Letters to the editor
Original post made on Oct 26, 2013
Read the letters to the editor here Web Link posted Friday, October 25, 2013, 12:00 AM
on Oct 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm
I'm a little confused. In the recent flyer from YesOnD you are prominently featured claiming "Measure D will help seniors like ME stay in Palo Alto." You claimed you had to move to Portland because YOU couldn't afford to rent in Palo Alto. Were the rents in Mt. View, Sunnyvale or San Jose also too high? Or was it a job in Portland which lured you away from your family. Then you returned and had to move in with your 101 year old father. Now you are telling us that it is your FATHER who would be deprived of a place to live if Measure D is defeated. Who will it be next week?
on Oct 26, 2013 at 9:53 pm
Thank you. At the hearings PAHC claimed that the occupancy rate for senior housing is 1.1 seniors per unit. That would mean 66 seniors in the Maybell Orchard apartments. YOU, on the other hand, claim that "All No on D will do is deprive over 100 of our elders of any hope of remaining in town." Is that a more realistic figure or is it just 'ad hominem hyperbole'.
You are absolutely correct. The goal IS PC zoning reform. Like 1967, Maybell Avenue is just the first battle in the city-wide war to stop the insane over-development of OUR Palo Alto. Maybell Avenue had the courage to say NO to the developers and the City Council. Now the rest of the city has been awakened to the destruction which will be caused by the likes of Jay Paul and Ken Hayes. That the traffic glut every day all over Palo Alto is not the enemy of development; it is the result of it. It is the necrosis caused by the cancer.
YOU, of all people, who want to stop the rape of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park by the Mayor's former employer, should realize that these are not isolated cases. NIMBY is not living in isolation. It is realizing that by helping others protect their neighborhood, you protect your own.
on Oct 27, 2013 at 1:10 am
There are many well meaning people who advocate this rezoning based on an emotional reaction to low income senior needs. Many do not yet know that this building has only apartments in it and no amenities. They do not ask questions about whether the very large subsidies spent on this project are the best way of providing housing for low income seniors.
We do not have infinite tax money. What if subsidizing these seniors' rents is a more efficient way of Supporting them than spending millions, defacing neighborhoods and build these segregated buildings for low income seniors?
I am voting NO on D because I w ant to hear a discussion of why this is the most efficient use of the tax payer funds.