AI disclosure. The analysis and framing on this page were
substantially AI-drafted from the primary sources cited throughout, then reviewed and edited by the
site operator before publication. See the site's
standing AI use
disclosure for how that process works generally.
A personal anecdote is circulating in support of the downtown housing plan: a family's longtime
nanny, priced out to Modesto, and a 27-year-old son now studying to become a teacher. His mother's
wish is that downtown housing gets built so he can afford to live in Menlo Park — and so other
families can keep the nannies they love. The people in it are real, and for teachers and service
workers, the situation is a sympathetic one. But for two of the three developer proposals on the
table, the teacher part of the story doesn't square with the income bands that apply to the
housing being proposed.
- A LinkedIn comment posted under the name "Karen G." describes a nanny of five years who "got priced
out and moved to Modesto" 24 years ago, and a son, now 27, studying to become a teacher who the
poster wants to be able to live locally.[1]
- A photo of Menlo Together founder Karen Grove shows her holding a placard at a housing rally
reading, in part: "our best-nanny-ever had to quit because she got displaced to Modesto."[2]
- Karen Grove is a named co-founder of Menlo Together, the coalition organizing the campaign
supporting the housing plan, and a recurring public commenter at Council meetings on this exact
project — a relevant detail when weighing how "grassroots" a personal testimonial is, not a
disqualifying one.
- Even more to the point, teachers likely won't qualify for many of the downtown housing units the
Request for Proposals (RFP) respondents say they would build. The city's RFP's specified income
band is 15%–80% AMI —
very-low to low income. Of the three proposals, only Presidio Bay Ventures targets a materially
higher band (80%–120% AMI, explicitly aimed at "teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses") —
and that proposal fails the RFP's core income-distribution requirement precisely because it sits
outside the 15%–80% band.[3] The two proposals that do comply (Alliant,
Related/Alta) skew considerably deeper — averaging 55% and 47% AMI — a different population than
that likely to include a public school teacher.
Why it's worth a second look
Nothing about the personal story is false, and the underlying housing-cost problem it describes is
real. But the specific pitch — "these homes will be affordable for people like my son the
teacher" — maps most cleanly onto the one proposal (Presidio Bay) that this site's own RFP scorecard
found least compliant with the RFP's actual requirements, not onto the two deeper-affordability
proposals that do comply. It's also worth simply knowing, when weighing how "grassroots" a personal
testimonial is, that the person telling it is the same named co-founder of the coalition organizing
the campaign — not a disqualifying fact, just a useful one. And nothing in the mother's wishes
points to the need to prioritize downtown over alternate building sites.
