Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Palo Alto and Impact of SB35

From: domainremoved <Neilson>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:33:41 +0000 (UTC)

The housing gristmill grinds on.
San Jose City Council recently identified 99 possible sitesfor tiny homes for its homeless citizens. Immediate public pressure reduced possible sites to three and actualimplementation is far from certain.  Menlo Park City Council, listening heavily to its publicschool lobby, shifted suddenly from family oriented housing to housing suitableonly to singles and couples without children.  Menlo Park housing policy swings almost daily on El Camino Real and Belle Haven.
Palo Alto City Council along with all California cities may soon find itslocal autonomy for housing policy usurped by Senate Bill 35.  A strong, core majority of politicians has consolidated political power behind SB 35 for a massive redefinition of sense ofcommunity.   The California Leagueof Cities representing cities and their elected officials oppose SB35.  
Most citizens seem to be unaware of SB35implications.  Therein lies political risk of unhealthy divisiveness.
What can be learned from these three, real world, political situations?  One of most insightful,universal public comments camefrom a letter to the SJ Mercury Editor:The editorial (“San Jose’s ‘tiny homes’ plan needs re-boot,”Editorial, Aug. 27) is correct that the San Jose Bridge Housing Communityproject needs re-working. The problem with this roll out so far is that theproject has not yet been defined so that angry neighbors’ questions can beanswered.  The solution is not to engage a “professional moderator” because the fear of the unknown that takes over neighbor’s thinking will stilloccur no matter who moderates a meeting.  A solution is to establish atask force that includes experts who have successfully created thesetransitional villages in other municipalities to help define the project. The effort to identify sites should not be done first but should be one of thefinal steps that should be taken if best practices are to be followed.  Wecan get this done with a collaborative approach. So yes, I agree with theeditorial that we should “work the bugs out” for a 2.0 version. KarenGillette
Iurge the Palo Alto City Council to avoid support of SB35.  Despite good intentions SB35’s centralizationof government power is moving forward with political expediency and without due diligence.  Too many politicians like San Jose CityCouncilpersons are failing to heed the wisdom and advice of citizens such asKaren Gillette.  Change does not have to be so difficult.
She is wiser thanI and most politicians.
I offer one very oldquotation.  The road to hell is pavedwith good intentions.  If this does notsit well, try another.  No good deed goesunpunished. Neilson Buchanan155 Bryant StreetPalo Alto, CA  94301 650 329-0484650 537-9611 cellcnsbuchanan_at_(domainremoved)

Received on Sat Sep 02 2017 - 16:11:47 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)