|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
After failing five years ago, Palo Alto is once again exploring the idea of establishing overnight parking zones for recreational vehicles.
This time, however, the city preparing to try something new: use public land to jump-start the program.
The City Council agreed on Monday night to advance a proposal from Councilman Tom DuBois and Councilwoman Lydia Kou to consider city-owned sites as possible launch pads for a new “Safe Parking” program. By a 5-1 vote, with DuBois absent and Councilman Greg Tanaka dissenting, the council directed staff to identify such sites, which could include two properties: 1275 San Antonio Road near East Bayshore Road and 2000 Geng Road, which neighbors Baylands Golf Links.
In proposing the ban, DuBois and Kou pointed at the substantial growth in the region’s homeless population, with results from a recent census showing a 31% increase of homeless individual in Santa Clara County between January 2017 and January 2019. The memo argued that the city needs to address the matter “from a health and safety standpoint.”
“The effort must be made to find immediate short and long term solutions,” the memo states. “The ultimate goal is to provide assistance to people to get them back on the path to stable housing.”
Several council members and residents pointed out during the Monday discussion that even if the program is adopted, it will not be enough to address the root cause of the problem: a shortage of housing. Councilwoman Liz Kniss argued that the city hasn’t built enough low-income housing and the problem of RVs parking along El Camino Real and on neighborhood streets is partly “our own doing.”
Vice Mayor Adrian Fine concurred and alluded to the city’s failure to meet regional targets to housing production, particularly when it comes to below-market-rate housing.
“When we meet 6% of our very low-income housing (allocation), this what happens,” Fine said.
Fine also suggested that the problem may soon become more pronounced. Mountain View, which has recently adopted its own “Safe Parking” program is now considering an overnight ban on RVs, which Fine said could drive many of them to Sunnyvale and Palo Alto.
In a letter he submitted Monday, DuBois agreed that the city needs to increase its efforts to spur more affordable housing. That, however, is a separate issue.
“Tonight is to consider the plight of our brothers and sisters who live in vehicles and ensure they are safe, sanitary, and engaged with employment and housing placement services,” DuBois wrote.
The council assigned the task of vetting possible programs to its Policy and Services Committee. Tanaka argued that the issue should first be explored by the city’s Planning and Transportation Commission and Human Relations Commission, though his colleagues rejected this idea. Kou said she was concerned about the length of time it would take for all the commissions to complete its work.
“I think it is a matter right now in front of us and I really want it to move more speedily than before,” Kou said.
The only provision of the memo that the council rejected was the one calling for staff to consider ways to distinguish between low- and high-income RV dwellers. It also proposed exploring new parking regulations on city streets, once managed spots are available for low-income individuals.
Several council members, including Fine and Councilwoman Alison Cormack pushed back against this means-testing provision.
“It makes assumptions based on data we don’t have yet and it extends it from helping people who are currently living in cars to changing parking regulations in the streets,” Cormack said. “I’m not comfortable with that.”
The council approved an amendment by Cormack to delete the provision by a 4-2 vote, with Kou and Tanaka dissenting.
For Palo Alto, the proposed is just the latest attempt to deal with the issue of RV parking. In 2014, the council briefly explored a safe-parking program at local churches but that program never advanced.
In 2013, the city responded to the growing number of resident complaints about people sleeping in cars near their homes by banning car camping. That council repealed it the following year, shortly after a U.S. Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit struck down a similar law in Los Angeles.
Several residents urged the council to move ahead with the new parking program and, in some cases, go a step further. While the council memo proposes equipping RV-parking sites with bathrooms and showers, resident Edie Keating said it would be extremely helpful for the users of the program to also have electricity access.
Steven Lee, who serves on the Human Relations Commission but was speaking as an individual and not representing the commission argued that the proposed program is a good start to address a growing problem.
“If we are serious about helping residents who are homeless and living in their vehicles, we need to do more than to just provide safe parking lots and access to services. We need to address the root cause and get serious about housing,” Lee said shortly before the vote. “It’s time that Palo Alto follow the lead of neighboring cities and to get serious about the issue of homelessness and individuals living in RVs.”
Council member DuBois proposes a memo to his colleagues and the doesn’t show up to the meeting?! I’m surprised council even considered the proposal.
Also, saying that RV dwelling is “a separate issue” from housing is denialism at best, segregation at worst. DuBois and Kou have opposed or weakened every housing proposal and project that has come before them. Two faced politicians,
The city already owns their own rv park. I also feel if they work for Stanford, Stanford should come up with some rv parking for their own workers. I do feel that something needs to be done. How about the site by red cross the parking lot
“Councilwoman Liz Kniss argued that the city hasn’t built enough low-income housing and the problem of RVs parking along El Camino Real and on neighborhood streets is partly “our own doing.”
Vice Mayor Adrian Fine concurred and alluded to the city’s failure to meet regional targets to housing production, particularly when it comes to below-market-rate housing.”
What hypocrisy when these pro-development politicians demand nothing from the high-tech companies whose unsustainable growth created this problem or from Stanford which is unwilling to house its workers or the patients and their families visiting the hospital. They won’t even institute a business tax or even an accurate employee headcount. They’ve supported evicting low and moderate income residents in favor of underparked luxury buildings.
And I’m very tired of all the media coverage of the “glamour” of van living for high tech empoloyees and grad students!
In addition to helping people who are living tax-free in these RVs on city streets, the city should also equally focus on helping residents of Palo Alto who everyday are dealing with blocked site lines when driving down the street and when turning corners because of these RVs, pedestrians walking out from between these RVs and into traffic, and narrowed lanes because of oversized vehicles parking on El Camino and already small side streets in addition to cones placed around the vehicles themselves.
I can’t imagine that this meets Public safety requirements; can fire trucks and ambulances pass down these narrow streets with the RVs parked the way they are? I hope that it doesn’t take a tragedy to prove that fire trucks have been prevented from getting to a building/residence in time.
City representatives need to stop debating and talking about this issue and get something done about it. If the number of RVs parked on our streets has only increased in the last few years, then obviously the city isn’t doing anything to curtail the problem. Implement some short term fixes to get these RVs off of our streets while simultaneously working on the bigger problem of homelessness.
Unemployment in the US is near an all time low. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for some of these RV dwellers to drive to a more affordable part of the country so they can get a job that affords them the ability to house themselves?
How about redirecting the efforts and funds for this program to improving our infrastructure and roads? The power was repeatedly out and the city cares more about providing electricity to another “Rv” park?!
What happens to the spots that these RVs vacate out? What’s to stop more RVs from moving in?? They already do not enforce parking rules so what is preventing a larger infestation of broken down vehicles on our roads?
For those of you who are so supportive and sympathetic why don’t you sponsor one of these vehicles to park on your driveway or in front of your house? I’m tired of not having visibility when driving and the awful smell when they do not dispose of their sewage tanks properly.
“DuBois proposes a memo to his colleagues … I’m surprised council even considered the proposal.”
@DuBois Missed is right. There is a disturbing pattern of DuBois cravenly supporting affordable housing efforts like Wilton Court, the Workforce Housing project at El Camino and Page Mill, the Affordable Housing Overlay, 788 San Antonio last month, allowing housing at the Cubberley site, even Buena Vista.
This behavior is unacceptable. I thought we had DuBois clearly pegged as a rabid anti-housing extremist, but it looks he might be something even worse: a Moderate.
Half of the comments illustrate the main issue across the entire South Bay – self-absorbed homeowners and politicians who refuse to accept reality. Homeowners have experienced a massive windfall because of the tech giants in the area. But, to keep their home prices high, they demand to keep the local housing supply low by refusing to allow new laws/ordinances that would create more affordable housing (why are building/apt heights capped so low, why is it so hard to re-zone from a single family lot to a multi-family lot, etc.). One of three things will eventually happen: 1) the tech giants collapse (anti-trust investigations on the horizon), at which point demand plummets, as will home values; 2) non-homeowner employees wise up and move to alternative cities, leading to lower demand and also a drop in home values (we’re already beginning to see this trend), or 3) politicians and homeowners come to their senses, implement real changes that will create affordable housing (and yes, change the look/feel of the area to a more urban environment), and the South Bay becomes a more sustainable city that will survive the ebbs and flows of local businesses. I’m not counting on #3 happening.
EB, I urge you to skim the real estate sales columns and you’ll see that most of the new buyers have Asian names — probably all cash foreign investors many of whom never even occupy the properties. Talk to your friends and neighbors selling their homes and ask where the offers are coming from.
Other cities like New York City and Vancouver, BC, are finally getting serious about restricting foreign real estate investors.
Also ask some long-time residents whether they’d willingly sacrifice some of their /our windfall PAPER profits in return for quality of life issues — traffic, gridlock, underparking, etc. — and you’ll see that many of would gladly sacrifice some of the gains.
Also, check out the recent articles in the regional press about greedy landlords offering a BUNK BED for $1,200 a month. Absurd.
SFH is primarily a home, not a real estate investment. I wonder if it ever occurs to pro density advocates that people bought their homes for the neighborhood + quality of life and not real estate speculation. They want to preserve the “investment” in quality of life, not financial gain, even if it means their homes are worth less than they could be by zoning for higher density which would raise the land value further.
Not hearing anything about massively improving mass transit. It’s ridiculous that a 10 mile commute equals 1hr. Imagine how much more housing would be available to workers if a 30 mile commute in 30 minutes into the heart of Palo Alto were possible.
RV squatters do not pay taxes.
RV squatters damage our streets with oil, litter, and old cars
RV squatters should be banned from permanently camping on Palo Alto streets.
RV squatters abuse the current laws we thought were kind for really needy folks living in cars.
The 30 year old rust bucket RV is not welcome squatting on my street for the past 6 years.
My three thoughts for the PA Council are
No. No. NO!
EB, as a long time resident of Palo Alto, I vote for #1 or #2. My home wealth is on paper anyway so it really does
not matter if home prices fall. It would be a big bummer for all the Asian buyers investing in the local real estate.
And of course all the real estate agents! Stop blaming PA residents who have no desire to cash out and move. We did not cause any of the current issues! Your lack of knowledge about the true causes of the lack of affordable housing is amazing. Do some more research.
Posted by dtnorth
a resident of Downtown North
17 hours ago
“The city already owns their own rv park.”
Where is this City Owned RV Park?
We have had RV’s dump their tanks on our street, Its ugly and getting Uglier..
My questions.
Do these RVs have to be roadworthy and licensed? Can the RVs be moved as transport during the day and just return at night? Can the RVs be there just for weeknights and move at weekends? Will these RVs need to have working sanitary capability? Will these RVs house children that need to be schooled?
Will this encourage more RVs than space and will the space created on the streets mean more arrive to take their place as there won’t be enough space to accommodate all who want them.
Will this be a lottery or for people who prove they have jobs in Palo Alto, or what type of criteria will be utilized to determine who can get in?
From my experience, all RVs are not the same?
RV dwellers ARE residents of Palo Alto. We pay sales taxes and support the local economy. Though we do not pay rent, we do not rely on basic city services other than parking on public streets which are ordinarily available to anyone (e.g. visitors, shoppers from out of town etc.).
Now if the city were to make public utilities readily available to RV dwellers (i.e. sewage, electricity, gas and water et al) it would be another story.
Speaking of rent…except for the free parking space, we are not getting any renter benefits as we provide our own housing and amenities.
It is easy for others to condemn those less fortunate and the ones calling themselves true Christians are being sanctimonius at best while the others who think they’re Zen Buddhists (which is very trendy among some wealthy individuals seeking their perverted brand of inner light) are deluding themselves.
Palo Alto is in essence, a city of self-important hypocrites worshiping the dollar sign and this in itself is one reason for people like us to stick around…as in ‘sticking it to the man.
“Palo Alto is in essence, a city of self-important hypocrites worshiping the dollar sign and this in itself is one reason for people like us to stick around…as in ‘sticking it to the man.”
If PA is so horrible, why don’t you go elsewhere and stick “it to the man” in a more congenial setting?
The city is already severely under-paeked and over-run by commuters by a 3:1 oi 4:1 ration.
“If PA is so horrible, why don’t you go elsewhere and stick “it to the man” in a more congenial setting?”
^^^ Because Palo Alto needs to be enlightened and the quest to do so often involves dealing with hostile situations and hostile individuals.
This has been covered in the New Testament.
Thanks to DuBois and Kou for bringing this issue up!
I’m pretty tired of Kniss and Fine (and others) saying :
” Councilwoman Liz Kniss argued that the city hasn’t built enough low-income housing and the problem of RVs parking along El Camino Real and on neighborhood streets is partly “our own doing.”
Vice Mayor Adrian Fine concurred”
The city allows developers to pay in lieu fees instead of building the BMR units and this council reversed the previous council’s increase on commercial development fees that are paid to feed our affordable housing funds.
In most cases the “city “ does not build affordable housing
affordable housing developers do after cobbling together the funds do do so which includes contributions by the city.
So if you want more $$$ to help affordable developers raise the Fees on Commercial developers.
We the people have been asking for less office development for years. The housing costs were driven up by that commercial success and now we are being punished from the excessive commercial growth by our own elected official at the local and county and state level.
also we get know credit for saving the Buena Vista mobil home park; Those units should be added to the affordable count!
Around here, almost all new homes are built to the absolute max footage and sold to foreign investors buying in cash. In many cases the homes are left empty. Except for property taxes, these ghost homes/owners do not contribute in any way.
Older homes are snapped up by developers for the lots and demolished to build above large homes.
To make homes available at reasonable prices, CA housing cannot be used as a bank account for foreign investors. This needs to be addressed at a State level.
>> Palo Alto is in essence, a city of self-important hypocrites worshiping the dollar sign…
^^^ true in so many ways as most don’t have any sense of humanity unless they can get their pseudo deeds printed in some newspaper for show-off privileges.
>> It is easy for others to condemn those less fortunate and the ones calling themselves true Christians are being sanctimonius at best…
^^^ a true christian doesn’t need to advertise but the fake ones do.
I do really feel that there needs to be more of an analysis of the demographics of Palo Alto, the age of home owners, the ethnicity of home owners, and the percentage of rentals in Palo Alto. Also, how many houses in Palo Alto are ghost houses. The $8.8Million home down the street that was purchased over a month ago is still vacant. Everyone is pointing fingers but what really needs to happen is have some data about this community and then determine next steps. We are all going along with assumptions based on our own neighborhood. Let’s see what can be done for the entire Palo Alto city.
Thanks. I do hope someone can do some data generation around this. It would be so helpful.
> Palo Alto is in essence, a city of self-important hypocrites worshiping the dollar sign…
> It is easy for others to condemn those less fortunate and the ones calling themselves true Christians are being sanctimonius at best while the others who think they’re Zen Buddhists (which is very trendy among some wealthy individuals seeking their perverted brand of inner light) are deluding themselves.
^^^ There are probably very few true Christians in Palo Alto as most are seemingly preoccupied with their residential property values, NIMBYisms, running RVs out of town, traffic and parking aggravations and ongoing contempt for Stanford University policy.
As far as Zen Buddhists go…absolutely zero.
You are all over thinking this. Let’s make the folks who made this mess fix it. What happens when you create 400 jobs and have only 100 places for the folks to live in. The highly paid folks buy the available houses and drive the prices up for everyone while the leftovers and displaced live in a RV or commute 150 miles or is homeless. For every person they hire they need to provide a new housing unit for them along with the infrastructure to support them. No displacement of current residents. Where do you suppose 30,000 new Google employees are going to live? This has nothing to do with the old time residents who have owned homes for years here.
The location being considered for RV parking (1275 San Antonio Road) is right near the Baylands Nature Preserve. This undisturbed marshland includes 15 miles of multi-use trails that provide access to a unique mixture of tidal and fresh water habitats. I’m concerned that waste from an RV park could contaminate a portion of the Baylands, spoiling this oasis for the animals that inhabit it and the residents of EPA, Palo Alto and Mv that enjoy its trails. How is EPA mitigating such concerns in their new RV lot near the EPA portion of the Baylands?
> The location being considered for RV parking (1275 San Antonio Road) is right near the Baylands Nature Preserve. This undisturbed marshland includes 15 miles of multi-use trails that provide access to a unique mixture of tidal and fresh water habitats. I’m concerned that waste from an RV park could contaminate a portion of the Baylands, spoiling this oasis…
dumping (no pun intended) and littering will undoubtedly be against the law with sewage hook-ups provided by the city at taxpayer expense.
porta-potties are another viable option.
a village community of RVs will be a nice addition to the baylands providing its new inhabitants with an added opportunity to enjoy the beauty of nature as well.
think of it as a small coastal community (on wheels).
The RV dwellers why not make it mandatory they pay a fee each week that would go
towards human waste removal. if they cannot pay even the token amount then they
have to move else where. This would reduce human waste issues. same holds true
for trash, they pay a weekly fee.
So in todays papers 06.13.19 it notes that the city of Mountain view has now decided to ban over night RV parking in the city except in their designated places. And it then reports that PA has made no decision to ban RV parking in the city. So that brings up the question of where are the MV people going to park their RV’s? And one of our PACC councilmembers is “uncomfortable” and we need more time to discuss this. Note to readers of PAW – we have been discussing this for a number of years both on paper and at the PACC meetings. And our other PACC member says no change in our policies. Now who all would that be?
If you all imagine that we are floating on a raft going down the RV river think again. As far as I know we still have on the ‘Official” books that there is no RV overnight parking on residential streets; cars must be moved every 72 hours – that includes the RV’s on El Camino; and no sleeping in cars on residential streets over night. The fact that people expressed opinions is of no change in the actual laws on the books.
And for you PACC members who do not step and move out on what the residents of this city are telling you then your dance card will be revoked. People get invited to the prom but still have to fill in a dance card to play. And we are now watching who is on who’s dance card.
>> The RV dwellers why not make it mandatory they pay a fee each week that would go
towards human waste removal. if they cannot pay even the token amount then they
have to move else where.
^^^They should be able to apply for county subsidized mobile housing assistance.
I have no problem with these RVs. We rarely if ever see them in our neighborhood except for maybe a couple of elder retirees who have them in their driveway.
No one is trying to run them out of town. People should be a bit more understanding as well as compassionate towards those of less means.
I have no idea where the RV dwellers are putting their human waste.
What I do know is that the sewer system is suppose to go out to the bay and there are advisements over the sewer sections to make sure no leaves and debris are going down the sewer. And if you look in Adobe Creek you can see inlet holes which are presumably coming in from the streets. So is human waste being dumped into the sewer and going out to the bay in the creeks and other outlets? If that is the case we have a serious problem here. The bay system is suppose to be kept clean. Is it becoming a toilet?
That is a third world issue. We have worked hard to keep our systems – the ocean and creeks clean. All of the climate and ocean huggers work hard to make that happen.
So the do-gooders are working one issue which can have horrible unintended issues.
And those unintended issues of parking on the street are going to lead to disease both on land and in our bay.
Suggest that the PACC and the City of Palo Alto disallow any parking on the streets and get the RV parkers corralled into a section that has facilities so that we do not have human waste going into the bay.
from the earlier RV proposal thread:
According to the Atlantic, there are public health crises in homeless populations across the western US due to horrendous hygiene: typhus (a “Medieval” disease spread via fleas on rats attracted by trash) and TB in LA, hepatitis A (spread via feces) in San Diego, syphilis (STD) in Sonoma County, shigellosis (spread via feces) and trench fever (spread via lice) in WA:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/typhus-tuberculosis-medieval-diseases-spreading-homeless/584380/
As long as we can get all of the transient RV inhabitants locally out of sight who cares what happens to them?
Not our problem if they are not around any longer.
I am noticing that in San Mateo County there are RV parks with facilities in East PA on East Bayshore, Redwood City near 101 and in Foster City before you go over the bridge. So other counties have carved out actual RV parks. So why is PA stuck on the idea that they should be on El Camino? It does not make sense. We somehow are being put in the position of providing unbridled RV activity when other cities are not doing this. And when they did interviews of some of the RV people they go to some other city to work.
The Palo Alto Business Park is in limbo as to buildings that actually have tenants. And there is a huge amount of space in the back side. Why aren’t we having them park over in the business park and providing a building that has bathrooms, showers, and place to put trash and human waste. This is reaching a point of absurdity. We cannot have them dumping human waste down the street drains with it going out to the bay. That is an invitation to disease circulating with our water table. We have a water table and it is going to be totally screwed up.
>So other counties have carved out actual RV parks. So why is PA stuck on the idea that they should be on El Camino?
Unlike the surrounding communities, Palo Alto does not ban, and is not considering banning, overnight parking of oversized vehicles. Enforcement of the 72-hr parking limit on the Stanford side of ECR falls to Stanford, which has apparently decided to do no enforcement
“is human waste being dumped into the sewer and going out to the bay in the creeks and other outlets? If that is the case we have a serious problem here. The bay system is suppose to be kept clean. Is it becoming a toilet?
That is a third world issue.”
CPA just spent multi-millions on a brand-spanking-new sewage treatment plant, and we’re letting people dump human waste into the creeks/bay/El Camino where all sorts of diseases can breed.
Yes, this is a third-world problem, and why did we spend multi-millions on this treatment plant when untreated sewage is going into the creeks/bay/El Camino, bypassing the treatment plant and going directly into the bay?
At the very least the city needs to provide some place for RV dwellers to properly dispose of their sewage, and by that I don’t mean the nearest gas station.
Raw sewage would be less of a potential problem if Palo Alto simply installed a number of porta-potties in areas of heavy RV usage.
Placing them along University and Lytton Avenues would also alleviate the homeless from relieving themselves in public.
What about working RV dwellers who earn a reasonable living but live in an RV on public property? Should they pay toward the upkeep of these facilities such as policing the grounds and emptying porta-potties? What a nice luxury to live in Palo Alto free of rent and property tax.
If you’re only going to allow overnight parking you need to enforce the rules.
Great way to destroy the Baylands.
How about replacing the RVs at the proposed bay lands site with residential units that look like little houseboats? They would blend in nicely with the natural scenery.
Maybe a Habitat for Humanity project co-sponsored by the City and various fund-raising activities.
Later amenities might include a small postal substation, mini-mart & laundromat.
Forget the Baylands as a parking lot for dilapidated RV’s. It is a wildlife preserve already preserved for real wildlife. Most of it is covered over dump which emits methane making unsuitable for habitation. The fundamental problem is too many people and too few real houses. Letting companies hire people with no place to live is the problem. Paying them more money just displaces the folks who don’t make as much. For every person hired the company should provide a new living unit for someone.
“Later amenities might include a small postal substation, mini-mart & laundromat.”
Oh gawd no, you’ve got to be kidding. Too many free amenities and Palo Alto will become a magnet for RV dwellers far and wide who will flock here to take advantage of the nice climate and free amenities courtesy of Palo Alto taxpayers.
Providing parking space off city streets and sanitary facilities to prevent the spread of disease is one thing, but I can’t see the city of Palo Alto turning into a real-estate developer, building a village with free amenities and taxpayers footing the bill.
Nor can I see Palo Alto becoming a shantytown for employees of Google, Facebook, et al. These companies need to take responsibility for providing affordable housing for their droves of employees. Cripes, if Google can afford to lease Moffett field for its fleet of private jets, surely it can take some responsibility for housing its employees. If Stanford University can provide affordable housing for its students, why can’t these wealthy tech companies do the same? I would think living in a company-subsidized dormitory complete with indoor toilet, shower, kitchen, laundry facilities, even wi-fi and a permanent mailing address would be preferable to being an RV squatter on public property.
I haven’t even broached the subject of crime, prostitution and drug use which have accompanied other RV encampments.
Google is not within the jurisdiction of Palo Alto, but it’s sure as heck within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara county. The county needs to compel these companies to provide employee housing. RV dwellers have become an issue for Palo Alto, Mountain View and I’m sure for other communities. They’re not down-and-outers but working poor.
Pass legislation or haul them into court, do whatever it takes to require these wealthy companies to provide housing for their employees rather than having their workers’ RV’s line the streets near Googleplex.
Look, the people at the top of Google are multimillionaires. For them, building a few high-rise dormitories to house their glut of employees would cost what amounts to a pittance for them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-21/silicon-valley-s-shame-living-in-a-van-in-google-s-backyard
This is shameful, and either the city of Mountain View or Santa Clara county or both should be doing something about it.
Survey these RV dwellers! Palo Alto Online did and found that most are unemployed or do not work in Palo Alto. They are only here because it’s allowed. Kick them out, they are not contributing to our city. Menlo Park (at least Sharon Park area) doesn’t allow any vehicle overnight parking. Mountain View is banning RVs. What is wrong with our City Council? They are widening Newell Bridge so we will have more EPA traffic. They are allowing non-residents to use our parks and pool. They are allowing vehicle dwellers and RVs. Do they even care about the people who voted for them? Smart people have better things to do than serve on City Council.
If they choose a spot for RVs just to satisfy the libtards, make it a small area, then OUTLAW RVs elsewhere in Palo Alto.
Do Atherton, Hillsborough, Pacific Palisades and Beverly Hills allow RV and vehicle dwellers? Probably not, they care about their residents’ quality of life.
> Forget the Baylands as a parking lot for dilapidated RV’s. It is a wildlife preserve already preserved for real wildlife. Most of it is covered over dump which emits methane making unsuitable for habitation.
Do people & wildlife have different methane tolerances? If it’s OK for wildlife, it should be OK for humans.
>I haven’t even broached the subject of crime, prostitution and drug use which have accompanied other RV encampments.
The PAPD could have an undercover ‘mole’ residing in one of the RVs who then contacts the police department for follow-up investigations & arrests.
> Palo Alto Online did and found that most are unemployed or do not work in Palo Alto.
Very difficult to find a high-paying tech job in this area. Blame it on employees from overseas with H-1B visas. They are as much the problem as transient RV dwellers, most of whom are American citizens.
>What is wrong with our City Council? They are widening Newell Bridge so we will have more EPA traffic. They are allowing non-residents to use our parks and pool. They are allowing vehicle dwellers and RVs.
Palo Alto is trying to make amends for its vast wealth & resultant guilt by sharing city resources with others. This often happens with rich people as they soon learn money isn’t everything.
If you think that Google is the problem of MV then think again. Go over to the Palo Alto Business Park and you will see pick up areas for Google employees who are in the empty buildings – now filling up – Ewell Court. Then check out the buildings on Terminal – that is the street at the end of San Antonio that is the parking area for the baylands. Those buildings used to have kid places like Gymboree. Now there is strange activity going on with hazard signs. Do we have someone making something that is a hazard next to the baylands? Google has also closed off the walk way around the Shoreline lake that used to be filled with families and their children. It is now a total mess with dry grass and construction equipment. There is a fine line between PA and MV in that area.
So something is going on and we need to find out what it is – what the “City” has approved and what is in the works. The idea that we would put RV’s on Geng Road is so totally wrong – that is our athletic fields where children are playing baseball and people are having running events. Why are we stuffing RV’s in places that are dedicated to child-related community services and most with a biological / preservation goal area.
For some reason we have allowed ourselves to be the location point for RV’s and have allowed other cities to offload their problems on us. So who is in charge here? If the “compassion” people are pressuring the city then we need to know who that is. IF a church then do they allow RV’s on their property and allow them to access the church facilities for food preparation, showers, and waste? Suspect they do not. We need to figure out what is going on here because it is happening right in front of our eyes.
> Why are we stuffing RV’s in places that are dedicated to child-related community services and most with a biological / preservation goal area.
^^^Where else would you situate transient RVs? Old PA & Crescent Park are too expensive for this kind of accommodation..
Perhaps somewhere in Barron Park/Ventura/East Meadow (between Alma & ECR) as those particular areas are not reflective of the vintage Palo Alto countless city residents wish to wish to preserve.
“Where else would you situate transient RVs?”
Seriously? There are tens of thousands of square miles of unused space east of here, much of it situated close to the mental health facilities, drug treatment centers, and job training programs that are needed to help vagrants reintegrate into society.
> There are tens of thousands of square miles of unused space east of here, much of it situated close to the mental health facilities, drug treatment centers, and job training programs that are needed to help vagrants reintegrate into society.
^^^Why are you suggesting such a remote area & implying that we have mental health or addiction problems?
If Google & Facebook eliminated their H-1B programs which favor non-citizens, many of us could probably be working there and become just as arrogant as the PA well-to-do types.
Don’t know about Clear Lake however there is a half page ad in the SJM for the city of Los Banos and all of the housing developments that have been built – starting in the mid $300,000’s. Los Banos puts you in the area of a UC campus and rail station.
Fb and Google do not have to go to Austin, Texas – they can go to the valley and put their employees in a good position regarding homes, education, and transportation.
My gardener is going to retire in Merced since it has all of the amenities that he will want. So maybe we should be “helping” Apple, FB and Google establish satellite work locations in the valley.
And if a techie point of interest is put in the valley then it is possible to establish a location at which the RV’s can all gather with all of the appropriate sanitation facilities that they need. If there is a lot of building going on out there then that is where the jobs are. Note the Paradise is now in the clean-up and building mode so there is another job location for RV dwellers.
So why don’t the local RV dwellers put their “homes” in the cities they work in?
Nobody wants to live in Los Banos or Merced. Have you ever been there yourself?
Posted by RV Dweller, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
>> RV dwellers ARE residents of Palo Alto. We pay sales taxes and support the local economy.
If I park an RV on Fifth Ave in Manhattan in front of the Guggenheim Museum, would that make me a resident of New York? How long do you think it would be before I got towed?
RVs are NOT a scalable housing solution. A small number create big problems. They need to be deconstructed and recycled.
Palo Alto does need to do a real analysis of who the RV dwellers are and if they are actual, displaced PA residents, or, just folks who are misappropriating space on city owned streets. Displaced residents should be a top priority for new below-market housing. Where will that be built? I would hope that the Fry’s site will be 100% affordable and BMR housing, but, hell will freeze over before that happens. Just doesn’t “pencil out”. Developers all say they are for “housing”– just not housing that real people can afford.
I googled crime rates in Palo Alto and Los Banos and Merced. No surprise that we all exceed the national average.
Posted by Destination: Palo Alto, a resident of another community
>> Nobody wants to live in Los Banos or Merced. Have you ever been there yourself?
Actually, many thousands of people live there and commute into the Bay Area:
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/two-hour-daily-commute-thousands-in-central-valley-already-do-it/
They like the -affordable housing- over there.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the big employers and some of the smaller ones built/leased satellite work areas for their employees who live over there so that they wouldn’t have to commute here?
So here is another twist. Caltrans is the authority of El Camino – according to an article today. And Mt View is going to cut the parking spaces and put in bike lanes. That assumes that El Camino in PA is under the control of Caltran. So if Caltran then proceeds from Mt. View to PA and reduces the number of lanes on El Camino then the RV’s have to leave. So maybe the end is in site. But under that definition if El Camino is under the authority of Caltran then the rest of the streets are under the control of the city. So PA the rest is on YOU. And that means no RV parking on residential streets.
I think El Camino is a county road under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara county.
Before Googleplex was built, it seems nobody gave any thought to the fundamental question of “where are all the Google employees going to live?”
The city of Mountain View should have required Google to build employee housing before issuing the building permit for Googleplex. Google has millions of dollars and lots of land. They can easily afford to build employee housing.
Too late now.
Removing the parking and adding a bike lane on the Stanford side of ECR would be great for bike commuters, making our commute far safer. Just getting the RVs completely off the sidewalk and not having their generators continuously running would help.
ECR is two lanes each way in downtown Menlo Park. I would like to consider the plan where ECR is narrowed to two lanes in each direction, with the space used for streetcar lanes, bicycle lanes, and added sidewalk/bike parking. This has been done in a couple of European cities to good effect.
https://www.123rf.com/photo_88010130_amsterdam-netherlands-september-23-2017-tram-and-bicycle-traffic-on-amsterdam-street-at-sunny-say.html
Assuming “they” are serious about making ECR, which is state highway CA SR-82, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_82, an actual “transit corridor”, then, the state should be willing to fund this reconfiguration.
Of course, we all know that this whole traffic/housing gambit is driven by developer desires, rather than a real attempt to deal with regional traffic and housing. So, it won’t happen. But, it is worth talking about anyway.
Comments on Los Banos – my relatives live in Los Banos and contributed to the educational system as teachers and coaches – great football team. Add to that all of those farm kids were, and are connected via computers so have a network of friends. My aunt, through the school system supported trips to Europe on a yearly basis so that the kids could translate their educational goals with what was going on in the world. And contributions to the Cesar Chavez labor events for the valley.
The valley used to be the cornucopia of crops, animals, and agricultural industry. Seems to be many complications of late to recapture the former glory of California relative to all that made it great. Technology is a industry leader, but you cannot eat technology. There is more to the world than technology and it is helpful to our next generations that the world works on many platforms of success.
The smarter place to live than Los Banos would be anywhere along the ACE commute train corridor: Tracy/Manteca. The ACE trains could take you to San Jose and take Caltrain/VTA up and down the peninsula.
http://www.acerail.com/Getting-You-There/Maps-Stations
Places like Los Banos, Tracy, Manteca, Rio Vista, Yolo County, Lake County etc. = too inland hot.
Much more comfortable weather in Palo Alto! No AC.
Posted by RV Dweller, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
>> Much more comfortable weather in Palo Alto! No AC.
Redwood City. “Climate best by government test.”
SO events on this topic are moving along at a fast rate. MV is going to eliminate RV parking overnight with specified dates so that the RV dwellers can reorient themselves to a new location. Every other city has moved out with plans to address this topic. One city is setting up an area with sanitation, showers, and dedicated space.
SO PA time for you to step up here and get moving on this topic.
1. Having RV’s park on El Camino because it is supposedly under the control of some state agency does not impress San Mateo County – no RV’s on El Camino in San Mateo County. So forget that argument. Also now MV joining in.
2. Having RV’s park on a major street between a major city high school and a major university with all of the unaddressed issues of sanitation does not make sense. What are you all thinking? Regular residents attend events at these schools and should not have to deal with RV’s on a registered major highway.
3. Proposing to put RV’s in sensitive ecological areas is defeating the whole idea of why these areas were set up as ecological areas.
4. Setting up RV’s in areas dedicated to recreation for our children is another non-sensical idea.
5. When these people were interviewed it turned out they work somewhere else – they get in their cars and drive to wherever they work. Some up at the airport.
6. So who is pressuring the city to maintain this whole program? If a church then said church should contact it’s other branches in the valley to coordinate some location in that area. Most churches are part of a bigger organization so make the bigger organization go to work and put up these people possibly down south in the lower county which has far fewer houses.