Town Square

Post a New Topic

Portola Valley: Council to allow contract to expire on nursery purchase

Original post made on Dec 13, 2012

Portola Valley residents applauded a late-night decision on Wednesday, Dec. 12, by the Town Council to not extend a contract to acquire a former plant nursery at 900 Portola Road. This decision delays but does not derail plans to use this property to address a state mandate that requires communities to have land zoned for moderate income housing.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 13, 2012, 11:41 AM

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Mark Wilson
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
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.

Like this comment
Posted by PV Resident
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
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.

Like this comment
Posted by Louis Ebner
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
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.

Like this comment
Posted by Honesty please?
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Dec 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm

" not in MY backyard " - and if I can't get it done as a neighbor, I'll create an organization that doesn't identify itself as NIMBY neighbors and lobby that way. Too bad the council couldn't 't stand up to the vocal NIMBY minority, ihad hoped for better

Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 16, 2012 at 7:52 am


I suppose you wouldn't mind if they built it next door to you then?

Like this comment
Posted by Louis Ebner
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13 am

Rather telling that “Honesty, please” lacks the “honesty” to state (his/her) real name, even as (he/she) invokes the mannerism “please” with the glibness of a confounded adolescent rolling (his/her) eyes toward the heavens. This is nothing new, nor does the ensuing message constitute coherent argument, with any attention at all to the facts of the situation at hand. Instead, we are treated to the usual reductio ad acronym coming from a quarter that believes there can be no virtuous objection to its own favored policies and plans. The tactic: scream NIMBY and stomp away, suggesting as you exit that you are speaking for some put-upon “majority”. If this is the field upon which “Honesty” demands to play, then let us at least (please) even the rhetorical scales for (him/her), and introduce a countervailing acronym: “WIMPY”— Willful Imposition of My Preferences on You.

Like this comment
Posted by PV resident
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Dec 17, 2012 at 5:21 pm

I was at the meeting and there were many more speakers from the audience than 900 Portola Rd. neighbors. The theme I heard repeated was that spending $3 million for a property with no development plan was unsound policy. The Keep PV Rural group did not speak out against affordable housing but did suggest the Town slow down and study the situation with more community input.
Your reporter failed to capture the essence of the hearing in his article. The speakers were respectful, the Town Council listened, and overall the long evening was an exercise of democracy.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 5,041 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,231 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 767 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 577 views