(OPTIONAL) Many residents support ABAG's goals of environmental protection and reducing the overall amount of auto travel. Yet they are concerned about the impacts on their own neighborhoods and cities. If you do not think Palo Alto (and Stanford) should plan for these 3,505 homes, where should they be built?
#	Response Date	Comment
1.	Mon, 8/13/07 10:37 PM	I disagree with the premise that 3,505 homes are "needed."
2.	Wed, 8/15/07 8:25 PM	Bullshit lead-in statement. Virtually all residents I know who know of the ABAG numbers oppose them. You are making assumption that Palo Alto should build housing for people who want to locate jobs here.
3.	Wed, 8/15/07 11:43 PM	Again, your not asking should they be built, you are asking where. How about asking in the infrustructure can handle it befor you assume these homes will be built, and It can't!
4.	Thu, 8/16/07 2:53 AM	The number is too high considering the available land. Unless you raze single family homes and build condominiums or apartments. Perhaps some could be built further south or over the east bay hills. I don't have knowledge of available land.
5.	Thu, 8/16/07 4:37 AM	Stanford MUST shoulder some of this responsibiity especially for non-married employees. Many large hospitals have nearby apartments for nurses and other medical personnel. Stanford has 8,000 acres,,and it must contribute the land.
6.	Thu, 8/16/07 4:39 AM	In China, Mexico, India, Vietnam, Russia because this is where all of our work is going. There isn't going to be much work left here for us.
7.	Thu, 8/16/07 5:14 AM	Should not be built, period. The Bay Area has only so much land to build on. Why should we strain the environment and infrastructure to build more?
8.	Thu, 8/16/07 6:13 AM	space is limited. I guess we will have to use some of the 'open space'.
9.	Thu, 8/16/07 7:58 AM	They should be built primarily where there is land available to build them. For many of us who moved to Palo Alto, we did so at significant personal cost and did so because of the still relatively decent neighborhoods with enough room for some parks, trees, and a tiny back yard. Increasing housing density is inevitable over time as long as population growth continues, but I don't think the "assignment" of future housing needs should be based on arbitrary "job" numbers and public transportion pipe dreams.
10.	Thu, 8/16/07 5:27 PM	First, ABAG should not lump Stanford with Palo Alto. CPA already has absorbed and paid to mitigate transit impacts of much of the business growth on Stanford land. Why isn't Stanford getting their own housing quota, especially now that they are proposing so much growth? Second, you assume that people move to CPA to be close to their jobs. Wrong. People move here for our excellent schools, primarily. Many CPA residents work in other communities. If you want to make sure people live closer to where they work, get rid of Prop 13 which creates huge financial incentives for people to live in the same house forever even if their job location changes, creating huge transportation impacts. Eliminating Prop 13 would give people freedom to move within the county and state more freely when their job changes. It probabaly would incentivize an increase in housing on the market thereby reducing housing costs. Further, it would allow us to fully fund our schools again--Impacts on schools are a primary reason people oppose housing growth. Of course, businesses won't support that because they are the primary beneficiaries of Prop 13. That brings me to another issue...Does the state intend to provide communities with extra dollars to develop new schools in proportion to the quotas they impose? No? I thought not. In essence, ABAG is proposing unfunded mandates to build not only 3,505 units of housing, but also schools, transit, parks, libraries...while county and state governments have systematically redistributed the tax revenues they take from our community to other cities. Frankly, this is irresponsible government.
11.	Thu, 8/16/07 8:57 PM	They can be built in areas which are less densely populated and much of the work can be done remotely. ABAG's research and therefore, its suggestions, are flawed.
12.	Fri, 8/17/07 3:25 AM	Nevada. Seriously, the Bay Area, to my mind, is already overcrowded, and I don't think we'll ever have the public transit infrastructure in place to adequately support our current population, much less ten million or more people. Solve that problem first, then plan for growth.
13.	Fri, 8/17/07 5:29 AM	We should mostly build these homes largely near transpot corridors, with the remainder being scattered strategically throughout the city. All neighborhoods should share the costs and benefits of new residents.
14.	Fri, 8/17/07 12:31 PM	They should be built in less populated areas, such as east of the bay (pleasanton area) or south of the bay (gilroy area). Adding more homes to an area unable to service (schools, police, fire, city management) current residents seems like a bad idea. Duh.
15.	Sat, 8/18/07 1:28 AM	Why should they have to be built at all? Why can't we commission a study that examines what are acceptable limits for building housing in the Bay Area to preserve quality of life. The Bay Area is under no obligation to keep endlessly building houses just because people want to move here. Other cities around the country have said no, and we should band together with other peninsula cities and say no, too.
16.	Sat, 8/18/07 2:37 AM	East Bay and Valley. Governments must improve carrying capacity of CalTrain, BART, CapitolExpress and ACE to provide mass transit alturnatives to single car trips. We have a great passanger and freight rail network in Bay Area that is not being fully utilized. Electrify CalTrain, build the tracks across the Dumbarton Bridge and stop building more lanes on freeways. When the freeways are full and come to a stop, people will start using rail and/or bus systems. Just like after the '89 earthquake, when you can't use the roads, public transit comes into play.
17.	Sat, 8/18/07 4:31 AM	These homes should neither be built in Palo Alto nor in Stanford. Palo Alto is already in good shape as it is. Best to build new homes in East Palo Alto and other nearby Bay Area cities which are doing less well. Such new homes shall then raise the tax base, provide an influx of new residents with higher income levels and eventually increase the quality of living in these cities.
18.	Sun, 8/19/07 7:46 PM	Get rid of the Airport...on that side of 101 there should be no height restrictions whatsoever on buildings...build a redwood shores/oracle complex.
19.	Mon, 8/20/07 1:41 AM	Palo Alto leads the midpeninsula in providing more housing over the past two decades. It's time for Atherton and Menlo Park to do their share.
20.	Thu, 8/23/07 7:15 AM	In other areas that have more commercial income and can afford to have more traffic, schools, etc.
21.	Fri, 8/24/07 7:08 AM	I think they should be built in Palo Alto, Stanford campus and surround city town centers. Densities must be increased and height limits increased especially within 1/2 mile of retail centers, major corridors (i.e. El Camino) and transit.
22.	Fri, 8/24/07 8:23 PM	If we have to build them, then build them on Stanford lands. Stanford uses & takes from Palo Alto but does not really reciprocate in kind or in full, always with some kind of exemption due their hospitals or campus. They impact this area greatly yet do little to actually help surrounding communities cope with the effects to the surrounding streets, traffic, etc. Let them use some of their lands to provide this dense housing that will be the future of the whole bay area if laws make the cities add this much housing to already overbuilt cities. Even the people who live in dense housing do not want to live in dense housing. It's a losing proposition. It should not be forced on us but should be a city's choice.
23.	Fri, 8/24/07 9:04 PM	Along major transportation arteries such as El Camino. Frankly, there are a lot of ugly old motels that could be rezoned for condominia. Density is, however, another issue -- the developer of Edgewood Shopping Center plans to build an unsupportable number of housing units along with commercial space. While building vertical uses less footprint, multi-storied buildings in the midst of predominately one-story neighborhoods perverts an appropriate sense of scale.
24.	Fri, 8/24/07 10:17 PM	Unknown because you need vacant land to expand housing.
25.	Fri, 8/24/07 11:58 PM	Let the free market dictate where workers will move and they will bring up all of the cities surrounding Palo Alto, just as the cities surrounding other jobs centers have traditionally been enhanced by job centers. Companies do not locate in Palo Alto, instead they go to Fremont, Milpitas, Cupertino, even far south San Jose. When we have reached equilibrium in housing prices across the entire area, then it will be time to consider adding new housing. In the meantime, the difference in housing prices between adjacent cities means there are houses available in towns as nearby as East Palo Alto, just a few yards from Palo Alto.
26.	Sat, 8/25/07 12:37 AM	I think Palo Alto and Stanford (especially as they prepare to embark on the job adding hospital and shopping center projects)should plan for these units of housing. The way to get the most bang for our buck with the least impact would be to build higher density housing units close to transit and job centers.
27.	Sat, 8/25/07 1:56 AM	Lower density areas of California which should be linked with work centers via public transportation.
28.	Sat, 8/25/07 4:15 AM	East Palo Alto, Woodside, San Jose, Morgan Hill, Redwood City, Fremont, Livermore, Oakland. Anyplace but Palo Alto!!!
29.	Sat, 8/25/07 5:37 AM	Of course they should be built where the market dictates, in accordance with land use planning that conforms to the requirements of each local community. There is no obligation for a city to accommodate new residents, as if they were refugees. Housing for added residents should only be built if it improves the quality of life here. That means building into the cost of the housing the cost of added scholls and services, and ongoing transportation improvements such as vastly expanded low cost (or free) shuttle bus service that would actually reduce vehicle trips (and carbon emmissions within the city.
30.	Sat, 8/25/07 7:36 AM	There are many options, but here are several that come to mind: 1) Very high density housing (i.e., tall apartment buildings) in major cities. Works in New York! 2) Let the housing be built in communities that want it. Increase mass transit to mitigate the impact of long commutes. Again, it works in New York. 3) Let the housing be built in states outside of California. Some communities in North Dakota can't give away houses. As home prices continue to rise in California, some employers will begin to look elsewhere to establish or expand their businesses.
31.	Sat, 8/25/07 6:30 PM	In the first place, I am not saying some housing should not be built here. I would say about half the proposed allocation might work. Then, given the thousands of acres Stanford controls, and given the vacant land in the Stanford Industrial park (IP), allocate a larger percentage to the university. There is no reason why much of the open land in the IP could not be filled in with homes, some at moderately high density. This is where the jobs are, so make it possible for many of those workers to walk to work. Also, we could spread out to the south of San Jose, but in this case, we need to consider open space for farming. THERE MAY COME A TIME WHEN THE BAY AREA REGION WILL HAVE TO LIMIT GROWTH BY DISCOURAGING PEOPLE FROM MOVING IN. WHAT'S WRONG WITH LIMITING GROWTH TO A SUSTAINABLE LEVEL THAT PRESERVES THE ENVIRONMENT WE ALREADY HAVE? TO SOLVE THE GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM,WE NEED TO LOOK TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TO BEGIN TO MANDATE FUEL EFFICIENT CARS. SUVS AT 15 OR EVEN 20 MPG NO LONGER ARE JUSTIFIED, CONSIDERING WE MAY BE FACING DECISIONS ABOUT HUMAN SURVIVAL. THE TIME TO START IS NOW.
32.	Sat, 8/25/07 8:25 PM	great question, i can't wait to see the comments.
33.	Sun, 8/26/07 12:35 AM	Places with affordable land, space, and the possibility of providing the needed services for the residents.
34.	Sun, 8/26/07 12:42 AM	They should not be built. We have too many people already in the Bay Area. Traffic is bad and getting worse. Schools are bursting at the seams. Medical facilities are under stress from overpopulation. By adopting a zero growth policy in the Bay Area, we are making a decision to prevent further environmental and quality-of-life degradation. The "developers" will scream, but the 4+ million of us who live here will benefit. Businesses will grow in other places, but that's fine, because we can't reasonably accommodate more people here. (Unless we want the traffic and urban problems of LA -- that's the model we must do our best to avoid!)
35.	Sun, 8/26/07 1:24 AM	where there is water- it is stupid to build more homes in an area that does not have the water to support the homes.
36.	Sun, 8/26/07 4:29 AM	I'm not sure I agree with the premise. It seems to imply that Palo Alto has a responsibility to provide that much more housing, but it seems the number comes from ABAG simply because we have a couple of Caltrain stations and not necessarily because we will have that much new employment in Palo Alto.
37.	Sun, 8/26/07 5:27 AM	Housing should be built near public transit, shopping, industry, and schools. Or these services should be built at the same time as new housing units. My co-workers travel long distances to the Palo Alto area because local housing is way to expensive for them.
38.	Sun, 8/26/07 6:11 AM	How about Riverside and San Berardino? Who says they need to be built at all. If no new homes are built, then the population won't increase now, will it?
39.	Sun, 8/26/07 5:11 PM	They should NOT be built.
40.	Mon, 8/27/07 4:42 AM	We don't need any additional housing. We need a population reduction and reconfiguration that supports the best and removes the rest.
41.	Mon, 8/27/07 5:47 PM	The "not in my backyard" argument does not hold water, in my opinion, if you are claiming to be an environmentalist who is against high density housing in your neighborhood. I am not all talk on this--we have a very high density housing development being built directly behind our lot and walkable to downtown Mountain View--and we're glad to see walkable communities being supported period, whether they are in my backyard or not.
42.	Mon, 8/27/07 7:34 PM	Portola Valley & Woodside
43.	Tue, 8/28/07 2:20 PM	I think that automobile traffic will regulate itself. We should invest more money in our roads and particularly our traffic control systems.
44.	Tue, 8/28/07 6:24 PM	Instead of building 3,505 homes, just build 500 homes, but built real, single-family, standalone homes with backyards for the kids to play. In addition, they should provide a park area in the center of the new community for people to congregate and meet one another. If they have to build homes, do it low-density and make sure the local schools can handle the influx of new students. The developers should offer payouts to the local school district and libraries so that the new neighbors can be accomodated. This is the duty of the developers.
45.	Wed, 8/29/07 12:53 AM	Each city should bear its allocation. And there should be efforts at transit BETWEEN citie, sor transit plans for cities that do not have a robust system.
46.	Wed, 8/29/07 5:54 PM	Tracy, Manteca, Hollister, etc.
47.	Wed, 8/29/07 6:12 PM	One good location for roughly 1/3 of those 3,505 homes is in the California Avenue district. This area is well served by transit and is close (Walking or Biking Distance) to both major employers and basic services like banks and grocery stores.
48.	Wed, 8/29/07 7:16 PM	No more homes!
49.	Wed, 8/29/07 8:31 PM	NO! Palo Alto and Stanford has high property values now because everybody wants to live in Palo Alto and be near their work. Creating 3505 new homes will only depress the average home value in Palo Alto as more people are allowed into our city and clog up our schools, roads, etc...
50.	Wed, 8/29/07 9:15 PM	Ok, I admit, I wrote this question and it is a bit one-sided and deceptive - oh wait, so am I! Never mind, I love it!!
51.	Wed, 8/29/07 9:20 PM	Montana, South Dakota, mainland China ... any place but the Bay Area. Don't blame it on job growth. In the gloabal economy, companies can easily move the work to other areas.
52.	Thu, 8/30/07 12:13 AM	They should be built in Palo Alto.
53.	Thu, 8/30/07 12:33 AM	Yes, this is exactly the question. I don't know. Maybe the _people_ (but not necessarily the buildings) do belong here... or maybe there _is_ some better place. How could we explore this fruitfully?
54.	Thu, 8/30/07 1:19 PM	I would look at EPA and places in which people will not target the housing for reasons other than a short commute and access to transit. Another thought, many elderly people may no longer need and indeed be encumbered by the 3 bedroom homes that they have lived in for years. Is there a way to encourage them to move into more dense housing that would free up homes for people who are moving farther away to get single family homes?
55.	Thu, 8/30/07 1:58 PM	ANy new homes should be built by Stanford as affordable housing on stanford land and be availabel only to people who work at stanford . Thes units would accomodate the iinflux of new employees likely from the planned shopping center expansion and hospital expansion. I would guess that a look at city of origin for shoppers at stanford mall and patietnts at the medical center would show a very broad range of locations from the bay area and beyond.
56.	Thu, 8/30/07 3:57 PM	There is no requriement that they be built. There is no requirement for the additional people to move here.
57.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:13 PM	I think they should be built here as part of a comprehensive plan with the relevant other areas (unless the traffic, housing and jobs can mostly be contained in Palo Alto). That is, if the housing and transportation were targeted at making it easy for people to live in PA and work in the PA offices or Stanford or work for PA schools/police department, then I think this issue could be tackled just by the city on its own and would possibly be of great benefit to city residents and the area.
58.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:46 PM	In my prior comment, I addressed this issue: ABAG needs to provide better linkage between trains and busses, more jitney-type transportation and park n ride lots eg Stanford&Palo Alto should provide park n rides at the Dumbarton for cars doing business in P.A.&Stanford. Also, bring back the train bridge. Charge tolls for cars entering cities. Educate the public about public transportation.
59.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:51 PM	Market forces should decide. I would be happy to support public subsidy of vastly improved public transportation.
60.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:57 PM	In an area not already as densely built out
61.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:38 PM	There are two apartment complexes on University Avenue that could be built taller say from two stories to four stories to provide some additional housing.
62.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:40 PM	I have no idea, but certainly not in the Palo Alto area. There is enough density here alredy
63.	Thu, 8/30/07 7:02 PM	First you have to assume that there is nothing that can be done to limit population growth. It is certainly difficult but it is possible. If you want to protect the environment, it is perhaps the only way to do so. If the 3,505 homes are for new employees of companies, then we have to ask what is the cost to Palo Alto of not having those employees here in the Bay Area as opposed to Fresno, Nevada or China. I have employees out of state and it requires some travel, internet and phone time by local employees. The cost to Palo Alto is perhaps lower real estate values, less retail sales and the associated sales tax from their purchases, and less utility revenue from water and power use. Not a great price to pay for less crowded roads, parks, schools etc..
64.	Thu, 8/30/07 8:28 PM	I favor building residence and business in the City of Palo Alto. I have been a Crescent Park homeowner in Palo Alto since 1972. I welcome the growth with assistance from the community, ABAG, and local government.
65.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:13 PM	I am shocked and saddened that the city and developers are now using the "environmental" card as a marketing ploy to gain approval for 3,505 new homes. How convenient it is to imply that if you are against the new homes, you must be against helping our environment. This is simply unacceptable and we should not be lured into this loosely veiled attempt to shift the focus away from the real issues that adding these new homes does for Palo Alto. Palo Alto has done its part to help meet the needs of its community and I feel that other cities who are not even close to their quotas should be asked to bear some of the burden.
66.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:32 PM	I do not believe decreaasing CO2 will make more than a small dent in global warming, as I believe man contributes very little to climate change. There is still a lot of land that can be developed Northeast and South of the bay. Palo Alto has done more in providing new housing than many of the surrounding cities.
67.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:38 PM	Where the market and local conditions and population support it. If that means a long commute, then that is the buyers decision.
68.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:40 PM	Along public transportation corridors.
69.	Thu, 8/30/07 10:13 PM	I think someone ought to check to see how many residents know the who, what and where of ABAG. I kindly suggest that the findings will indicate that a substantial percentage of locals have no awareness, hence would give little credance to such an organization "asking" cities to provide additional housing.
70.	Thu, 8/30/07 11:42 PM	There is plenty of land south of San Jose, but I doubt those residents want to see that many homes built in their bucolic hills and valleys. If they are built in the outlying valley areas, a well thought-out public transportation system is a MUST.
71.	Fri, 8/31/07 12:45 AM	In keeping with trends already in place, they should be built in India.
72.	Fri, 8/31/07 5:10 AM	Off the Peninsula (i.e. Fremont)
73.	Fri, 8/31/07 5:48 AM	Fresno
74.	Fri, 8/31/07 9:17 PM	Well, that's the problem, isn't it?!
75.	Sat, 9/1/07 8:43 AM	Try Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc....you know, EMPTY places where some development might be welcome. WE ARE FILLED UP HERE! GO AWAY!
76.	Sat, 9/1/07 8:12 PM	If any more housing is built in Palo Alto, it should NOT occur in South Palo Alto. South Palo Alto has already been horribly exploited in recent years by City Council actions in cooperation with real estate developers to put high density housing where neighborhood commercial and schools formerly existed. The most recent housing development at El Camino and Charleston/Arastradero (formerly Rickey's Hyatt hotel) is an obscene example of such exploitation.
77.	Sat, 9/1/07 11:46 PM	I have supported ABAG since its inception. Let the naysayers have their say. Let us who are environmentalists GET TO WORK on the problems. They can be solved but we must think anew.
78.	Mon, 9/3/07 5:44 PM	All cities need to do their share. The alternative is ugly sprawl.
79.	Tue, 9/4/07 3:24 AM	Teaxs.
80.	Tue, 9/4/07 6:09 PM	From the data you have provided, it seems that other communities such as Menlo Park and Atherton should do more to support the overall infrastructure. I'd have to do more research to understand what other cities truly are doing, but I hate to see the quality of Palo Alto's infrastructure decline because other cities are not contributing their fair share to the overall economy.
81.	Tue, 9/4/07 8:29 PM	Economics, environmental regulations, and the market can determine where they should be built. Each purchaser should trade off the cost of commuting against the lower housing cost at a greater distance from work to determine where it makes sense to live. The cost of gas should be increased to encourage people to use less of it and to minimize commute distance. Revenue from an increased gas tax can be devoted to fighting global warming by supporting development of technology less damaging to the environment. Mechanisms should be implemented to make it easier for people to find jobs close to where they live, and homes close to where they work.
82.	Tue, 9/4/07 8:53 PM	We as a community have a duty to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. Everything changes, and the desire to "preserve" communities sounds dangerously close to segregation and the "not in my backyard" philosophy. I think it's fine to build these homes, as long as Palo Alto is afforded the revenue necessary to support the people within the homes.
83.	Tue, 9/4/07 9:06 PM	Don't build them!
84.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:54 AM	Good question. Planning for housing might be better done as a regional process, rather than city by city. Of course cities want to retain control of land use decisions but need to think regionally when doing so. The homes should be as close to the jobs as possible so it's hard to see where else they should be, since the jobs are here.
85.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:34 PM	More should go in areas of urban development, places with much of their natural attractions and open space already destroyed by previous greed and infill, and which already have acceptable forms of mass transit. Mixed use is also important, putting housing and retail together.
86.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:37 PM	The homes should be distributed more evenly across bay area cities, including neighboring cities like Menlo Park, Los Altos, and others.
87.	Wed, 9/5/07 5:01 PM	Palo Alto and Stanford should plan for a large portion of these homes, but also should work with immediate neighboring communities to accept some of them
88.	Wed, 9/5/07 5:10 PM	They should be built within the existing communities, by multi-story buildings if necessary, rather than using open spaces.
89.	Wed, 9/5/07 6:28 PM	Ideally, new homes should be built in areas where cars are not necessary, with a focus on building up non-car infrastructure (train lines, buses, bike paths/lanes) to make it manageable to live without a car.
90.	Wed, 9/5/07 6:56 PM	Pennsylvania?
91.	Wed, 9/5/07 7:10 PM	When we force students to travel across town to attend a school, rather than the neighborhood school, we increase the total amount of auto travel. How will we accomodate the new students in neighborhood schools?
92.	Wed, 9/5/07 10:29 PM	Additional population can be accommodated by putting more people in each house. Mini-mansions are going up all over the city. Each of these should count as two houses, since they are doubling the amount of square footage.
93.	Thu, 9/6/07 11:22 PM	They should be built where there are jobs. Lets face it, only highly paid positions are going to stay in places like PA, etc. Builing a few more homes is not going to stop outsourcing.
94.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:03 AM	they should plan for these impacts
95.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:48 AM	Build homes and support services on all that open land south of San Jose to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Access to Silicon Valley jobs is easy.
96.	Fri, 9/7/07 2:48 AM	Housing will follow the jobs.
97.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:05 AM	I think the planning for additional homes should be done on a regional basis with regional, cooperative plans. I question ABAG coming up with a mandated number of homes for each city, assigning it to the city and then saying "we're done". Get the cities to work together to come up with a regional coooperative plan that they can all buy into, rather than assigning each city a number which they can either fight or build. Population growth is regional issue, not a per-city one. The solution should be a regional one as well.
98.	Fri, 9/7/07 5:15 AM	The introductory information states that Palo Alto's housing goal has been increased dramatically from the prior level to 3500+ homes, but fails to state what the prior goal was. Assuming Palo Alto could accomodate the former goal, the excess could be located along existing (and future) transit hubs and lines throughout the greater Bay Area.
99.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:35 AM	It's interesting that the requirement is to build 3500 homes and not 3500 housing units. Condos or appartment complex can be built on a significantly smaller piece of a land. Many locations could be appropriate, like Moffed Field in Mountain View.
100.	Fri, 9/7/07 1:45 PM	I'm hard pressed to imagine where we can put that many homes and the additional infrastructure to support them.
101.	Fri, 9/7/07 2:56 PM	Moffet.
102.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:16 PM	It's time to explore higher density development in the hills. The flats are largely built out, and infill development in the neighborhoods will not increase attractiveness and help companies retain employees. Throughout the world hills are the preferred locations for housing (look at Tuscany and Umbria as examples). It can be done here as well.
103.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:41 PM	Maybe Yosemite. :} Actually, Palo Alto would lose an opportunity to be a really vibrant place, and the somewhere else that actually builds the housing will surpass it as the vibrant community. Think of the other Peninsula cities that are becoming real destinations. I would not like to see Palo Alto become a neighborhood of retirees and rich people only.
104.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:58 PM	The market economy should decide where thehomes should be built.
105.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:02 PM	No one wants more crowding. Either we'll sacrifice because of the items in question #4 or we'll sacrifice in terms of lost economic opportunity and reduced environmental quality.
106.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:24 PM	I don't know. But I don't think we should build them here just because we can't think of a better location.
107.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:39 PM	The goals are fine. Reducing auto travel is desirable in its own right; it reduces pollution, improves quality of life and fosters a better sense of community. I think you should avoid the "global warming" angle - it's polemic and divisive. And frankly I think the jury is still out on that.
108.	Fri, 9/7/07 7:02 PM	Some could be built in adjacent towns like Menlo Park and Mt. View
109.	Fri, 9/7/07 8:18 PM	New homes are needed everywhere. Palo Alto should build more multifamily living, both owned and rented, including hotel residences. This is the best way to lessen environmental impact.
110.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:04 PM	Transit needs to be improved so people can get to work w/less auto time. Perhaps Stanford has the space for new homes, but Palo Alto schools are already full, and the traffic is ample. It would seem the area below San Jose could be built out and transit could deliver people to work without requiring that we destroy Palo Alto. It's a big world. Put some jobs in North Dakota and maybe people will move there. Or how about putting jobs in Northern California where there is room and let people get more affordable housing along with their job and community.
111.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:37 PM	Start with the communities who thumbed their noses last time around, and get them to step up to the plate.
112.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:37 PM	I don't get the logic of this...what reduction in auto travel?????? Do you honestly believe that more residents in the city of Palo Alto will lessen travel anywhere???????!!!!!!!! Maybe we are at the saturation point.
113.	Sat, 9/8/07 4:36 AM	See my first response. Too much is concentrated along both coasts, without developing empty land masses within the US. I know we can't mandate where people should live, but government and business can encourage the creation of other, new centers in the State and US.
114.	Sat, 9/8/07 5:11 AM	Let market conditions prevail.
115.	Sat, 9/8/07 10:21 PM	There may be room in PA in the hills, but certainly not in the established neighborhoods. Yet putting them there clutters the natural landscape or uses a lot of land if houses are spread out. (It's hard to expand much in small spaces on complex issues.)
116.	Sun, 9/9/07 12:41 AM	I doubt that 3500 new "units" (the word I prefer) can be built, even condos. But those that are built should certainly be near transit.
117.	Sun, 9/9/07 4:41 AM	I'm guessing some will stop taking the survey when they get to this question.
118.	Sun, 9/9/07 9:52 PM	The question is not where they should be built but the overall effect of not building in Palo Alto. The effect will be part of a ripple that pushes growth into the I-80 corridor toward Sacramento and east into the Central Valley.