Portola Valley: Council to allow contract to expire on nursery purchase
Original post made on Dec 13, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 13, 2012, 11:41 AM
on Dec 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Town Council - plan for low income housing. All I know about this is issue is what I have read in the Almanac. However, one of two possibilities strike me regarding the Town Council. Either they do not know what they are doing and have inadequately thought through their low income housing proposal, or, what would be unfortunate, they are bending to the will of a very small, vocal minority. The requirement for low income housing is not negotiable and, I believe, would be welcomed by a majority of the community in the public spirit intended by the legislation. I, for one, believe a thoughtful plan should embrace the requirement rather than shirk the town's civic responsibilities.
on Dec 14, 2012 at 11:10 am
I do not live near this nursery, but cannot blame an organized group of residents opposing a change in thier immediate area. That is thier right and they accomplished thier goal. Let's focus on the stupidity of the law. Why is the town being forced to alter its overall plan and character based on a few in Sacramento who feel it's the right thing to do. This is not a class or income issue. Different towns/areas have different have different rules. I assume the town council was merely trying to keep the town compliant with the law. The problem is the stupid law. Pressure Sacramento to change it.
on Dec 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Mr Boyce has yet again mischaracterized both the situation vis a vis 900 Portola Road and the argument against its purhase.In fact, the Council operated in stealth mode for several years in attempting to acquire the property, never bothering to communicate their intentions to contiguous neighbors or to invite public commentary or to seek professional analysis on the wisdom of the purchase for BMR. And indeed the Council has acted in ill-advised haste by summariy contracting to spend over three million dollars of BMR funds on a property whose suitability as a site for BMR is debatable at best-- most damningly, with no plan, no economic feasibility analysis and no clear idea of how many units of housing of what height coverage or density will result once 900PVR is declared a BMR zone.Whatever one thinks of BMR in the abstract, the Council's stampede for 900 Portola Road has exemplified questionable public policy,very questionable treatment of neighbors most directly impacted by that policy and stunningly questionable economics.