Old Isn't Historic

 

Thomas Foon Chew was at one time the wealthiest Chinese American in California and, undoubtedly, one of the wealthiest Chinese immigrants in the nation. Despite laws barring Asians from owning property in California, in 1918 Foon (he preferred that name)  obtained four acres of land in Palo Alto, California and created Bayside Canning Company. 

Foon's success resulted from not only business savvy but common sense because what is now Silicon Valley was once known as "The Valley of the Heart's Delight," a lush spread of agricultural land producing a panoply of fruits and vegetables. 

At his death in 1932 Foon's funeral parade ran along Grant Street in San Francisco, the heart of the largest Chinese community in the West and was watched by 25,000 people. He was important to many people in many ways. 

The current owner of the Palo Alto property wants to tear down the empty Foon building and construct houses. And that has created a bigger controversy than a Chinese man actually owning real estate ever did.

One camp argues tearing down the old building -- which hasn't housed the cannery in 82 years -- would desecrate an historic site, particularly since Foon was not only wealthy but overcame discrimination to succeed. Surely, they argue, at least the basic design could be preserved as a reminder of the original. 

Others contend the empty 100,000-square-foot building is ugly and useless as it stands. Housing is badly needed. There are far better ways to honor Foon's contribution to the community than preserving a decrepit structure. 

That this debate rages (if anything can rage in Palo Alto) is the result of people confusing 'old' with 'historic.' 

Nothing historic ever occurred at Bayside Canning. Although it employed thousands of people over the years and sent untold tons of food around the nation, it only operated for 23 years. Foon also ran a larger facility about 30 miles south of Palo Alto in the Alviso district. People were more exercised when Fry's Electronics closed itss store in the Palo Alto cannery building than when the packing lines stopped. 

In the 37 years I've lived in Palo Alto I have never heard of any movement to honor Foon. Only when someone proposed tearing down something old did people opposed to housing growth different than single family homes seize upon the age of the Bayside Canning building as ammunition in its war to stifle change. 

My home was built in 1926 about a half-mile from Bayside Canning. It contains features that reflect design trends of the era. Visitors frequently describe it as charming. I have lived in it far longer than Bayside Canning operated. I am sure that the next owner will raze it and build a larger, taller replacement with plenty of room for a family. 

I am also certain that no one will rise up to demand the distinctively shaped front window be preserved or the roof of the new house be flat with tile around the edges or the preservation of any other element reminiscent of the current structure. 

That scenario is fine by me. Being old doesn't necessarily mean someone is wise. Being old doesn't necessarily make a building historic. Sometimes the best contribution of an old person or an old building can offer is to get out of the way and let the future happen. 

A Palo Alto Kind of Curfew

Ah, Palo Alto, California. Home to Stanford University, Tesla, and a handful of billionaires .

To protect our homes (median price $3.1m per Zillow) and businesses from an onslaught of rioters and looters protesting the police murder of black men, city officials have imposed a curfew from 8:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. This order, in effect until Friday the 13^th, is entirely prospective as there have been scant protests and no violence whatsoever here marking the death of George Floyd or anyone else. 

Outrage at the curfew has poured forth, particularly as expressed in the Palo Alto Weekly newspaper Town Square forum. Many residents have gone bonkers over the notion they can be charged with a misdemeanor for walking their rescue dogs before bedtime. Others are taking a higher road and claiming the city is shredding the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of what the cops and the mayor says, and what our outraged citizenry seems to think, the curfew is designed to keep people of color out of town on the premise that they are the primary instigators of violence. Absent African-Americans on our streets during this trying time, we can feel safe is the idea. It’s sort of a 21^st Century version of sundown laws.

Reading this assertion would undoubtedly raise a collective OMG! from city leaders, followed by sputtering protestations about how they enforce the law evenly regardless of a miscreant’s ethnic or racial makeup.

But the numbers back me up.

The latest U.S. Census estimates say 60 percent of Palo Alto's 65,364 residents were White. Asians, at 32 percent of the population, represented the largest minority group. Hispanics logged in at 6 percent. African-Americans represented just 2 percent of the city’s makeup.

The largest number of African-Americans in the area live in East Palo Alto and represent 16 percent of that city’s population of 28,155.

Given those numbers any significant protest of Floyd’s murder would have to involve a large number of angry African-Americans from throughout the Bay Area. And that cannot sit well with the powers that be, particularly the cops.

So, Palo Alto’s leadership launched a pre-emptive curfew that will deter some protestors from visiting and give the cops an excuse to arrest even the most peaceful of those who do.

Simple, eh?

Thumbs Down on Growth in Palo Alto

Come on folks. We know in our heart of hearts the cause of so many woes faced by Palo Altans.  Developers need relentless growth to keep the profits flowing in and our government is more than happy to help.

They are hooked on it. Physical growth (up for the most part given our distinct boundaries.) Economic growth (still defined as jobs, jobs, jobs.) Population growth (we simply must house the people who work here.)

Never mind that convoluted efforts to enable relentless growth give only  lip service to solving such nasty side effects as horrific traffic, insane housing costs,  and let’s not even begin to talk about parking -- anywhere. Growth is the unquestioned goal and we must drive forward.

Maybe not.

Jobs? That means more office square footage so companies can boast they are headquartered in Palo Alto rather than Mountain View or (OMG) Redwood City. Commercial leases per square foot in some parts of Palo Alto are higher than those in Manhattan. It also means thousands more people fighting for services and cars jamming streets well away from their offices.

More housing for new tech and service workers? Zillow posits Palo Alto’s median home price at about $2.6 million. Average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,837, according to Rentjungle. People looking to live a few miles south in Mountain View face average one-bedroom rents $2,849. Anyone who could create a meaningful stock of affordable housing in such a market would deserve canonization. Not going to happen.

Increased property tax revenue? New construction means more property tax money flowing into city coffers. But a lot of that increase goes to servicing the new construction via infrastructure and other service.  

More money for the overall economy? Office workers spend a lot of money on lunch but at the end of the day they return to houses and apartments somewhere else.

Now is a good time and Palo Alto the right place to test the innate assumption that growth in and of itself is good.  “Yes, but it must be achieved in a way that takes into account…” is an unacceptable answer because there is no right way to cram more into Palo Alto’s borders without the consequence we’re already coping with. The tap should either be on or off. And that decision should be made by the citizens, not developers and their cronies.

Homeowners Are the Housing Problem

I own a home in Palo Alto, California but please don't hate me.

For various reasons few new homes are built in Palo Alto, which limits the supply. Concurrently, many people would like to live here for access to great schools, a Mediterranean climate, Stanford University, career opportunities offered by Silicon Valley, proximity to San Francisco and so on.

The median home price in my city of about 60,000 people is $2.5 million and the median rent is $6,100.

These prices are often decried as "insane," "ridiculous," and "unconscionable." But they simply reflect the market's judgment, right? Not really.

The market does not exist in and of itself. It is an abstraction aggregating many human decisions. In Palo Alto real estate the most important decisions are made by sellers. And sellers are thinking big.

According to real estate site Zillow, my rickety 90-year-old, 1,050-square-foot bungalow might fetch almost eight times what we paid for it. A nearby home that has remained in the same family for 60 years could easily fetch 80 times what was initially paid. Similar situations exist all over town.

When people look to purchase a home in Palo Alto they are confronted by sellers who demand double digit multiples of what they paid. Doubling or even tripling their investment isn't good enough. They want the 10X or even 80X gain. Greed or simply good business?

The only ameliorating factor is an attitude of entitlement among some people who want to live in Palo Alto. Too many are literally outraged they are unable to afford to purchase a home or rent an apartment here. I have little sympathy for their complaints. There are many wonderful and more affordable places to live with equally good weather, excellent schools and amenities. They just aren't here.

At the bottom line (a necessary cliche) lies a fundamental conflict. The debate is over housing, a basic human need. But it also involves a financial asset, often the largest in a family's portfolio and sometimes the cornerstone of a retirement plan. As a potential beneficiary of this system, I hesitate to land solidly on either side.

I Live In A Slum

I just learned that, according to various sources, the median home price in Palo Alto, California is somewhere around $2 million.

Those same sources note the median home price in my Zip Code within Palo Alto is a shameful $954,000. My online research also showed the estimated market value of our home is well below the 94306 median.

I am stunned but educated.

I  now understand why some people look at me differently when they learn I live south of Oregon Expressway. I can figure out why the flicker of a smile when I note our home is west of El Camino Real is just a twitch.

I am so ashamed.