Here is the post:

I was looking forward to voting for something that finally provided for the least aming us. Unfortunately, Santa Clara County Measure A includes such a wide swath of earners, it looks practically geared for abuse in the Palo Alto development wars.

Instead of focusing on those who realky need it, there are no restrictions on which grouos the money will be spent to help, or requirements that the money be spent where the need is greatest. In fact, the measure specifies that a significant amount if money will be spent on "moderate income" people, which includes families making 120 percent of area income. In Palo Alto, that's couples making about $200,000 a year!!!!

Worse, in the same section, it says "such portion may be used ... to promote housing that is in proximity to employers."

This looks for all the world like a nuclear option, so that rather than learning to work with residents to find and purchase suitable properties for higher density low-income housing, they will steamroll over neighbors with an even louder bigger nasty bullhorn and war chest, such a rekindling Maybell.

There is also no provision for people who make less than the moderate income they'll be taxed to help, to opt out if the tax creates a hardship. This is the case for many house poor in Palo Alto, who could end up paying over $200 more per year. One of the major reasons people end up housepoor is to avoid the instability of rental markets and for kids' schooling, even at great sacrifice. Given the inflexibility, the namecalling, and unwillingness of supposed advocates to work with the community in good will, and the aggressive disingenuousness of the PAF crowd, I am sadly going to have to vote NO on Santa Clara Measure A.

I do not want a war chest for Palantir to create high rise high density housing in Palo Alto so that Palantir can have employees walk to an entrenching compound downtown, instead of their paying enough for their employees to live here or moving where they can both pay less and have that. I do not want the ugliness of people who would otherwise be supporters of low-income housing having to fight another big development TROJAN HORSE like at Maybell. It is ultimately bad for the cause if affordable housing.

I wish I could ask Simitian to promise here that the money will only be used for the most needy and low income, but the bond contains a specification that major chunk will be used for the up-to $200,000/year moderate income crowd, and specifies as an example, language that indicates advocacy for controversial development causes that don't really help the needy and even get people against such development when it is used as a trojan horse for big development that way. At the county level and above, the Democratic party has clearly bought the big development trojan horse perspective, so there is absolutely no reason to believe this isn't in part to feed the PAF/Palantir crowd.

If this doesn't pass, I hope the supervisors come back with something specific and only aimed at the poor and really needy. If it does, I hope Simitian doesn't further hurt the cause of affordable housing by letting this bond be misused by big development interests in the Palo Alto densification wars as it seems designed to be. Remember, the described "safeguards" do nothing to ensure the money is spent well, and the bond itself gives as an example that it could be used to "promote housing that is in proximity to employment". For couples making $120,00 to $200,000/year in Palo Alto.

Why do they do this? Until recently, I voted Yes on every tax or bond for any social cause especially for affordable housing. If I get called a nimby one more time for not wanting these important causes to be used and manipulated by big developers to cash in on transforming Palo Alto into an urban mess, I am going to just stop listening and vote against everything. I am voting NO on Santa Clara Measure A.

People have been pointing out these same issues for months.
Lack of accountability, lack of clear plan and definition, wide open for abuse.
Vote "No" on A.

@Help the needy,
Where has this been discussed? I haven't seen anything. This Measure seems practically designed to give money to development interests to densify Palo Alto. No one seems willing to talk about the negative impacts to affordable housing efforts from the manipulation of affordable housing by development mongers wanting to use it for their own selfish purposes even when the end result makes things harder for low income residents. If you have an analysis that points out the trojan horse aspect for development special interests, please share.

How can they get away with writing something this vague and yet so specific about so much money going to people making so much income, and paying for development campaigns? By the description here, Kate Downing could get a low income grant and have the county pay for her to move into the home she always wanted here. Why is no one standing up against this and how this kind of thing hurts those who need something like this? Please send a link. Thanks.

@Longtime
You have good points in your comment. I did not mean to suggest your late to the party. I'm just saying that you are not alone as others have been griping about this proposition as well.

You can see examples the comments sections of the threads below, for example...

Web Link

Web Link

It would be a tragedy if additional development allowed more people of moderate incomes to live in Palo Alto.

@Development interests,
It would be a tragedy if a trojan horse Measure like Santa Clara County Measure A ends up going to people who don't need it instead of to people who do. A tragedy because the needy won't get help, and the public trust will be lost. I don't want to be forced to sacrifice more, to borrow more, for people who make more than we do, and could live here if they want, just not in the style some planning commissioner clearly wants. If the county wants to help the poor, it should write bonds that help the poor, and are not full of earmarks for people making $200,000/year who do not need it, and money to push for Palantir's development agnda downtown.

Again, helping people keep a roof over their heads, helping the disabled afford homes with services, helping the homeless, is not the same thing (no matter how snide remarks like yours or how much PAF manipulative language claims it) as a birthright to live in Palo Alto on the cheap. Not the same thing by a mile. Vote No on Santa Clara County Measure A, and write Simitian to come back next time with a sincere proposal that must go to the most needy.

@Help the Needy,
Thanks - I was looking to know I wasn't alone. I appreciated your perspective and agree. I still don't see in those comments the understanding that this money can basically be used almost on anything, including on people making more than the average (more than most of those footing the bill around the county) and specifically it says it can be used to promote dense housing near employment, i.e., it could be used to fund development campaigns to transform Palo Alto into a dense urban mess. It's curious that such a vague bond is so specific about that.

This is just a bad bond asking for way too much money, it is rife for abuse - and may even have been written fir it, by the looks of it.

Such a shame!