,and business leaders result in the ever widening gap between rich and poor. the ladder to the middle class has been pulled up. I work in the same pay and conditions that the billions of third world people that the rich have brought in to replace me, because they are more eager to receive poor treatment. one cannot help to notice the mismanagement of infrastructure by the elite, which results into me being forced to live in my car and work under those upper echelons that are intellectually inferior while the company has no real profit but looks clean. I personally will never take a loan from anyone and have the common sense not to buy that don't have the money for right now. I own my car, pay tons of taxes on it which go directly against me, and can park it sleep in it, and even eat an evil hamburger inside.


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

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,385 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 17 comments | 1,998 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,646 views

Medical
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,583 views

Vikram Chandra's "Geek Sublime" and 10/3 event at Kepler's
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 503 views