Thanks, Aram. I read it and agree with what it says.
I'd like to offer some more supporting evidence. I once asked Joe Simitian at a public meeting at Stanford why Palo Alto doesn't
build housing. He said that a long time ago Palo Alto decided it would make more money more easily building commercial
developments than residential and has followed that philosophy, Boy, I'll say they have! I remember one night at CC when a
developer had no trouble getting approval when he brought a request that the building he was putting up have a fountain instead of
the 10% affordable units in his building which had been part of his agreement. He argued that the fountain was better because "it
would benefit everyone."
What he meant, of course, was that the fountain and fewer poor people would make his building more attractive to the rich.
What Palo Alto and Silicon Valley is all about-- in housing and other areas-- is personal progress at the expense of those who
can't keep up, This includes ignoring housing needs of the neediest as the article states, ignoring all but the entreaties of
those with money and ambition, and ignoring their most human feelings and religious teachings-- to take care of the children,
aged, infirm, poor, and ill who have made other contributions than being able to buy a house now. They have made contributions in
the past or will make them in the future.
Unfortunately the hard hearted way NIMBY rules the roost now may very well come back to bite the very hands that are so stingy
with help now.
We each should be examining our lives to see what steps we can all take to help alleviate the crisis instead of trying to avoid
dealing with it.
Chuck
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Aram James
wrote:
> Follow the link below to view the article.
mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=002a8cae8 [http://mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=002a8cae8]
Sent from my iPhone
--
Chuck