
The proposed legislation would apply to people who buy three or more homes within a radius of 500 feet, roughly the length of a city block. Any construction project expected to last more than 180 days would need a detailed daily schedule of construction work to prove it can be conducted without double-parking vehicles or blocking driveways or bike lanes.
After finishing one construction project, homeowners would need to wait three years to begin another unless a major emergency occurred. Homes could not be vacant for more than six months in any given year.
The proposal relies on neighbors for enforcement, leaving it up to another homeowner or tenant living within 500 feet to file a lawsuit.
The proposal would place new restrictions on private security guards across Palo Alto, not just those serving wealthy homeowners. All security vehicles would have to be marked and permitted by the city. Security guards would have to identify themselves to the public when asked. They would be prohibited from harassing or intimidating passers-by on public property…
The full Palo Alto City Council is likely to take up Mr. Stone’s proposal in January or February. Mr. Stone said he is confident that a majority of the seven-member council, which has taken a keen interest in housing affordability, would support the general framework but could send it to a committee or city staff member for refinement. It could take six months or longer to reach a final vote, he said.
Three things strike me about this proposal:
- It is clearly aimed at particular residents. Not just people with some wealth, who might be found across American suburban communities, but people who are truly wealthy and can afford this kind of construction and property ownership and all that goes with it.
- Communities often deal with these concerns at the zoning level. How big can a structure or house be? Are the guidelines in particular areas or in regards to property lines? The proposal above seems to deal with other matters that come along with regular approval of megahouses and properties.
- The regulations are about property but local conversations often have to do with local character and community life. Do such homes (and people) fit in the community? Who can live in a place where such properties are common? Who is Palo Alto for? Suburbs often implicitly or explicitly have these discussions while considering development.
Now that this proposal is out there, how do wealthier residents respond and what will the final local regulations be?









