Excellent article - Thank you

While I find some of the comments absurd, I do wish those involved (planners/staff/city council/consultants) learn from the pain of dealing with government entities, and someday change how you treat us citizens who wish to remodel, or build in this town.

Not sure where in the state guidance for housing element submittal is that towns needs to have a strategy in place for a future ballot initiative. But yes, this is exactly how the town treats us as well. I can show you multiple MP planing/building staff requests that were not written as required anywhere in MP guidance for submittal.

Good times!

If you want to be well educated on this issue then watch this excellent presentation:

Web Link

Not sure what to think about the video or "opinion", as I did not see any opinion. I kind of thought she would have some "accountability" for the response letter.

My thoughts on a few HCDs comments:

"what contributes to the identified segregation in the Belle Haven neighborhood. In addition, the element should describe what contributes to the concentration of female headed households north of Highway 101." - interesting, looking forward to that analysis.

"The element should also describe the concentration of low-income residents east of Highway 101 as well as describe and analyze the City’s high median income in relation to the immediate surrounding region (i.e., East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Redwood City)." - My absolute favorite comment as I kind of thought there was this other town between MP and Redwood City!

"the element should describe whether there is access to jobs for protected classes and analyze the relationship between the least positive economic outcomes located in the same areas with the highest proximity to jobs." no idea what this request even means.

"Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends." Never seen a gov't body use the word "enough".

"the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households." Clearly the city gave this too much thought, HCD doesn't care what land costs, which is why the town proposed putting low income in the parking lots.

"The element must provide additional support and describe whether the City has contacted the owners regarding feasibility of development on these sites and whether they will be available during the planning period." - Again, what was the guidance here? Who from MP was supposed to contact each property owner and ask them if they will redevelop their property, what questions are you supposed to ask to asses this?