Town Square

Portola Valley affordable housing issue: how to spend $2.88 million from Blue Oaks sale

Original post made on Apr 18, 2013

The issue about affordable housing in Portola Valley has boiled down to this: What should the town do with the $2.88 million it acquired in December from the sale of two topographically difficult lots in Blue Oaks intended for eight affordable homes?

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, April 18, 2013, 8:46 AM


Like this comment
Posted by PVrez
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Apr 18, 2013 at 9:43 am

gee - you mean there is high demand to live in pv for redwood city prices??? shocking discovery!

Like this comment
Posted by PV rez #2
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Apr 18, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Really tough to reconcile the town's difficulties with the Neely's proposed plans on their property along the PV scenic corridor with the towns recent enthusiasm for high density housing along the same corridor.
Let's keep Portola Valley rural with vineyards and barns and not high density housing.

Like this comment
Posted by pvrez3
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:16 am

Let us more closely examine the Town's housing-demand survey, and consider the implications of dedicating $2.9 million to eight "moderate income" housing units.Of the 91 survey respondents, 27 met the "moderate income" criteria; of these, according to the bar-graph on p4 of the survey memorandum,only 8or 9 (the graph is hazy) stated that they were "highly likely or almost certain" to "enter the lottery" for purchase of BMR housing in PV. Only about half the qualifying respondents have a "commute" to jobs in Portola Valley of 15 miles or more; almost 1/3 already live in the valley or less than 5 miles away.Dedication of the Blue Oaks fund to eight "middle income" units for the eight lucky lotto winners thus amounts to a subsidy of $366,000 for each household. The average household income for this candidate group is in excess of $100,000.Is this, in fact, either economically or socially rational? Can the Town not find better BMR application for these funds?

Like this comment
Posted by PV Homeowner
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm

The survey conducted by the Town of people employed in Portola Valley failed to indicate a suggested price on an affordable housing unit. Pretty easy to answer yes on that one.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on May 31, 2017 at 3:08 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?