(OPTIONAL) Please provide any comments you have about questions or your answers on this page:
#	Response Date	Comment
1.	Wed, 8/15/07 12:31 PM	if zoning allowed more than three stories, problem would be solved
2.	Wed, 8/15/07 10:17 PM	Infrastructure first!!! Also, there is a dearth of convenient public transportation within and between the area's high employment cities and the communities in which employees in the region live and work. More attention must be given to housing city employees (staff, teachers, police and fire).
3.	Wed, 8/15/07 11:43 PM	Just hinting at adding 3500 homes in Palo Alto means that It will happen. In Palo Alto this hint would simply snowball into reality
4.	Thu, 8/16/07 2:53 AM	#3 Presupposes a great deal. Innovative companies may not like the density, increased traffic, and higher taxes. #5 I support environmental efforts but whose economic goals are you talking about? Not mine.
5.	Thu, 8/16/07 4:37 AM	So now Stanford has dropped the other shoe - a 'hospital district'. Is anyone surprised? Palo Alto is being ruined and the quality of life destroyed for the people who already live here. Palo Alto cannot be expected to house all of the jobs created on the west side of El Camino by building on the east side of El Camino. THERE IS NO ROOM.
6.	Thu, 8/16/07 4:39 AM	There isn't any room in Palo Alto for busines' except the Stanford Medical Center, which I'm all for.
7.	Thu, 8/16/07 5:14 AM	We bought in Palo Alto for the schools, quiet streets, and neighborhoods. If we want heavy traffic, high density housing, etc., we would have bought in San Francisco. Adding more homes in Palo Alto will destroy what Palo Alto is known for.
8.	Thu, 8/16/07 6:13 AM	I suppose there would have to have 'affordable housing'. I would like to live in Atherton but can't afford to do so. If a person or family can't affort to live in this town, I feel that they would have to live where they can afford to do so.
9.	Thu, 8/16/07 7:58 AM	There are a number of implicit (false) assumptions here that go into concluding that people buying new houses in Palo Alto will work in Palo Alto (or even work particularly close to Palo Alto) #1. If you can afford to buy any house in Palo Alto, you probably won't be taking public transportation and being very close to work won't be your primary reason for moving here. More likely it will be somethng like: -> like the community / neighborhoods -> hope property values will remain strong -> good schools for your children #2. Unless the cost of gas and car commuting increases dramatically or public transportion magically becomes cost effective (including the huge lost opportunity cost of spending 2-3x longer getting somewhere via mass transit vs private car when your free time is already squeezed by working long hours) the cost of housing will be the primary determing factor in people's choice ... not proximity to work. From an economic standpoint, if I work in Palo Alto, there are numerous communities within a economically advantageous commute (less than 30 minute drive ... far shorter than any mass transit time required to go even 5 miles away) where I can find a house for $100's of thousands less. It makes no economic sense for me to decide to live in an expensive city purely because I happen to work there. For #4 ... adding lots of extra housing units in a relatively short time period with high density due to lack of land resources will definitely degrade the quality of life and put stresses on the city resources. I agree that it will be a great opportunity for developers to make money though...
10.	Thu, 8/16/07 5:27 PM	I think that ABAG should not assign quotas if these quotas are not attached to guarantees that transit and other infrastructure dollars will follow in proportion to the required growth. It has been Palo Alto's experience that regional transit dollars spent in this community have been continually cut as we have complied with ABAG quotas better than many communities by approving infill projects. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide housing, but the county and state have failed to return a reasonable amount of our contribution to their transit coffers to our community. The recent $1,000,000 proposed VTA cuts in Palo Alto are an excellent example of this. Just as the city has approved 976 new housing units in south PA on the VTA 88 bus route, the line that serves this area gets cut. Recent Caltrain commitment to bullet trains also reduced service to the San Antonio train station that serves this area. CPA approves housing, and the county agencies cut the transit. In fact, in the twelve years that I have lived in PA I have seen nothing but overall cuts to transit service in CPA. It is a disappointing track record. Although historically I have been a proponent of smart growth and public transit, I am losing faith that regional transit service will ever deliver to CPA adequately to support the level of growth that ABAG prooposes to mandate. That is an unsustainable model.
11.	Thu, 8/16/07 6:36 PM	I think 3505 homes are too many. Do we have the public infrastructure like roads, school, library, city staff to handle that?
12.	Thu, 8/16/07 8:57 PM	Once again, ABAG is trying to do an impossible and undesirable task. It is physically and fiscally impossible -- and certainly undesirable -- to match each home with a nearby job.
13.	Fri, 8/17/07 3:25 AM	I was a townhome owner in Midtown Palo Alto two years ago but moved to Menlo Park to a single-family home, one with a much larger yard for my small children. The notion that children don't need this space when growing up is utter nonsense -- it certainly doesn't jibe with my experience. And that's just one of the reasons I do not support high density, infill development, such as is taking place in my neighborhood of Menlo Park right now.
14.	Fri, 8/17/07 5:29 AM	We must also factor in the BENEFITS that new residents bring. Why do we only speak of costs? Costs can offset benefits.
15.	Fri, 8/17/07 12:31 PM	Traditional considerations regarding housing needs should be adjusted, because most of the large employee company growth in the Bay Area will not require physical presence of employees nearly as much as it did in the past. Many, many more people can work from their (distant) homes for days at a time. Even more can do some work at home and avoid rush hour traffic, thus expanding the geographical distance from which they can comfortably work.
16.	Sat, 8/18/07 2:37 AM	This is a built-out community and there is little room left to accommodate newcomers, unless large amounts of money are spent on enlarging/improving local infrastructure. Where is this $ to come from? We have 2 train stations. Job holders should make use of CalTrain, not single occupancy car trips and not by expecting Palo Alto taxpayers to subsize increased numbers of so-called affordable housing for them.
17.	Sat, 8/18/07 4:31 AM	Why should we have ANY OBLIGATION to build new homes? These dictated economic goals do not represent my goals. With more homes will indeed come more companies, more jobs and then pressure to build even more homes.
18.	Sun, 8/19/07 4:20 AM	These "homes" and the people in them can be accommodated, if they are not all single family dwellings on land that is currently open space. Higher density infill development, and the public transit and other services to support them, can make Palo Alto a more attractive place to live and work.
19.	Sun, 8/19/07 7:46 PM	The questions are skewed to get the answers you want. The second one in particular. What does it have to do with planning for growth...any growth will accelerate greenhouse gases...the growth is going to happen the issue would be how to reduce the greenhouse effect while bringing online the additional 3500 homes. The immigration of new people will not stop just because we do nto want more pollution. This is the real world..plan for smart growth for the short term, 15 years down the road and then 30 years out. And if the school board can give taxpayer money out in interest free loans to incoming Superintendents for a half million or million dollars there must be plenty of money in the school system now to expand without additional levies on the taxpayers.
20.	Thu, 8/23/07 7:15 AM	See my previous comment.
21.	Thu, 8/23/07 11:09 PM	#4 - Are public facilities at their max of use now or are they underutilized? If demand exceeds capacity, we also need to create more facilities. This is easy to solve!
22.	Fri, 8/24/07 1:19 AM	You should not have lumped global warming and regional traffic. There will probably be more region traffice but the alternative is people driving from Tracy. That means less global warming.
23.	Fri, 8/24/07 7:08 AM	The pressure on schools may be the biggest obstacle, but this should be addressed in part by increasing school fees for all new developments (not just new homes). I also think new strategies for affordable workforce housing must be considered.
24.	Fri, 8/24/07 9:04 PM	Perhaps I'm unperceptive, but where exactly are 3505 additional homes to be built? Not on old school properties (the school district learned its lesson on that issue). Will properties be rezoned from business/commercial to residential followed by demolition and rebuilding? Will these new homes appear on Stanford land and what does that imply with respect to contributions toward the tax base in support of schools, utilities, public services and transportation?
25.	Fri, 8/24/07 10:14 PM	The emphasis seems to be on locating people's homes in the same city as their jobs. This is not looking at the real world. It would be worth surveying what percentage of people live in the same city as their job...especially for Palo Alto. In my 35 year working career, as well as my father before me, I never lived in the city in which I worked. Even though commuting may be tougher now, people still change jobs, often prefer cities beyond where they work, etc. The cost of housing in Palo Alto has not gone down, even with the city's exceeding its last goal. It is unreal to expect Palo Alto to have affordable housing to meet future needs. Thus, the solution appears to have better transit to bring workers in from outlying more affordable areas.
26.	Fri, 8/24/07 11:11 PM	We need to increase the use "infill", re-zoning, and "upward" instead of "outward" growth patterns, in my opinion.
27.	Fri, 8/24/07 11:58 PM	East Palo Alto has available housing, as do Mountain View and Redwood City. It is racist to assume that all of these people must live in Palo Alto rather than the more ethnically diverse communities around it, that have lower demand and more vacancies.
28.	Sat, 8/25/07 12:07 AM	If the term "home" includes high-density, multilevel buildings, accommodating an increasing population is not out of the question. For environmental and social reasons, we need to get away from the idea that "home" means sprawling McMansion on five acres with 2 cars for every resident. IDEA: give current residents the freedom, if they like, to increase the density on their property. Make it less bureaucratically difficult to build, for example, detached mother-in-law units or expand their homes vertically.
29.	Sat, 8/25/07 12:37 AM	I assume when you say 3,505 "homes" above you mean 3,505 units of housing. Not necessarily "single family homes." For me the word "homes" has the connotation of "single family homes." But I assumed that we are talking about housing units.
30.	Sat, 8/25/07 4:12 AM	It seems that Palo Alto is being allocated an u nfiarly large share because it is a major Caltrain stop.
31.	Sat, 8/25/07 4:15 AM	We already have approved over 4000 homes whikch will cost the city general fund over $4.5 million/year in added expenses to service, and will require PAUSD to spend at least $40 milloin for new elementary schools and reopening Cummerly as a high school. There is no funding to support this demand for services. The added homes requyested would be a total environmental and economic disaster.
32.	Sat, 8/25/07 5:37 AM	These questions lack integrity. They assume it is a fact that the addition of homes will benefit regional environmental and economic goals. It seems more likely to have the opposite effect, because: a) Most of the homes will not be affordable by people currently commuting into Palo Alto; b) The added population that can afford the housing will generate demands for services, increasing both the inward and in-city commute volume. Further, the housing will be heavily subsidised by Palo Alto residents, in the form of costs for new schools and services. This will reduce funds available for other environmental improvements. The latter could be mitigated by requiring that developers pay 100% of the costs of added infrastructure, traffic mitigation and services. If that makes the housing projects uneconomical, it means they are uneconomical.
33.	Sat, 8/25/07 7:36 AM	Regional mandates to increase housing units in Palo Alto are illogical and unfair given that state law (specifically prop 13) does not give Palo Alto or PAUSD control over their revenue. Also, simply jamming more housing into every community in the Bay Area is not the right solution.
34.	Sat, 8/25/07 2:42 PM	Current plans for CalTrain station at University Avenue do not provide adequate density. It is a good site for multi-use, higher density building.
35.	Sat, 8/25/07 5:54 PM	How are we going to continue to support this influx of new housing when we are bursting at the seams now? The request is higher than last time from the ABAG. I'm to the point that I'm ready to move out of here if the amenities of Palo Alto continue to diminish because of what some high and mighty government agency is absurdly dictating.
36.	Sat, 8/25/07 6:30 PM	Homes built in Palo Alto will be expensive because of the very high cost of limited land for building. Therefore only those with high paying jobs will be able to afford to buy these homes. Even if 500 or so are so called affordable, below market, with the requirement of an income of "only" $76,000 to $110,000 this shuts out all the service workers who will still have to commute long distances. Moreover, taking up Palo Alto's liited land for housing will of necessity reduce land available for commercial. Thus city revenue will not increase sufficiently to service all the housing service requirements. The impact of all this hjousing on the schools will be very high. So this plan will not reduce traffic of aid in resolving the global warming problem, but could create very difficult revenue problems for the city and the school district.
37.	Sat, 8/25/07 7:40 PM	If so many homes are added, PAUSD will collapse, precipitating an outflux of residents. This is ridiculous. We don't want it!
38.	Sat, 8/25/07 8:25 PM	it would be great to open a community conversation about population stabilization
39.	Sun, 8/26/07 12:35 AM	Palo Alto is relatively dense as it is, and is in dire need of more commercial property to pay for city services (not to mention businesses that themselves serve the residents, like a supermarket). The schools cannot handle more children, and it is very hard to get the residents to bear more costs to even bring the schools back to the level of services and infrastructure in the recent past, much less the glory days of prior decades. We have been unable to get voters to support necessary libaray and public safety upgrades. Traffic in downtown and along the aterial streets is atrocious, and would not be ameliorated by building more housing in the available areas that are still driving distance away from businesses downtown or in the research park. There is simply no more money or space for more people here, given the pressure on city and school services. But more importantly, because Palo Alto is a such a strong magnet because of its schools and civic identity, people move here for the schools and the place itself, even if their jobs are distant. I have not seen any research demonstrating that when new houses are built here the people who move into them were the ones commuting here from Tracy, or some other distant locale. In fact, many of them may be commuting farther when they move here, as they abandon the San Jose schools and maintain their jobs in San Jose or Cupertino. Many people choose the big houses and lots of a far-more-affordable Tracy to the overpriced postage stamp lots of Palo Alto. The vast majority of new housing here won't be afforable for public servants or the working poor. Most of my neighbors don't work in Palo Alto.
40.	Sun, 8/26/07 12:42 AM	With respect to question 3, the reduction of quality of life will more than offset the availability of housing for yet more employees in the Bay Area. The net change in "attractiveness" will be negative.
41.	Sun, 8/26/07 5:27 AM	Palo Alto needs affordable housing, the trend has been to tear down affordable homes and build multimillion dollar homes in their place. As a Barron Park resident I do almost all of my shopping in Los Altos and Mt. View because they have full supermarkets & other stores with reasonable prices and closer to my home than is available in Palo Alto. Palo Alto should encourage the opening of stores that will meet the needs of the current Palo Alto population before building more upscale housing units.
42.	Sun, 8/26/07 5:11 PM	You cannot dictate where people will commute to/from Palo Alto and whether or not they will use public transportation to get to/from work. For a city that is almost completely built out, with
43.	Mon, 8/27/07 4:42 AM	China has taken effective steps to limit population growth. We should follow their example. Breeding is not a right, but a legal activity only for the worthy. Immigration must also follow a rational policy. So long as we have a standard of living that attracts others, only the best and brightest should be allowed to immigrate. Any other policy is suicide.
44.	Mon, 8/27/07 5:47 PM	The answers to these questions, for me, is all in the "how". You can add 3,000 homes free-standing? I surely hope not. But adding high density, walkable communities? I would hope this sort of strategy is in the plan somehow, to meet economic goals while not adding to the global warming war we already are losing.
45.	Tue, 8/28/07 2:20 PM	I don't think that ABAG has any business dictating plans like this... It stinks of Soviet-style central planning.
46.	Tue, 8/28/07 3:02 PM	Attractively built, intelligently designed, high density housing has huge benefits for communities like Palo Alto!
47.	Tue, 8/28/07 6:24 PM	By building high-density condos and townhomes, the developers maximize their profits, to the detriment of Palo Altans. Families don't want these small "apretments" with no green area and no backyard. Children shoudn't have to live in these tenements. The houses should be stand-alone, single-family homes with a backyard and areas to play in. The developers are getting it TOO EASY. They should pay for park areas, libary enchancements and new school campuses. By building condos, it only makes the older, single-family homes with backyards more valuable and more expensive. The developers don't care about the environment, but only about profit. My neighborhood, Greenmeadow, was designed in the 50's by Eichler. He understood what families want and he implemented it. He built a park with neighborhood pool in the center of the developement. He understood what a community is. Today's designers design high-desity crap that just leads to more cars on our roads. It doesn't matter if the condos are built near the RR. People still just drive their cars anyway. The whole argument of being near transit is a TOTAL LIE and the people of this area know that.
48.	Wed, 8/29/07 12:12 AM	Higher-density and infill growth is preferable to continued sprawl for many reasons. Palo Alto has the sound infrastructure and government to manage and pace this type of growth. Blind nimby-ism, if successful, would only push the new homes out onto the foothills, further destroying our views and our open space, and raising costs for everyone from the need to create ever more freeway lanes and ever longer commute distances and times. Sensible Palo Altans should welcome well-planned infill and high-density developments; new residents who are not driving long distances to work only improve our tax base and create greater variety and convenience of both commercial and public services.
49.	Wed, 8/29/07 12:53 AM	Assuming that these homes would not all be single-family detached homes but some in clusters or multi-units to keep open space. Also wouls assume that they would be more affordable and located near transit at the veryl east with opportunities for good schools.
50.	Wed, 8/29/07 6:12 PM	More affordable housing in Palo Alto is essential for employees to live closer to where they work.
51.	Wed, 8/29/07 7:16 PM	We don't need more homes in Palo Alto. I've lived here all my life and we need to stop the building.
52.	Wed, 8/29/07 9:15 PM	I thin we should add a question about my great article in Dwell Magazine. I looked so modern and smart and my Paly High Poker buddies just LOVED IT!
53.	Wed, 8/29/07 9:20 PM	The Palo Alto infrastructure is failing. The libraries are in sad shape. With 11,000 students, the schools are already bursting at the seams. The city has budget problems. Will ABAG send us money?
54.	Thu, 8/30/07 12:13 AM	Palo Alto's planners, city council and residents will never allow 3500 units to be built. They will try to force Stanford to finance the housing and infrastructure, build the streets, sewer lines, fund city-wide transportation, donate the land for and build the schools, and will still complain about it.
55.	Thu, 8/30/07 12:33 AM	Really, I'd love to see us talk about possibilities like accommodating new people within existing infrastructure (yes: I mean more people per home!).
56.	Thu, 8/30/07 1:19 PM	Q2-- I would be supportive if I thought that building homes here would in fact reduce traffic and environmental impacts. Nearly every new family who moves here, however, says they do so for the schools. They are not moving here to be close to jobs. To the extent that the new housing accommodates more than one person, it seems that the price will be bid up by those incoming residents who want access to schools. Also, most people, among those who can afford to buy existing housing here, do not seem to select to live in the same town as their employer so much as to be within a reasonable commute time. People may live in Menlo Park and commute less than 20 minute by auto ride to a nearby town. Frankly, I wonder why the push is not to increase housing in EPA, where people may live in order to be close to a job. Is there a way to increase housing in EPA without driving out existing residents? It would also help convince me if there was evidence that the dense development near transit in fact contained transit riders. Did the apartments built across from the Menlo Park train station attract residents who ride the train. Is there a way to ensure that the new residents will be living near their jobs? To allocate housing to public servants?
57.	Thu, 8/30/07 1:58 PM	Palo Alto seems to have had a disproportionate number of new and multi family homes added to our inventory in the last 10 years. Most of these residents do not work in Palo Alto. we do not want or need to become a type of bedroom community for other parts of the bay area.
58.	Thu, 8/30/07 3:57 PM	The citizens of Palo Alto live here for the character of the community. There is no obligation to change that character to attract others.
59.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:13 PM	While nearly impossible to pull off, it seems like the issues of more homes and reducing traffic and CO2 emissions needs to be solved regionally to be effective, rather than within one city.
60.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:46 PM	The new homes will be too expensive to attract the average employee who will continue to commute to more affordable areas. ABAG does not compensate cities for the infrastructure, education and congestion costs of more housing. P.A. has built their fair share of housing in the last few years. Finally, regional environmental goals will be best served by increased(and workable) public transportation.
61.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:31 PM	The high cost of Palo Alto real estate will probably self-limit the available market unless quality of housing is sacrificed.
62.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:40 PM	do not want to see Palo alto enlarged by more housing
63.	Thu, 8/30/07 6:40 PM	In addition to the business motivations for housing employees, it seems to me untenable over the long term that our teachers, police, fire, healthcare, and other infrastructure personnel cannot afford to live in the cities they serve.
64.	Thu, 8/30/07 7:02 PM	It is unclear to me how ABAG proposes to enforce that residents of the proposed new dwellings work near the residence. If they are sold to people that would just like to live in Palo Alto (#4) but work in Santa Clara then it will have accomplished nothing (#2). As a businessman I don't think the residents of Palo Alto have an obligation to support my company's economic goals (#5)
65.	Thu, 8/30/07 8:28 PM	Urban density and residential and business growth are a fact in our history and future in the bay area. Let's get on with it and plan appropriately. All these efforts strenghtens the economy and future of the bay area and can be a model to other communities. We need the guidance on local government.
66.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:13 PM	I am very concerned that Palo Alto is already overbuilt and that this was done without proper long-term infrastructure planning. The Palo Alto schools are already at capacity and the children are learning out of trailers, rather than well-built, functional facilities. We tried to get one of my children into the neighborhood school but were unsuccessful in doing so due to overcrowding. If Palo Alto continues to add housing, the inevitable outcome will be a decline in property values. Cities such as Atherton, Los Altos and Menlo Park recognize that their communities can only assimilate a certain amount of high density housing - and as a result, these communities continue to thrive and prosper, whereas Palo Alto is in the beginnings of an overall decline. We have lived her for 8 years and Palo Alto is already a much busier place - and the reason we purchased here was for our children to enjoy a first class public education. The reality has been very different for us and we are saddened by the decisions that have been made here over the last several years.
67.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:32 PM	Even though additional housing might attract more business (which is good for our economy), 3500 more homes in our area can also make this a less desireable place to live. Home prices have stayed high because of our good schools and the proximity to Stanford, and not because we provide more housing for businesses in our area.
68.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:38 PM	Communities should be able to control factors that affect their quality of life, including housing density. I feel no obligation to increase housing density here because of an imbalance of jobs and housing. Let the free market sort that out.
69.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:40 PM	Why try to squeeze more into Palo Alto when there is more open area nearby with public transportation available from there to Palo Alto.
70.	Thu, 8/30/07 10:13 PM	Question 3 - sorry to sound like a naysayer, but as a realtor in palo alto, buyers in our area are already living in dwellings that are well-below their vision of what they consider to be a "home". i have seen plenty of talented people forgo a good career opportunity in Silicon Valley rather then change their family's lifestyle by living in what one very polite, unassuming, professional & highly educated person described for the whole, as a "hut". The "hut", from any local's standard, would have been described as a cleaned-up Eichler in a good neighborhood served by a favorite elementary school. People's homes are intregal parts of their beings. I assume that the add'l 3,500 units will be high-density in feel, and small in sq footage in design - which equates to a limited pool of buyers. and yes, even if the address is palo alto, california. this very resistance to changing what we want in a home is why we have towns like fremont, pleasanton, livermore and before those towns were built it was sunnyvale, cupertino, etc, etc...people were able to get their needs of (land, sq footage under roof, and price range) met in those outlaying cities. Question #4: Who knows how long the "No Child Left Behind" student:teacher ratios will be on the books but they presently are a growing source of frustration to parents - be they existing homeowners, new buyers, or renters.
71.	Fri, 8/31/07 5:48 AM	why ruin area for everyone?
72.	Fri, 8/31/07 11:06 AM	Regarding the global warming question, we should be thinking about extending BART and other mass transit services, not adding housing.
73.	Fri, 8/31/07 9:17 PM	If growth is going to happen, then all communities must be part of it. Our impossible housing prices reflect not only the desirability of the area but the limited number of units. Nonetheless, such change is not going to be pleasant or easy.
74.	Sat, 9/1/07 8:43 AM	*3 pre-supposes that it is a good idea and worthwhile to attract more business, and hence more people, to the Valley. I strongly disagree with that position. Would you just keep cramming in business and people until we all choke? It seems so.
75.	Sat, 9/1/07 8:12 PM	I strenuously and completely reject the idea that Palo Alto or any other Bay Area city must increase its population. It is stupid to wait until the majority of us is crowded into misery before acting to stop population growth.
76.	Sat, 9/1/07 11:46 PM	Again, in my opinion, this increase in population can NOT be accommodated using traditional methods of building, siting and financing (in other words, leaving it up to the developer). Ample opportunities for innovative planning, design and doing are implicit!
77.	Sun, 9/2/07 12:05 AM	There is a false assumption that people choose to live in Palo Alto because their job is here. My experience as a worker and landlord is that many people who work in other cities choose to live here for schools or for some other reason. So additional housing doesn't reduce the number of trips between other cities. Instead, it increases the number of trips. It is also the case that many young people who work in PA and Mtn View choose to live in SF. Some take the train. Some Googlers take the Google bus.
78.	Mon, 9/3/07 5:44 PM	No one wants growth in their home towns. But, as a responsible citizen, we need to accept our cities will grow, and we need to plan well so that growth is well designed and won't make our communities less desirable.
79.	Tue, 9/4/07 3:24 AM	People have got to start thinking about when to say "Full".
80.	Tue, 9/4/07 6:09 PM	While I believe we have a moral obligation to plan for home sto support the economic goals, my guess is that most of the jobs/business opportunities will not be in Palo Alto but will rather be further south. Many people will be attracted to Palo Alto because of the school system and the plethora of entertaining/dining options lacking in other places. It seems a heavy burden to place on Palo Alto.
81.	Tue, 9/4/07 8:29 PM	Adding more housing will not necessarily increase the ratio of housing to jobs in Palo Alto, for additional housing may generate additional jobs. For instance, with additional housing supply available in Palo Alto (especially relatively affordable housing), a Stanford engineering graduate may be able to afford to live in Palo Alto rather than Mountain View or San Jose or Milpitas, and thus the startup that begins in this engineer's living room or garage will likely end up headquartered in Palo Alto, and the jobs it generates will be in Palo Alto, rather than in outlying areas.
82.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:54 AM	I would like to see stronger effort for public transportation -- since VTA only covers half our area (stops at county line) and is focussed on south county, Palo Alto may need to look into expanding shuttle service or in some other way fostering an alternative to individual cars. Current shuttle is only baby step.
83.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:17 PM	New residential development has always been a big issue in Palo Alto, due to lack of raw land. Building these homes will put many pressures on our resoures. I would be more supportive of a much lower figure, many half.
84.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:37 PM	Palo Alto received an abnormal share of the allocation of new homes to communities in the area.
85.	Wed, 9/5/07 5:01 PM	If we want the job growth, especially in sectors that provide revenue to the city, we should be willing to accept some increased housing density in order to allow more workers to live in the community rather than forcing them to drive long distances. Whether their "to work" trips originate within the city or outside of the city, their cars will use our streets. Locally originating trips should be easier to serve with alternative transportation--bikes, buses, etc.
86.	Wed, 9/5/07 5:10 PM	By the laws of supply and demand, a substantial number of new homes will slow the appreciation rate of existing homes. It should help trim the market value of current homes as well as the new homes. However, it seems that any such savings in these costs will be offset by expensive bond issues to cover the cost of expanded public facilities, such as schools and libraries.
87.	Wed, 9/5/07 10:29 PM	It might be easier to accommodate additional homes if we subdivide Foothills Park. Light Rail could be run in from Los Trancos Road.
88.	Thu, 9/6/07 5:31 AM	If these new homes are to be added, am assuming that they will be multifamily. If they are, there are some advantages to increased density. Concentrated development makes providing some services more efficient. Public transit could also become more viable with increased density.
89.	Thu, 9/6/07 11:22 PM	I would be very surprised if the total envriornmental impact of building the homes has been factored into the calcuations. Perhaps we could have the same savings if a moratorium was placed on scrping perfectly nice older homes and replacing them with near lot line starter castles.
90.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:03 AM	adding homes will be difficult. notwithstanding these difficulties, affluent peninsula communites should meet regional goals. Housing growth should not spread to open space and farm lands. Density in suburban communities should increase.
91.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:48 AM	Palo Alto needs the housing, alot of affordable homes are number 1, in my opinion. However, if grocery stores and other services are not planned for, as is this City's history, the quality of "Palo Alto Life" will be horrifically!!!! compromised.
92.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:05 AM	1) answer depends greatly on what kind of homes and where they are located. 4) Our public facilities are all underfunded now. Schools and libraries are stuck with 1970's funding levels and current mandates and are unable to fund current mandates, much less build for the future. Much of the school funding crisis stems from the state level, not the city level. It will be hard for me to agree to add additional homes to Palo Alto before securing more adequate funding for our current schools and libraries with our current number of residents.
93.	Fri, 9/7/07 5:15 AM	Regarding question 2-- Perhaps this is true, but a straight cause and effect is not definite. Regarding question 3--the data already suggests that we will be having population growth--meaning that we already will be attracting people to the Valley. I believe the existence of certain communities in the mid-Peninsula (like Palo Alto) make the area more attractive to company executives and professionals, thereby causing them to keep their businesses here. Over-stressing the existing City infrastructure and services with 3500 more homes is likely to make Palo Alto less attractive, not more.
94.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:41 PM	Palo Alto right now is enjoying the past years of commitment to schools and of having a diverse and well-educated population. Ironically enough, if Palo Alto doesn't accommodate additional growth, it will change more from its origins and what makes it special than if it does. Instead of a vibrant community of diverse people who value education, community and the environment, it would become a one-size-fits all community of the already well-educated who don't have interest in educating others, and whose environmentalism is exposed as simply wanting to feel holier-than-thou because they don't commute far (while others do).
95.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:02 PM	It's hard for me to put 3,505 homes into perspective. How many homes do we have right now. How many are already planned to be built? How many do we usually add per year? What are the projections of the demographics of new homebuyers?
96.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:14 PM	Palo Alto cannot simply pull up the drawbridge--we have a moral obligation to provide our fair share of housing.
97.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:56 PM	Palo Alto is developing attractive, higher density neighborhoods around the downtown, in particular, that seem both appropriate to the changing lifestyles of both young adults and older, "empty nester" residents. This is enhancing our community. It is also clear that adapting to higher density living is an unavoidable requirement for both economic and environmental sustainability. Accepting this, and ensuring that it happens well do more to preserve the qualities we love about Palo Alto than digging in our heels and fighting it. At the moment, we still have choices. Lets see that as a positive, not a threat, and make them wisely.
98.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:56 PM	We must assume responsibility for our share. I assume it will be higher density housing, hopefully along corridors that provide public transportation.
99.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:24 PM	I'm not sure I understand Q5. Do you mean that we have an obligation to support the building of these homes or that we have an obligation to raise concerns about these homes or something else? I have no idea why adding people to a community would decrease global warming. Jus this week it was announced that bus service would be cut through my neighborhood due to budget problems with the transportation company. Palo Alto offers no efficient and comprehensive transportation service to get even our high schoolers to school and our bike paths are limited and dangerous. Our infrastructure and current services can't support the number of people we have. To require it to support more residents would be irresponsible and impossible.
100.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:39 PM	"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Hence my answer to Q4. In particular, 1000s of new homes will put heavy pressure on PAUSD (etc.)-- the DR Horton project at ECR and Arastradero projects a very low number of new students. Based on this I get the feeling that the true impacts are not being taken into account.
101.	Fri, 9/7/07 8:18 PM	You say 3505 home in Palo Alto and Stanford. I think these two areas should not be lumped together.
102.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:37 PM	Building the homes will not necessarilly reduce global warming. Why not use the land presently being eyed for new Palo Alto police facililty? I assume "homes" also means apartments.
103.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:37 PM	Am not sure of how much we were alloted to do in the past decade and what we did do...seems like Menlo Park has not begun to do its share.....why should we?????
104.	Sat, 9/8/07 12:51 AM	The neighborly attitude is what counts towards growth. Yes or No would be the black and white of it.
105.	Sat, 9/8/07 4:36 AM	If we must accommodate 3505 more housing units, I can imagine Palo Alto becoming less attractive because it will be more crowded and because of the cost of living in Palo Alto, the population will be less diverse.
106.	Sat, 9/8/07 10:21 PM	#5 I have mixed feelings about "obligation."
107.	Sun, 9/9/07 12:41 AM	I think the use of the word "home" can make it more difficult to imagine the possibilities, especially in a town of neighborhoods of single-family houses like Palo Alto. High-density housing, condos and apartments, are probably the way most of this will need to be constructed. And not all housing has to put equal pressure on infrastructure; e.g., the senior housing being built probably doesn't put a lot of stress on schools or roads.
108.	Sun, 9/9/07 6:37 PM	We can't accomidate 3,000+ more homes. The schools are already at a maximum and overflowing. Sorry, but I strongly oppose the expansion.
109.	Sun, 9/9/07 9:52 PM	From the regional perspective, the environmentally responsible way to accommodate growth is focusing on redevelopment of existing urban areas. Palo Alto has had a policy since the late 1960s of converting cmmercial and "industrial" land to housing. That policy should continue.