When city and county officials teamed up to preserve and upgrade the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park seven years ago, they vowed to protect the park’s residents from displacement.
But as the construction date nears, dozens of residents remain in limbo, unsure of whether the Buena Vista of the future will accommodate their needs. The Santa Clara County Housing Authority is preparing to replace the coaches in the park and construct a new building with 61 affordable apartments. This means that each of the park’s 73 households needs to decide whether they should own one of the new coaches, rent one of the new apartments or leave the park at 3980 El Camino Real and settle elsewhere.
Not everyone is thrilled about this menu of options. Rene Escalante, a longtime resident of Buena Vista, said he was insulted by the Housing Authority’s low appraisal of his mobile home, which he said was valued at just below $170,000.
“The whole process seems manipulated,” Escalante said.
Escalante’s household is one of about 23 that has yet to affirm their decision on future housing, according to Flaherty Ward, the director of real estate at the Housing Authority. To date, 50 out of 73 families at Buena Vista have made a decision. Of those, about eight have indicated that they plan to leave, she said.
Those that have yet to decide have offered a variety of reasons. About half, Ward said, are related to disputes over either the unit size or the value of their current coach, as determined by a third-party appraisal.
“I think there are some people who desire additional information before they make their choice,” Ward said. “And there’s been some households in Buena Vista that have been difficult to engage.”
Esmeralda Aristeo is among the holdouts. Aristeo had already been asked to move out of her mobile home to a smaller one, she wrote in a letter that she shared with the council. She claims she was led to believe by the Housing Authority that she would ultimately be relocated into a three-bedroom home. After spending money on remodeling the 865-square-foot mobile home that the Housing Authority provided, she received an offer for a 729-square-foot unit, which she argued is too small to accommodate her family’s needs.
“Residents just want things to be fair and right,” Aristeo said at the council’s Aug. 12 meeting.
Erika Escalante, Rene’s daughter who led Buena Vista’s resident association after the park’s closure was averted, complained about a “noticeable shift in treatment of residents” since the Housing Authority took over the park as part of a purchase agreement that involved contributions from the city of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County.
“Their goal has clearly been to displace people and they have been very successful at it,” Escalante said.
The flurry of concerns came as the council was preparing to cast a key vote on the redevelopment plan, which includes 44 coaches and 61 apartments. The Housing Authority was seeking the city’s approval for its new apartment building and for a tentative map that would allow the division of the park to accommodate its two disparate elements. Its request came with a sense of urgency. Preston Prince, the Housing Authority’s executive director, said the agency is facing an Aug. 25 deadline to apply for low-income tax credits, a key funding source.
The council had already delayed its vote once because of residents’ concerns. But with the deadline looming, the council unanimously agreed on Aug. 12 to advance the project, allowing the Housing Authority to tap into state funding. At the same time, council members declined to vote on the proposed “regulatory agreement” between the city, the county and the Housing Authority, a document that dictates affordability levels and sets other conditions for the park’s redevelopment. Citing concerns from residents, council members agreed to defer this to a later date.
Numerous residents submitted letters to the council expressing their grievances. Alex Simangas, who has lived at Buena Vista for 15 years, wrote that requested a three-bedroom mobile home for his family of seven but was rejected by the Housing Authority. Liney Barrera, who also lives at Buena Vista, complained about the Housing Authority’s failure to get her a “fair payment.”
“I have no words to describe all the anxiety and stress I’ve been through,” Barrera wrote.
Many others indicated that they support the Buena Vista redevelopment and are ready for upgraded dwellings. Amanda Serrano, who has been living at Buena Vista for 16 years, wrote that she believes she will be more comfortable when she has a “more dignified place to live.” Gloria Polacios was one of about 20 residents who signed letters testifying to the Housing Authority’s good work during the development process.
“We wholeheartedly support this endeavor,” the letter states. “We urge you to consider the residents’ overwhelming support and move forward with the approval and construction of the new housing development.”
The division among residents marks a shift for a project that has heretofore been synonymous with unity. In 2017, Buena Vista residents protested plans by the park’s former property owner to sell the property to a developer who was looking to build a luxury condominium project at the site. The city and the county then contributed $14.5 million each and then joined forces with the Housing Authority to purchase the park, preventing displacement. Since then, the Housing Authority had invested about $60 million in the redevelopment plan, according to Prince.
But while the council generally supports the Buena Vista, the specifics are proving frustrating. Last week, as the council agreed to delay its vote, Prince acknowledged that because of various constraints — including space and money — the Housing Authority “will not meet everyone’s expectations.”
“We just won’t,” Prince said. “So while we certainly understand where they’re coming from, the reality is we don’t have the space, the available funding or the legal means to meet all the expectations.”
The Housing Authority disputed the assertions that it is pushing residents to leave Buena Vista. Ward said that those residents who disagree with the Housing Authority’s appraisals, which are conducted by a third-party consultant, can commission their own. The Housing Authority would pay for these additional appraisals. If there is a disparity, the two sides would ostensibly negotiate.
“We have not forced anybody out of the park,” Ward said. “We’re not interested in retaliating against residents. We understand that people face a lot of barriers and have a lot of concerns and we do our best to operate the site and our redevelopment plan in a fair and equitable manner with the resources we have available to us.”
The council agreed that it will take some time to accommodate all the outstanding concerns. Council members requested that staff return in about a month with an update about resident disputes as well as information about the Housing Authority’s plans to help students remain in their schools during the relocation period.
The Housing Authority plans to start relocating residents in late 2024 and early 2025 and launch construction in summer 2025. It hopes to finish installing the new mobile homes and constructing the apartment building in 2026 and 2027, respectively.
“We’re certainly not going to turn back on this,” Vice Mayor Ed Lauing said. “We’re not going to turn back as a city or as a county. So what this means is we just need to get down to the nuts and bolts and get across the finish line. It’s going to be phenomenal.”
Council member Vicki Veenker similarly celebrated the project’s progress even as she warned that the final details have yet to be hammered out.
“I’m excited to see the new, more beautiful and safer park but we also want it to be fairly obtained,” Veenker said.
