Well, it is the perennial fav Palo Alto after all…surely, you’ve seen much worst projects in much worst cities…
How about keeping the mixed used properly to get a diversified rent stream?
I think the commercial tenant does not mind the residential tenant, but good residential tenants may not like to live above a commercial place
Now that you mention it, I wonder how that would or could work. If the commercial space is closed on weekends that might be ok. So, a tenant is gone all day at work (good for the commercial side) and when he/she comes home the commercial side is closed (good for the tenant). Let’s not forget the parking spaces too!!! We love parking!!!
Almost impossible to finance mixed use
So, was it a liberal gang opposing housing development in PA for long time or what? Curious minds inquire.
No, NIMBYs doesn’t apply.
Well, I think it is pretty much well documented that it is just those old coot homeowners who want their paradise to remain so (even if they are about to kick the bucket apparently)…
Hmm, good or bad law passed in our fav want to be home???
Come on, don’t turn into the Fab 7x7’s Bored Of Stupidvisors…
Come on, should a mobile home park really be in Palo Alto??? So, the city pays the owner 40M for the land. Wouldn’t it be better if EACH mobile home family received some decent check to move out so that some developer could really max out the use of this land with some major housing???
1 Like
Waste of tax payers money. 
It’d only be $100k per home.
Maybe, this was the classic two birds with one stone (an expensive 40M one). By doing this, the city avoids some major dense housing development so the NIMBY owners win by keeping PA, PA, and of course the city gets a gold star for showing compassion. B*stards!!!
1 Like
100 units for $40M, it’s $400k per unit for land only. The mobile park has 400 residents but only 100 units.
Now that the land is owned by housing authority, are they going to kick out high income residents who are not eligible for low incom housing?
If not, can we buy mobile homes here since housing authority may keep the land rent low forever. It can be a good idea to buy and rent out.
1 Like
I doubt it.
Due to this mobile park, barron park (elementary) area is the least favorite area in PA.
From PA residents’ point of view (especially people live in barron park neighborhood), they would prefer high density housing over mobile park. New development in this case would immediately improve their home value to average PA home value.
Ok, then I would argue that the PA residents (esp those in Barron Park) should have been more vocal about how come this decision was not on the ballot box so that all PA registered voters can make the call for its fair city.
Probably because they are not NIMBY people and they felt wrong in doing so?
Accusing people as NIMBY without good evidence is not fair IMHO.
Come on, do I need to repost that story about the PA administrator who left for greener pastures since she was fed up with Palo Alto’s stance on housing??? I still believe this was a convenient way to keep big housing out while looking good to the public that oh they care so much about the mobile parkers…
1 Like
Wow, Palo Alto and affordable housing in the same sentence…
Height is a burden for neighborhoods? Is that because neighbors have to take turns cleaning the windows?