Palo Alto to Enforce the Largest Mass Displacement of People in History of the City

Buena Vista Mobile Park is currently the home of roughly 400 Palo Alto residents. But the largely Latino community is soon to be removed from their home due to the property owners closing the park, and the City Council's agreement to the closure. Aram James writes the impending removal amounts to "ethnic cleansing."


(Image from the Friends of Buena Vista Support page.)

Palo Alto is about to embark on the single largest mass deportation and dislocation of a people in the City’s history. The residents of Buena Vista Mobile Park, totaling around 400 people, may soon be forced off of the grounds which has been many of their homes for generations. The park sits on an approximately 4.5 acre site very near to El Camino Real, in the exclusive Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto, where the medium sales price of a home in April, 2015 was listed at $2,650,000. Contrast this with the mobile homes at Buena Vista that are mostly extremely small, some very old (some dating back as far as the 1950’s) densely packed on the property. In recent decades the park’s residences have been mostly low income Latino families, who own their mobile homes and pay rent for their spaces. 

Yet despite being the only remaining mobile home park in Palo Alto, the city council on Tuesday April 14, 2015, with some minor changes to the relocation package, ruled to allow the closure of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.

Say what you want, some may prefer to sugar coat it, but the reality is that the practical impact of closing of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park is in fact the ethnic cleansing of a large portion of Palo Alto's Latino population, and the further re-segregation of Palo Alto schools. 

The dropout rate for Latino students both in Santa Clara County and statewide is about 30 percent, contrasted with an almost zero percent dropout rate for low income Latino residences of Buena Vista. Many residence of BV have gone on to graduate from universities including Stanford University. Recent college graduates have come back to BV to start families of their own. Stories abound of families working several low paying jobs to support their children, many, if not most, of whom have defied the odds and gone on to great personal and academic achievements. Access to nationally rated Palo Alto schools has played a big part in this story. 

As the tight-knit community continued to strive in the ever increasing cost of living atmosphere of Silicon Valley, in 2012, the property owners submitted an application to close the park.

In accordance with a city ordinance, in order to close the park, the owners had to satisfy a series of legal and procedural steps, including compensating the tenants for the loss of their property, hard earned investments, their homes and community. In essence the ordinance called for the owners to find comparable housing for the tenants and pay for their relocation. In reality, when factoring in the educational experience and value of a Palo Alto education,  along with the low rents and intangibles of this unique and vulnerable community, any relocation to another community would be comparable in only an illusory manner. Only purchase of the property from the owner and preserving this one of a kind Palo Alto community would be comparable housing.

Would this same all white citizen council have allowed this to happen had Buena Vista been occupied primarily by my dad and grandfather's people: Russian and Ukrainian Jews? Not a chance! "Tell the truth and shame the devil,” is an applicable idiom for the current situation.

And the last minute face saving efforts by the council, to sweeten the relocation package, to include factoring in the value of a Palo Alto education, and the safe neighborhood feel of Buena Vista, doesn't alter the bottom line: The closure of the mobile home park has been approved, the die is cast.The residences of Buena Vista have been thrown to the wolves, another causality of the war on the poor.

And make no mistake, this wealthy white city council could have stopped this vicious attack.

The city council had all the community support and political cover to do the right thing, but instead, they chose to align themselves with the rich and the elite and turn their backs on our city's precious diversity. But we had no choice. We had our marching orders. Follow a bad law or else.

I for one didn't expect justice from an all-white wealthy jury asked to rule on the interests of the poor and people of color. When push comes to shove, an all-white wealthy jury will protect their own, and, at best, give lip service to the poor and the vulnerable.

Writer James Baldwin said it most eloquently: 

"If one really wants to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected — those, precisely, who need the laws' protection most — and listens to their testimony.” The Price of the Ticket, “No Name in the Street” (1972) 

Instead of listening to the extraordinarily compelling testimony of the Buena Vista residents, the jury seemed to be listening to their own self-interest, their race and class privilege. Pronouncements of acting with a heavy heart, in upholding the closure, rang hollow to me, leaving a visceral reaction of the deepest hypocrisy.

It's time the community stand-up to this city council and demand that justice be served. The harsh implementation of an unjust mobile home ordinance must be nullified by community outrage and protest, and all appropriate legal responses.

Will Palo Alto’s billionaires now step-up to save the day?  These billionaires who may well have profited from low-wage workers, some of who may live at Buena Vista, and in other similarly situated low income housing.

We cannot allow Buena Vista to be closed. We must continue our collective community action to override and resist this unconscionable decision.  A decision whose legitimacy is undercut by the institutional biases that produced it. 

The verdict of this rogue jury, not of our peers, must not be allowed to stand. 

On Tuesday May 26 at 5pm the city council will meet one more time to hear some final procedural legal arguments regarding the closure order. Many members of the wider Barron Park and Palo Alto community, under the umbrella of a group named Friends of Buena Vista have organized with Buena Vista residents to resist the displacement. At that council meeting, Buena Vista residents and their many supporters will have one more opportunity to fill the city council chambers and to insist on justice for the Buena Vista residents.

About Aram James

Aram James is a former public defender and is a co-founder of the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project.

This article is uncategorized. Browse other categories ».
This article is untagged. Browse other tags ».

Comments

Why doesn't someone offer to buy the park?

Standing up for our rights to equitable education is a must. We cannot let our communities continue to be pushed out from gaining access to better self served opportunities considering this is currently our only way to decent educational opportunities.

As a former member of a family who were part of the"Palo Alto's elite" and as a former resident, I absolutely do NOT support the closure of this trailer home! When I was young, Palo Alto did have a lot of diversity like this trailer park, woven in around the community. When the city became too "yuppy" I left.
I wish I could be at the hearing on Tuesday but I certainly support all those who go and stop this move in it's tracks!!

Joe simitian is trying to have the county and city buy from the owner with an outside property management company chipping in some $$ and managing. the problem the owner was offered 30 million in the beginning and with all the fights about it withdrew offer. No one knows what the owner wants now personally I think the owner should sell to the county for less so that the people living their can stay and the county and r who e involved can afford the price

The city council is guilty of ethnic cleansing and the 7 billionaires that live in Palo Alto are guilty of the proposed deportations out of Palo Alto. Any one of these excessively rich people can buy the property and insure that the residents can continue to live in their homes/trailers.

Because i have little faith in the compassion of the billionaires I strongly agree with Aram james' call to action.

"It's time the community stand-up to this city council and demand that justice be served. The harsh implementation of an unjust mobile home ordinance must be nullified by community outrage and protest, and all appropriate legal responses". Nulified: make legally null and void; invalidate

It's also wrong to completely prevent the owners from doing what they want or need to do with their own land. Don't vilify the property owners; they have rights, too. Surely a solution can be found which does not punish these people for providing a place for others to live for over 60 years. I don't see why it has to be a win-lose situation.

what a great opportunity for some billionaire, the City and a socially conscious developer to create a model project at the site. A strategic project that addresses the systemic issues of poverty. Good, safe inter- generational housing, medical and day care facilities, pre-school, community and recreational facilities. This is the valley of future-think, let it not be also the valley of bias and exclusion. I personally know some very creative minds that could make such a development a model for the country. Step up Palo Alto.

it is not just Buena Vista residents who are being displaced, although they are a large number. In smaller numbers and individual families who are in the lower middle class bordering on low income who rent in Palo Alto and have done so for years are forced to move because of the absurdly high rents and rent increases over the last 5 years. I wish Palo Alto luck. Unless you own your own home you really don't have a place in this city.

Mark Zuckerberg lives in Palo Alto. Why hasn't he offered to buy the park? I'm sure Facebook could get some interesting, good deed press with that. After the seal of the deal FB could throw a kickass community party with some awesome música, tamales, posole, horchata, cerveza, etc. to celebrate the saving of Buena Vista! If I were a billionaire, I'd do it!

*Moderator, please use this post vs. my previous one. Thanks!

"single largest mass deportation and dislocation of a people"

It's not deportation, since no one is forcing these residents to leave the country. They are also not "a people," since the residents are comprised of many different ethnicities.

It's quite easy to second-guess what would happen if the Council were non-white, or if the residents were. No one can prove you wrong. Let's turn this around... where would your beef be if the property owner were Latino and residents all white?

Good slant tho, 10/10. Your oversimplification of the issue makes it sound like a race war, instead of a land owner choosing to exercise rights over property.

The market doesn't care what color your skin is. Stop trying to make this about race. Its about a free market doing what makes sense. BTW, that land will likely be used by more eastern Indians and Asians, collectively, than whites. So you're whole "America is racist" headline is ridiculous. But thanks for trying to play the race card for traffic. Bravo.

Unless you are the actual 1% of wealth in this country , why on earth would you side with them? If you accept that wealth supercedes rights , then know that every minority race, every poor person is you. They don't have the financial means to protect themselves. Neither do you. If you want to sit there thinking it could never happen to you, then you are doing all the heavy lifting by staying quiet . All the same stuff happens to everyone ; it's happening. Of course it is easier to divide and separate, by having you think it wouldn't happen to you, to parrot what monied bullying gets you in this country by saying " Oh well, they can do whatever they want, they own it..."

As I see it, the BV dilemma is a classic struggle between basic inalienable human rights—whether God-given or humanly derived- and the rights around the private ownership of pieces of our planet, an invention of only recent centuries (which, as I see it, is different from personal property). A subset of ever-evolving rules about ‘private’ property as a commodity is the human-derived methods of property appraisals. As such they are prone to biases, intentional or not. These methods have been debated for decades, constantly evolving to suit the mores of the times. While one side proclaims an almost ‘scientific’ approach to ‘TRUTH’ (I capitalize and italicize this word just like the City’s appraiser did in a letter he sent to the Council, describing the results of his ‘objective’ process), others find ample proof of how the socio-political framework of this work tilts results one way or another. Volumes have been written debunking the property appraisal process and notions of ‘comparability’ by scholars in the social sciences, economics, political science. Look back just 5 decades to read reports by appraisers absolutely convinced of their objectivity & truthfulness in their assessments of comparable properties during the era of segregation and rampant redlining, or during the recent mortgage crises when appraisers were incentivized to tilt results beyond real market conditions. Not to include educational opportunity and neighborhood security as comparable measures of ‘home’ is another example of ideological assumptions infiltrating any human endeavor, including property appraising.

As an architect, I served many clients developing affordable housing who, more often than not, encountered appraisers whose own class and race biases unintentionally (or intentionally) tilted property appraisals toward the direction that the banks who hired them wanted to hear, even in this day and age. And it was not until a coalition of rights advocates, threatening lawsuits, did banks get new appraisals, sometimes several times, before they got the results that would ward off lawsuits. So TRUTH, at least as defined by the appraisers, is relative. In all fairness to professionals in that business, all of us professionals harbor our share of beliefs which affect our work. As long as we are transparent about them, and not hide behind pretenses of an implausible screen of neutrality, then at least we can get to the root of our human predicament: we all must choose between what we fundamentally believe is right or wrong. In this case, the choice is to help those who have little to have access to more opportunity, or on the other hand, to help those who already have a lot, to get even more. Every religion in the world has written somewhere in its sacred texts that those who have more must help those who have less. I think that is the choice faced here by Palo Alto’s City Council, and its appraiser.

Michael Pyatok, FAIA

It's cynical and disingenuous to cast this as a racial issue. It's an income issue. The fact is, the Bay Area probably has a few million people who would like to live in a community like Palo Alto, but can't because they don't have the income. The solution is not to find a way for everyone to live in Palo Alto. The solution is to make all schools and communities as good as we can. If I were a billionaire I would rather invest my money into East Palo Alto, not Palo Alto where I'd be enriching an already rich community.

I affirm Mr. James' efforts in trying to get Palo Alto's City Council to adhere to the residents of Buena Vista plea and let them to purchase the property from the owner and preserve their "one of a kind" community.
I have lived in Palo Alto for many years and watched a once politically correct liberal city turn into a "yuppy haven" for the white "nouveau riche" entrepreneurs. The change has been quite devastating to say the least. It is a Moral Imparative for all Residents of Palo Alto to Speak Out against this grave injustice imposed upon the Buena Vista Park residents by our insensitive "deaf eared" City Council.

I am completely against the closure of the park, and I think the most important reasons have been largely ignored! These folks are an integral part of the cultural richness that has precipitated the greatness of Palo Alto. They are a resource, a leavening to our dough, and from a purely selfish perspective we should fight to include them, to keep them not only in our town as individuals, but together as a community. One of the hardest things for people dealing with financial struggles is transience, moving on, changing schools and friends and neighborhoods. These families know each other, depend on one another, in a way that strengthens us all. I am truly hopeful that someone will recognize this as a fantastic and rare opportunity to retain and protect an important part of our city's heritage and dynamic.

Being around people of differing levels of financial security is good for children. Being around people of different levels of financial security who go to the same schools, live in the same neighborhood, and often speak different languages is priceless.
How do I know? Despite having a grandmother who was born in Palo Alto, I moved with my family six times before I turned six. Did I benefit from exposure to different socioeconomic backgrounds, including a trailer, a small apartment, a very large house in Palo Alto ( with my five aunts and uncles), student housing at Stanford and at an international Seminary and a modest rented two bedroom on a cul-de-sac? Yes. Would I have benefitted from staying in one school and home rather than three schools and seven homes by the age of eleven? Please, somebody step up and help us come up with a plan to protect this community. If you can't fix it, don't break it! I for one would be willing to help 'compensate' the owner of the property for their financial loss... No money on the planet could compensate the loss to the families of Buena Vista Park, or to our town.

Sincerely, Katie Christman

This is a low income workers issue. If all the cooks, busboys, waiters, dishwashers, janitors, and landscape maintenance workers stopped working for 2 weeks the matter would solve itself. All cities need affordable housing for it's infrastructure workers, especially "Shallow Alto".

I don't support closing and relocating these residents even though I understand the financial reasoning for it but calling it "ethnic cleansing"? maybe you should google that term and see what it really means.

Closing a trailer park and paying people money to relocate somewhere else is not the same as killing them because they have the wrong skin color or pray for the wrong god.

As far the high rents in the bay area, this is the simplest supply and demand case. There's a lot more demand and not enough new housing. If cities like Palo Alto approved and fast tracked new appartment complex projects to raise supply, rents won't go up so fast. It's the only way to rain in rents

I believe state law requires the property be offered to the tenants before it can be sold. Have they checked with HUD? And does this effect the affordable housing component of the general plan. Also a state mandate. Often places like this serve to house very necessary people who hold life together for all who live near by. They may not be well paid but provide care for elderly, repairs for our homes, cars ect, They give lives some support that is needed. Their children benefit all of us when they trive. But you get the picture.

This is really bad and I would love to see these folks not work for 2 days sometime and see what happens. My dad lived there in the 70's for awhile, and it was quite affordable. Homes for the people who work in the community is so important. The rat race is pushing out the diversity and is unkind when greed moves all these folks from the only housing they can afford. People move here for the culture and flavors, but it's getting quite bland and dull with chain stores and restaurants. I hope for the best and pray someone can help, or the city council sees the light.

Tech people aren't the reason this is happening. The people who support the closure are the same NIMBYs who fought the development of an affordable senior citizens home really close to Buena Vista. They bought into Palo Alto many decades ago and never had anything to do with tech. They bought when it was cheap and have completely lost touch with what housing costs today. When people let them know that normal houses are going for $3 million, their reply is that it's always been expensive in Palo Alto! Never mind that housing here become four times more expensive than it was in the 80s. Never mind that we used to have teachers and nurses here and now you can't even dream of buying into this community unless you've won some sort of lottery. They're property owners who think that "property rights" don't belong to people trying to build housing - they call that a "subsidy" because you're "decreasing the quality of their lives", but do belong to the people "kicking out the riffraff." Absolutely this site should remain affordable housing and in fact should be rebuilt to make room for even more families and to upgrade the sad state of facilities that currently exists there. But it's never going to happen. This area is zoned for 15 dwelling units per acre and the NIMBYs will be damned if they let you building anything but McMansions here. And as for the Council- they could have offered to upzone the land in exchange for someone coming in to buy it and make it affordable but they're scared silly by the NIMBYs with pitchforks who have and will smear and stalk them for even mentioning the idea.

They City/County/State should buy it and give the seller some kind of tax incentive to do so at a discount. Even the federal Gov't has an interest in keeping people housed and employed. The seller will owe a lot of taxes on $30MM so there has to be some kind of deal that can be brokered.

People that Stand,

Keep advocating for self, contact legal aid, and contact those billionaires and let them know they have a chance to show their true colors.

Look, the tenants DO NOT own the land. If they can afford it at Market Rate, then good for them. They can move the 'houses' they own to somewhere else. What is a shame is that these immigrant parents who were able to provide several generations of children with WORLD CLASS public education and community did not have the personal values to move up and out themselves.

Sounds like there is a culture of poverty on this property that no amount of resources is going to impact. They can all move to Houston and get a mediocre public education and do better than they are doing in Palo Alto, and now the owner just gave them the funds to do just that. Start over and find a new reality. It's called CHANGE.

Being someone who believes no one owes me anything, the rules of the game are public and well known. This is not sudden, nor is it a mysterious phenomenon. When the tides changes, you have to seek new opportunities. And yes, let the good people of Palo Alto clean their own houses and mow their own yards or pay a living wage and for your excessive commute. The Market works, so does community college and the myriad of certification programs that will allow you opportunities for a living wage.

The clue here is, don't invest your money in a mobile home, Invest your money in land.

Most of the arguments here are moral... which is THE #1 urban planning NO-NO. Good intentions do not good urban planners make.

Shut er down.

This makes me sick, just because people have more money they think they can push people around,

The issue here might well be ethnic cleansing , but this is not being done by military or people of ill intent. This is a really an economic issue. It is akin to the car dweller issue. Those who have the wealth always dictate how things will be for those that do not. So, that being written, the remaining questions are about education of the displaced children, safe living environment for the family's who are displaced and what will be the impacts to small businesses in Palo Alto who need low wage workers?
I believe that it is not the responsibility of city government to assure diversity in any township or city. Schools are and have always been segregated, and forced integration which was done in California, did not seem to make any difference regarding racial stereotyping or racial attitudes of the public. Perhaps if people would stop judging others by their appearance or ethnic identity, the world would be a better place. You can not force any city government to advocate cultural awareness and understanding, it does not work, that only causes more hostility. As the city council voted for the rights of the property owner over the impacts of eliminating diversity in Palo Alto, as our current capitalist system is based upon the ownership of property, they did the right capitalist thing. Yet Capitalism is flawed and even evil, because it pits the haves against the have nots. So , why don't the haves seem to have any heart? Ask Ebenezer Scrooge!

I grew up in the general vicinity and then lived from the time I was 11 years old, my family rented homes in Palo Alto. The land owners were not reliable to fix leaky sinks or leaky roofs or the like, and any time that my mother would plant a garden in a front yard, real estate spectators would come snooping around and sell the house out from under us. We had to move from Morton Street to South Court to Sycamore, where we lived for the longest, over ten years, because my mother had a little savvy at that point and no longer would concentrate her gardening efforts in front of the house. Fortunately for me I attended a private school from fifth to eighth grade because we lived in Los Altos and Redwood city and then Palo Alto during that four year span of time. This isn't a racial issue. Palo Alto isn't racist. People in Palo Alto LOVE ethnic diversity. What is it? It is the most competitive elitist place, probably on the entire planet. A place where the most beloved landmark culturally enriching locations are shuttered by real estate tycoons flexing their muscles just because they can. A place where some of the school children drive brand new Mercedes, go on spring shopping trips to Paris and wear designer perfume to school while other children walk and enjoy "staycations." A place where the pressure of the disparate collective rights displays a price of human life via juvenile train track suicides. When Clinton got into office, and the first big "boom" hit Palo Alto, I was shocked at some of the changes. I found out that if I wanted to be treated like a human being at Stanford shopping center, I had better be wearing some diamond stud earrings I had. If I tried shopping without jewelry then the salespeople would tail me as if I were a potential thief EVERY time. At one time, I stood in front of the Aquarius theater in some jeans, reading a marquee. The man who nearly mowed me down walking by in his Armani suit didn't even say "excuse me." -He felt entitled to be rude. Which brings us to the current situation today. Displacing people from their homes, as if the land that they rent is nothing more than a commodity is RUDE! What the devil is the point of wealth if the people possessing it have a complete lack of grace and compassion? The billionaires of Palo Alto seem evidently to be lacking basic manners. Don't buy theaters and then shutter them! Don't buy 100 year homes and then tear them down to build two story monstrosities that overlook your neighbors (once private) yards. Don't buy rental properties and sell them out from under your renters! It's amazing to me that these wealthy people act as if they have NO CLASS! Good breeding isn't demonstrated by ruthless opportunism. Palo Alto has had these problems for a long time, but it also used to have an old movie theater, a famous music venue, and at least five independent book sellers. Sold - to the biggest greedy opportunist!

As a Palo Alto resident for over thirty years who has paid taxes to support the schools and city government, there is nothing that would make me happier than to have my tax dollars go to supporting the community at Buena Vista either through buying the property to ensure affordable housing remains as part of Palo Alto or defending the city against a lawsuit the owners are threatening if they don’t get their way. Residents of Palo Alto know that the reason their houses are worth millions is primarily because of the quality of the schools here and it’s outrageous that appraisals of the homes do not take that into account. At the hearings last summer there was testimony that one year of comparable education for ONE student for ONE year would be over $26,000 yet the average appraisal of each entire home was $18, 816. The rules the city council put into place years ago to close the park were clearly meant to make it possible for the occupants to find comparable housing and excluding the value of a Palo Alto education in calculating compensation to the residents is unfair and dishonest. I’d prefer that this becomes a win/win and that the owners walk away with their millions and the residents get to stay, but this is the time for the city to take a stand and do what is right even if it has to defend its decision in court. The world is watching what we do here and we need to get it right.

I say, eminent domain for $15M which is a healthy profit over the ownership group's $10 M investment, albeit well-below their hypothetical and pipe-dream deal with the developers.

It's the moral choice.

Palo Alto, thru first the use permit and then its General Plan, has vowed to value and protect the humble park residents since well before this current round.

It looks to me like the current ownership group, which took control in 2000, did so with the intent to close the park.

Meanwhile, nationwide there are plenty of other investors, and a billion perhaps trillion dollar industry built around running mobile home parks.

Maybe the $16 M, alternatively, could be used as a rebate to subsidize a different private sector mobile home park operator, should the current group decide to sell.

We (Palo Alto) should be firmer about our support, and not dilly-dally around.

Thanks for your great article.

To My Good Friend and Mentor in Gadfly Activities--

Thank you for your kind invitation to comment. However-- I must take issue with you.

First-- I think it's important to state that none of us can see into the mind/intent/inner feelings of another.

While I wouldn't be surprised to find evidence of racial prejudice/privilege involved in the decisions of our City Council-- can any of us lay claim to a perfectly clean racial consciousness?-- I see no reason to get overly ethnic in our assumptions about this. One can speculate on reasons for the really bad decision of the City Council without accusing them of bias or hatred or ethnic cleansing.

Secondly-- it seems to me the important point is that the right answer can't involve eviction of the BuenaVistenos. All the moral outrage at City Council and in the letters to the editor and the heartfelt testtimonies of the residents is all anyone needs to make (or defend) the right decision which is NOT to enable the eviction. If it's intentional ethnic cleansing -- so much the worse. But it's hard to imagine argument that would justify the Council's decision to go ahead with eviction and their failure to retain jurisdiction.

The City Council's job is to speak and respond to the highest moral feelings and best interests of all residents. As we all saw at City Council meetings and as you state the strong will of the people is to preserve the BV residents' rights and not evict them.

Thirdly-- Blind land-greed is not exactly unknown in these parts. Can you not imagine the usual suspects doing the usual things they usually do--commit an Arrillaga-- apparently in the absence of ethnic considerations? I sure can. If you can't believe in the loyalty of Palo City Councils to the interests of property-inflation maniacs/developers/others of low moral character-- you're just not paying attention.

My Fourth and last point is the optics. The direction/moral reputation/vision of the City have been passed to you Dear City Council Members. You can either continue the mistakes of the past -- more secret meetings with more John Arrillagas--or make new; adaptive; and progressive policy (think Joe Simitian). It's in YOUR hands.

Do you have any idea how it looks to the rest of the world to see the City of some of the most powerful interests and wealth in the world siding with land-greed against poor non-white hard working families?

Chuck Jagoda

Also, how is the union, not a Palo Alto resident or Council member able to hold up what our citizens have essentially approved?

Shocking and horrifying to just uproot these long term residents. Some neighbor group or non profit org or one billionaire Stanford grad cd buy this property and save it for generations to come. Why don't Stanford students and alums fight for this cause?

Palo Alto's Buena Vista ethnic cleansing efforts are back in full force-The Billionaire owner of the mobile home park is refusing to consider 29 million dollar offer from a non profit company wanting to preserve the low income housing. I am unsympathetic with the owner's fictitious claim that she/he can not ascertain the value of the property while the tenants are fighting for their homes. Is there a violin playing in the background.? I look forward to Aram James and others response to this disingenuous excuse for not considering this offer. Doug Minkler

Post a comment

Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS