One thing I noticed today is that in the PATC review of proposed amendments to the Housing Element of the Comp Plan (1998-2010) is that, besides as you say above including Maybell, they also apparenlty deleted “Program H-41″ which specifically mentions Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as a source of affordable housing. The program promises to “seek appropriate” funds to preserve the park.
Never quite figured out the lack of synergy between the “Measure D” (referendum) and Buena Vista; my take is that the consistent value would be to oppose upzoning at both sites.
I agree, this begs the question of “who’s behind the green curtain” as in what discussions were had and decisions made that seem to dictate actions of commissions and council.
I’ve been tracking the evidence that We The People had valued and expressed protective language regarding BV that pre-dates the revision of the Ordinance. I haven’t marked the citations but I thought it goes back to the 1960s, maybe to the use permit for the park. It seems like there is a bias towards pretending that the protection is relatively new thing.
My framing of the debate is: what did Palo Alto of a generation previous mean in its statement of support for BV that is different or weaker today?
There’s a staff report dated October, 2010 that says that a PATC subcommitte of two were working on the revised Housing Element. It seems that Tim Wong replaced Ron Babiera as the staff lead on this. A subsequent PAW prints quotes Mark Michael and Arthur Keller but that does not mean they were the two. I think Tom Dubois also worked on an ad hoc group revising housing element, I went to one meeting.
edit to add, hours later: Winter writes back to say that BV is still in the Comp Plan; I double-check to find it in four places: it is not deleted, merely re-numbered. Am going to leave this for a while none the less.