http://almanacnews.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=8889


Town Square

Menlo Park decides to sell below-market-rate house at market rate

Original post made on Jun 14, 2013

When the Menlo Park council last discussed the below-market-rate house at 25 Riordan Place, council members worried about what condition the property would be in once the city finished buying it back from the two owners.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 14, 2013, 9:18 AM

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by rules??
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Jun 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm

Menlo Park establishes rules and then ignores them whenever it chooses.
Has there been a discussion about how the situation occurred in the first place and how to avoid it in the future? I am not at all comfortable with the viability of the program or its management.

If the facts are as stated in the article, it also seems that some fantasy thinking exists, too. How could $600,000 pay for even one new affordable unit, much less numerous ones.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tell me more
a resident of another community
on Jun 14, 2013 at 6:10 pm

The city has policies which (by design) can be ignored, and ordinances which are binding. Let's use this thread to make a list of rules that Menlo Park has established then ignored.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Oh boy ...
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm

"using the estimated $651,000 proceeds from a sale to help fund an amnesty program for owners of existing secondary units, aka in-law or granny units"

Where are all the extra cars going to park? I know it was said that, "Parking may be handled by either putting cars behind one another, within a side yard, or in the front yard if no more than 500 square feet, including driveways, is paved." But how is that enforceable? Who is going to enforce it?

Is this one of those rules that will be ignored once the "granny units" are in place?