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

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.

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?

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.

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

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