"Always question what you're told, and ask who does it serve"

Very often, the stated reason for a policy has no connection whatsoever to the true reason.

I'm developing a deep suspicion regarding the Eichler preservation policy in Palo Alto.  The public reason is, of course, preservation: Eicher neighborhoods have a unique character which is worthy of being retained.

Which reason looks  a tad shaky when some of the neighborhoods in question have already been substantially redeveloped, with 40% or more of the original Eichler houses having been demolished and replaced by McMansions over the past couple of decades.  Not much of the original neighborhood character remaining, eh?  Really, this area bears little resemblance to what it was when I was a kid.

Just recently, I noticed something: where the big new houses are being built, there's heavy equipment tearing up sidewalks and streets.  Hmmmm...

OK, so I'd noticed long ago that the McMansions had visible plumbing in the front yard similar to what's on display in front of commercial / industrial buildings.  I did a little looking at the time, and, IIRC, learned that buildings with more than however-many square feet of floor space were required to have fire sprinklers, and that the fire sprinklers called for upgraded water service.

And these new McMansions have that... and sometimes two incoming water pipes.  Maybe this has some connection to the tearing up of sidewalks and streets?

So!  How much is the city having to upgrade the water (and sewer?) systems to accommodate these monsters?  Is this the real motivation?  We're talking 1950s-vintage housing tracts that were developed on a budget, with infrastructure geared toward the modest-sized tract homes of the era.  Going from 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1000~1300 square feet to 5 bedroom, 4 bath, 2500~3500 square feet and applying the (presumably standard) rules for water and sewer capacity would seem to create a problem if too many people do it.

Addendum:  The filk reference in the title is "No High Ground" by Leslie Fish.  Doesn't seem to be on line in any conveniently-linkable place.

More:  OK, so there's a recent performance of "No High Ground" embedded in a virtual filksing hosted by Aya Katz, but the quality of Leslie's mic and/or 'Net connection is dreadful.

On the Eichler front, a nearby moderately-run-down Eichler on an oversized lot sold last year for an oversized-lot price, supposedly including approved plans for replacing the old house with a fancy new one.  I don't know if it's tied up in the preservation thing or what,  but it's still sitting there, more'n half a year later, with weeds sprouting through the driveway and growing tall and no other signs of life.  Whatever's going on with that, it's gone from an expected upgrade to a blight.

Comments

[Ellen Fox]

Walk past my old house at 2093 Louis Road (one house down from the Congregationalist Church) if you want to see blight. I could cry every time I see it. It was a perfectly nice, well-maintained little 1,100 sq.ft. house until we sold it in 2004. Now it's an eyesore. It's on a double lot. I can't understand why they don't just tear it down and build one or two new houses. And the house right next to the church is actually looking like something out of a horror movie. I truly don't understand why the city hasn't condemned it (or why the neighbors, in their pretty McMansions, haven't torched it.)

[Eric Wilner]

I think condemning an eyesore is nigh-impossible; there's a house in the old neighborhood in Sunnyvale that's been effectively abandoned since forever; seems it's owned (along with several other properties in the South Bay) by someone who prefers to live under a bridge in a more upscale city. I guess the taxes are being paid by a trust fund or something. Looking at the aerial view, it seems someone's come around and put tarps on the roof. Somehow it remains there, long unfit for habitation.