|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
After preliminary conversations about creating a safe parking facility at the U.S. Geological Survey parking lot for people living in vehicles, Menlo Park Mayor Ray Mueller announced on Dec. 11 that he and San Mateo County Supervisor Warren Slocum have decided to drop the idea, determining that it is not feasible.
The idea, as Mueller previously explained to The Almanac, was to bring in a nonprofit homeless services provider – like Menlo Park-based LifeMoves – to operate a temporary safe parking site on the vacant parking lots at the USGS headquarters at 345 Middlefield Road in Menlo Park before the property is sold to private developers.
The site of the USGS headquarters is in the process of being vacated; the new headquarters will be at the NASA Ames Research Park in Mountain View.
The USGS has reportedly paid $7.5 million a year to lease its Menlo Park offices, and that rent was expected to spike in the coming years. The new NASA offices were reportedly a bargain by comparison.
The USGS’ Menlo Park campus is owned by the General Services Administration, the government agency that serves as a property manager for federal office buildings. The GSA is obligated under federal law to charge market-rate rent for its properties, even in pricey locales such as the Bay Area.
In an interview with The Almanac, Mueller said that he and Slocum met with representatives from the federal government and from Rep. Anna Eshoo’s office. They learned that the site is not intended to be fully vacated until about 2022, and that the legislation that authorizes the sale of the property at a future date won’t permit a “framework” for it to be temporarily used as a safe parking site, he explained.
While he said he’s open to considering other sites within city limits, the USGS site is unique in that it is cordoned off from residential streets and is going to be vacant, and he’s interested in a site that has those characteristics.
“So now Supervisor Slocum and I are going back to the drawing board,” Mueller added.
The city probably won’t be in the running to buy the property – law dictates that it be sold at market rate, and at about 17 acres, it is likely to be out of the city’s budget, he said. But the city can control how the site is used in the future through its zoning.
Specifically, he said, the council is interested in seeing the site developed for housing, with a mix of affordability levels.
The number of people living in RVs across San Mateo County rose dramatically – by 127% – between 2017 and 2019, according to a count conducted last January. There were about 494 people counted in 2019 as living in RVs.
Two of Menlo Park’s neighboring communities, Redwood City and East Palo Alto, have an especially significant number of RV dwellers: There were 102 RVs counted in Redwood City and 53 in East Palo Alto during the January count.
Additional county research found that a majority of RV dwellers who responded to the survey countywide are employed, had lived in the county before they moved into their RV, were living in an RV because of the high cost of rent, saw the RV as a temporary housing situation and had been living in an RV for a year or more.
“Unfortunately this outcome does nothing to help those families who are homeless living in cars in the shadows of our community,” Mueller said in the email announcement of the decision that a safe parking facility at the USGS site is not feasible.
“I look forward to continuing to work with the County to try to find solutions to address this issue and am especially grateful this evening for our nonprofit homeless services providers, who do so much every day to bring compassion and shelter to those in need,” he added.
Sad to see this idea not pan about, but it was a good idea. Let’s find another location. There are dozens of people living in their cars and in need of a safe place to park. We’re much better off centralizing it in a place where we can provide services, than having them spread all around the city.
Locating temporary housing facilities right across from a big high school. What could possibly have gone wrong?
I’d love to see our mayor focus on the needs of people who live here already rather than constantly try to bring in more residents, which will only result in a larger population sharing ever-shrinking amenities. We elected you to serve us, not to curry favor with those higher on the political food chain and developers.
With seemingly good intentions, the Mayor pursued this idea. However, what really were the motives? When was this idea explored FIRST with Mueller’s Council colleagues? What possibly can go wrong when a leader embarks on efforts that should have the support, or at least a vote, of the rest of the elected City Council?
These comments are really funny.
I agree with Sandrine.
It’s shameful the Mayor would care about people living in cars in our city. He should only care about us homeowners and our multimillion dollar homes. The only problems that matter are privileged problems. It’s shameful how many extra minutes is takes to drive to Draeger’s from Felton Gables these days. We don’t need our City working with the County to try to help poor people. The Mayor clearly did this so lots of people who lived anywhere near USGS, even though they can’t even see the USGS parking lot, would send him grateful emails excited by the fact that a poor family might breathe the same air in their vicinity. The population increase to my neighborhood from this project would have been the feather on the scales of whether Menlo Park would remain liveable. Bah humbug.
Tiny Tim…whatever.
What an awful idea. Create a shanty town to attract California’s finest. If I wanted to live in Oakland or Mumbai I would have purchased there. I can only imagine the fine individuals that would pour into that space if encouraged. We need to take OUT the trash, not house it in parking lots.
These are the same people we all grew up with, who spent their formative years getting high and gaming the system. these are the fools who thought school was a waste of time and they were going to “get by” just fine. Now reality has set in, and they’re parasites on the rest of us. A thousand times ion life they’ve made decisions that got them to living on the street. They’re reaping what they’ve sown, and deserve no pity or handouts. Let them go live somewhere where it’s dirt cheap and the neighbors don’t care about the smell of rotting garbage and using the lawn as a toilet. Let them savor their decisions. Menlo is for the people who actually paid attention and made decent decisions in life.
And clean up Santa Cruz Ave while you’re at it!
To those of you who claim to believe we should focus solely on the needs of others and not care a whit about our own quality of life: how many of you invited homeless people (not relatives or friends) into your home last year? I did. And how many local nonprofits have you donated to? How many local nonprofit boards have you served on? Instead of whining about privileged people, how about you, personally, making an effort to become part of the solution?
Many of us feel compassion for those less fortunate (I gave money to the M-A students at Trader Joe’s too!) and there is no shortage of organizations looking out for the interests of the disadvantaged. This area leads the nation in per capita rate of nonprofits!
But looking after underserved non-residents is not the mayor’s job. He’s supposed to be working on behalf of Menlo Park. Where are his proposals for additional park space for our kids (we do not have enough playing fields)? How about more bike-friendly streets? Improved safety on Santa Cruz? Fewer potholes/uneven sidewalks? It’s lovely that he cares about one young couple; perhaps he can offer them a place to stay so that we can move on to real issues that plague our city.