|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Ten candidates for Palo Alto City Council face off in a debate moderated by Weekly journalists. Video by Palo Alto Online.
The 10 candidates vying for four open seats on the Palo Alto City Council hold starkly different views on housing production, commercial development and recent state housing bills, but most agree that it’s time for the city to open Foothills Park to nonresidents, beef up citizen oversight of the Police Department and institute campaign-finance reform.
The candidates debated these issues, as well as topics such as a proposed business tax, marijuana dispensaries and COVID-19 response, at a Thursday evening forum sponsored by the Palo Alto Weekly. Many of the questions were submitted by Weekly readers in the weeks leading up to the debate.
With about 500 people in attendance, the forum split the 10 candidates into two groups of five for four rounds of questions and then posed additional questions from the audience to all 10 candidates. The field includes incumbent council members Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka and eight challengers: former Mayor Pat Burt; attorney Rebecca Eisenberg; executive recruiter and planning commissioner Ed Lauing; attorney Steven Lee; engineer Raven Malone; teacher Greer Stone; Cari Templeton, chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission; and Ajit Varma, product development manager at WhatsApp.
One issue on which the candidates split was additional changes to single-family zoning, with some saying they would welcome more duplexes and triplexes and others arguing that the city single-family zones have already changed because of the recent proliferation of accessory-dwelling units.
Lee, a former member of the Human Relations Commission, Templeton and Malone, both said they support more flexibility for property owners to promote more housing. Templeton argued that duplexes would change the look of a neighborhood less than accessory dwelling units, given that a duplex would be constructed within the same structure.
She said she was interested in the concept proposed in Senate Bill 1120, which would have allowed property owners to subdivide their parcels to allow duplexes (the bill failed to meet its Aug. 31 deadline to advance). Malone agreed and said she supports ending “exclusionary zoning” and promoting more duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.
“I understand there’s concerns far as people not wanting fourplexes next to their single-family homes,” Malone said. “I acknowledge that. Let’s work together and find a place where we can make these units fit and make sense, but we need to brings housing to Palo Alto. It’s critical.”
Stone and Burt both said they had opposed Senate Bill 1120, which Stone called a “blunt instrument” for solving the housing shortage. Burt noted that the city already permits accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units (which are carved out at existing homes). Given the recent loosening of ADU laws — and the fact that the city has seen an eightfold growth in these backyard units — Palo Alto does not have “truly single-family zones,” Burt said.
“We’ve heard this description of single-family zoning is now ‘exclusionary zoning.’ All zoning excludes to some degree, but it’s being equated to segregation of our housing on a racial basis and that’s simply not the case. There’s an economic segregation that exists today.”
The candidates also expressed a variety of views on relaxing the city’s height limits and parking standards to help developers build higher-density housing in commercial areas. Lauing called the city’s shortage of affordable housing an “emergency,” highlighted the city’s recent zone changes that the city had already approved and proposed creating a standing committee of two council members who would lead the effort to develop further changes to promote affordable housing.
Lee agreed about the urgency and supported revising development standards to promote denser housing along transit corridors and job centers.
“I’d be interested in reevaluating our parking and height requirements if it meant that we can build denser housing along denser corridors and job centers. If we want to address any of these issues, we need to take a serious look at these things and make good choices as a local community before the state mandates housing in areas and in ways we may not like in the community,” Lee said.
Varma said he supports removing restrictions to height limits and parking standards in areas where it makes sense, including El Camino Real and near U.S. Highway 101.
“This is what makes it economically feasible for developers to create more housing,” Varma said. “For me, it’s not just affordable housing, it’s market rate housing, it’s space for all the needs for our community.”
Kou took a different stance and said any exemption to the city code to support development amounts to a subsidy that the city is making to make a project more profitable for the developer.
“Any subsidy needs to serve the community and not just be an automatic expectation on part of the developer and it has to be 100% affordable housing,” Kou said.
The candidates were more united on proposals to increase police oversight, including the repeal of the binding-arbitration provision from the police unions contract. The provision, which is included in many police contracts across the nation, has impeded police chiefs from removing officers who engage in misconduct.
Varma said he believes most Palo Alto officers are doing great work, the fact that the city is limited in its power to discipline officers who engage in misconduct is harming the reputation of the department as a whole. Removing the binding arbitration clause, he said, is “in the best interests of our community and the police force.”
Kou and Lauing said they support removing the provision. Lauing said the key to police reform is working with the police unions to get the provision removed.
“The handcuffs … that are on the police chief are just awful, so that he can’t even take action at this point,” Lauing said. “That’s where the highest leverage is to make drastic changes and to get rid of the proven bad apples that we have in our barrel.”
Other candidates proposed additional ideas for police reform. Councilman Greg Tanaka said other cities have a system in which the police chief reports directly to the city council, rather to the city manager. The city, he said, should explore such a model.
Burt and Stone said the city needs to restore the independent police auditor’s power to investigate internal complaints within the department — a power that the City Council stripped away last December when it revised the auditor’s contract.
Stone strongly criticized that decision, which he said compromises transparency.
“That makes it nearly impossible for us to have the accountability that is so necessary to make sure we are rooting out police officers who are using racial slurs or ad hominem homophobic remarks or other issues of police misconduct,” Stone said.
Stone, who serves as chair of the Santa Clara County Human Rights Commission’s Justice Review Committee, also supported having Palo Alto create a citizen oversight committee to review police data and incidents. Burt suggested that this could be done through a subcommittee of the city’s Human Relations Commission, where both Stone and Lee and previously served.
Templeton said it’s critical for residents to be more involved in police oversight rather than rely exclusively on an independent police officer.
“We need to have members of our community involved in evaluating incidents that happen with the police,” Templeton said. “It’s unacceptable that this is exclusively happening out of town.”
On the topic of governance, the candidates broadly agreed that the council has acceded too much power to city staff and pledged to restore the council’s policy-making role. Burt, Varma and Templeton all pointed to City Manager Ed Shikada’s imposition of a curfew in June in anticipation of potential looting in commercial areas amid protests over police brutality and racial injustice. Templeton said it’s critical for the city to close “loopholes” like the one that allowed Shikada to rely on the power granted to him by the COVID-19 emergency to take dramatic action that has nothing to do with the pandemic.
Burt, a two-time mayor who strongly opposed the curfew and immediately challenged it, said he has seen a trend of the city manager “teeing up policy issues with no alternatives to the council.”
“I see the council members divided between those too willing to acquiesce to the guidance of the city manager on policies, and those who were frustrated but weren’t sure how to overcome what was happening,” Burt said.
Tanaka, who frequently clashes with his colleagues, said he was frustrated both by the city manager’s failure to consult the council on the curfew and the council’s inability to shape its own agenda.
“The city manager can bring any item he feels like on the agenda any time he feels like it, but as elected officials we need to get a majority to do that,” Tanaka said. “And with Brown Act restrictions, it’s very difficult to do that.”
Eisenberg suggested that the problem stems from the lack of management skills on the current council.
“Time and time again, we hear the City Council and some commissions complain that they’re forced to reach a resolution because of the rules,” Eisenberg said. “Here’s the thing — the City Council makes the rules and the City Council is absolutely 100% free to change the rules. And in many cases, when we see President Hotel residents being evicted illegally and then we have a boutique, expensive hotel; when we see the high-wealth people not having to follow the rules, it’s because the council has chosen not to do that.”
There was less consensus on the topic of commercial development and retail protections. Stone said he strongly opposed the council’s recent decision to reconsider ground-floor protections for retail. Kou advocated for hiring an economic development manager to support local retail and help businesses recover from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lauing agreed.
“I get a little nervous when I see retail policy being set by seven council members,” Lauing said. “I’d rather have an expert driving that.”
Candidates generally agreed that the city does not need more commercial development, with Stone saying that increasing office construction means the city is not focusing on housing.
Several candidates, including Tanaka and Lauing, noted that the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the work-from-home trend, has changed the situation and created what Lauing called a “glut of offices.”
Varma said he would oppose a policy that requires new commercial developers to build enough housing to offset the number of new employees. That strategy, he said, might work when dealing with large companies like Google, who could provide housing in conjunction with office space. It would not, however, work for small businesses.
“If (small businesses) want to set up their dream and they have a dream to be in Palo Alto — and they want to start a business here — we should encourage that, we should admire that, we should make this possible,” Varma said. “Having them have these onerous restrictions on them will make them say that they don’t want to be here. For me, that’s the wrong decision for Palo Alto.”
On the hot-button issue of Foothills Park access, the candidates generally agreed that it’s time to relax the restrictions, though they offered different reasons for doing so. Councilwoman Lydia Kou and Councilman Greg Tanaka both supported a proposal for a “revenue neutral” pilot program that would allow a limited number of nonresidents to the park, followed by a public vote on the issue in 2022.
“I want to respect our residents and all the people who made the decision prior, in order to keep it for environmental preservation and for our future generations,” Kou said.
The challenges expressed varying degrees of enthusiasm for the idea of expanding access, though all agreed to do so. Varma said the issue of Foothills Park access has been very poorly managed, contributing to the city now acquiring a reputation for being “exclusionary,” he said.
“Personally, I think it’s a great resource for Palo Alto residents, but I think we have no choice but to open it now,” Varma.
Lee, Malone and Eisenberg were more emphatic in her desire to see the park open to nonresidents. Lee said the city has a capacity to “share this treasure with others” and Malone said the park should have been made more accessible to nonresidents a long time ago. Eisenberg agreed.
“We have to open the park and then issue a public apology for our embarrassing, shameful decision to close it,” Eisenberg said.
Almost all candidates also supported campaign finance reforms. Tanaka, whose campaign has amassed the most contributions, was the exception, noting that as long as everyone follows the same campaign-finance rules, the system is fair.
Others lamented the infusion of cash into policy. Varma said he has opted not to accept cash donations at all, while Lee set a goal of $45,000 for his campaign. Last week, his campaign hit the limit and stopped accepting donations.
Stone said he does not accept donations from developers, while Kou suggested that the city limit donations to Palo Alto residents. Eisenberg said she would support public financing for elections, while Stone and Templeton both suggested setting a cap on campaign spending, with Templeton pointing to Mountain View’s $25,000 limit.
Burt agreed that the city should institute a limit, and pointed to a recent increase in campaign costs, which in some cases are benefiting from large donations from outside commercial developers.
“I think it’s a real problem that our elections are being bought out that way,” Burt said.
Join next week’s school board candidates debate
The Palo Alto Weekly is hosting a virtual forum with the six candidates for the Palo Alto Board of Education on Wednesday, Sept. 30, from 7 to 9 p.m. To submit a question for the candidates, email editor@paweekly.com. Register at PaloAltoOnline.com/PAUSD.
This week’s campaign disclosures show that over 40% of Steven Lee’s donations come from outside of Palo Alto. Add to that Tanaka’s overwhelming haul from real estate and developer interests, and we’re seeing a very worrisome trend.
Here at the most local level of democracy, outside and special interests are weighing in heavily to influence the outcome.
Rebecca Eisenberg was the STAND OUT winner of this debate. She had detailed answers and plans that addressed the needs of Palo Altans perfectly. I am disappointed this article left out her answer on housing – she supports giving private property owners the right to subdivide their lots, and has specific plans to bring affordable housing for our lowest income workers.
She is absolutely right about the City Council’s lack of management. We need people with the fight and experience and negotiating skills to get things done. Nobody other than Eisenberg brings those skills combined with a deep empathy for Palo Altans. I’ll be voting for her.
Thank you so much to the Palo Alto Weekly for running such a great debate. I really enjoyed the smaller groups for the bigger questions. I did find it curious that candidates who chose not to answer the question (Tanaka, Kou, Eisenberg) were rewarded with extra time compared to the candidates who were answering the questions directly. I also was upset by the moderators letting Kou and Tanaka speak past the time limit on multiple occasions while all 8 of the other candidates were following the rules that were previously agreed to.
@FollowTheMoney From looking at the 460s of all the different candidates, Steven Lee seems to have the most unique donors supporting his campaign. Lee has not accepted more than $1,000 from any single source and has refused money from developers, for-profit corporations, and law enforcement officers and agencies. If you go to his donation page, you will see that he is no longer accepting donations and instead encouraging folks to donate to local organizations that serve the community. However, I do agree with you that Tanaka’s multiple $10k and $5k donations from developers and corporations are cause for concern, but lumping Lee in with Tanaka does not seem fair or accurate from my assessment of their publicly reported 460s.
@SensibleAndExperienced I agree with you that Rebecca did pretty well at the debate but would not classify her as the clear and stand-alone winner. I believe that many candidates did very well (Malone, Templeton, Lee, Eisenberg) while other candidates did very poorly (Kou, Tanaka) and the rest said nothing but empty platitudes. If I had to pick a winner I would likely pick Lee, who seemed knowledgeable about the issues and has the vision (and pragmatism) to make our community more equitable.
@lifetime resident –
I get what you’re saying, and I also agree Malone put up a strong show, but I have to disagree on Lee and Templeton.
Lee might have pretty statements, but I’ve been following this campaign since May, and Lee is straight up copying Eisenberg on every economic issue. He also lauds his failed gender equity policy as evidence of his “support for women.” I’m a woman who works in politics, and I find it ridiculous that he could not get that policy through in a city like Palo Alto, which is friendly to women’s rights issues. That’s evidence to me he did not fight for the policy as he should have. Others have accomplished more in more difficult circumstances – I won’t accept Lee’s excuses as replacement for advocacy.
Templeton specifically said something I could not ignore on the affordable housing question – she said her priority was “preserving the look of the neighborhood.” As an affordable housing advocate, I was disgusted by that statement – people are dying and getting sick because they list their homes, and Templeton is more concerned about making houses look pretty? Definitely not an answer a real housing advocate would give.
Eisenberg is the clear answer for me – her website lists a resume that wouldn’t be out of place for a Senator. Her story about delivering housing for 500 service workers (from an earlier forum) really sticks with me – I want that for my city. She is also vocal on the issues she cares about, and doesn’t shy away from controversial debates. That’s not a quality every candidate has. Vote Eisenberg!
I was pleasantly surprised by the strong showings from all of the candidates. Ed and Pat stood out to me – they clearly understand that the issues facing our city are complex, and they both have an impressively solid grasp on how to solve them. They presented actionable solutions and emphasized the need to get things done, while often the other candidates said “we should look into” things, and used the questions to present vague, generic ideas.
I second “Sensible and Experienced” comments on Rebecca Eisenberg.
I kept looking for her name and finally found it in a one sentence response by the Weekly about managerial accountability. There seems to be a bias to the council members with the most contributions. I do appreciate the Weekly for presenting the Council candidates to residents.
I, also, appreciate all the candidates wanting to serve our City.
Thank you for supporting the candidate forums. Much appreciated. The housing issue is the most pressing from my standpoint. I am not in favor of the destruction of R-1 neighborhoods. That is one of the major selling points for this city. That is why people moved here in the first place. I view the people that support tearing down the R-1 structure as recent arrivals to the city with an agenda. And that agenda appears to be financed by multiple outside interests. Glad to isolate out those who are for that. Maybe they should move to a city that is in transition that would benefit from that view point. Though cannot think of one on the peninsula that is for that thought process. That is a SVLG San Jose campaign issue.
I wish the council still had 9 members, but since it doesn’t and it’s down to 7 I’m going with two tried and tested candidates (Lydia Kou and Pat Burt) who have experience on council, who have learned from that experience, and whose positions might have changed, for the good of the residents of our community, from their experience on council.
I’m also going with Greer Stone and Ed Lauing, both of whom have put in the hard work on commissions to help them learn and also give to the community their caring concerns on many issues.
I liked some things I heard from the other newcomer candidates, but there were other things (maybe beyond my limit) that I disagreed with and didn’t like. I hope and encourage them that if they aren’t elected this time around that they stay active and come back, after some seasoning on commissions/committees or as volunteers in many of our city’s opportunities for service, for another try.
I was actually surprised, but I shouldn’t have been, by the number of candidates who were renters. I think I put them, subconsciously, in a category of people who haven’t made it yet (using the commonly misused financial and economic standards of wealth and income). I regret those thoughts.
I take long walks in my SPA neighborhood and I see signs for most of the candidates. I don’t vote based on the number or size of signs. Sadly, I think many residents do.
I could say a lot more about the debates and comments made, but that can wait. Well, except for one that really bugs me. There should be a statute of limitations on how long descendants/inheritors of people who made bad decisions years ago should suffer from their sins. Of course I’m referring the comment by Eisenberg about offering a public apology re the Foothills Park original rules. There are better ways to let wounds heal.
Mr Lee and Ms Eisenberg are not getting my vote. That is sure!
Thank you weekly for this forum.
Pat Burt clearly showed his experience, thoughtfulness and leadership. His insights are desperately needed on council. If joined by Ed Lauing and Greer Stone, they will make for a strong council that cares and understands the community. Lydia will join them and we can then have truly affordable housing, small businesses, parks and a thriving community.
Raven needs to spend some time in Palo Alto and on a commission Rebecca before running for council. She simply does not know the city.
And anyone who raises most of their funds from developers or from outside Palo Alto does not get my vote.
The Weekly has been treating Kou with kid gloves. In not recommending Kuo and Tanaka for re-election, the Daily Post pointed out they had accomplished nothing of note during their term. They waste a lot of council’s and the public’s time with ill-formed comments. Cormack provides a template for a well-prepared and effective council person.
The Kuo interview in the Daily Post today exposes her as virulently anti-housing.
A lot of candidates try to camouflage their views on housing by making vague or impractical statements or pledges. Kuo leaves no doubt where she stands and the residentialists need to soul search how they can countenance such positions that sabotage the city’s stated commitment to affordable housing.
“accomplished nothing of note during their term.”
That’s hard when you are almost always in the minority.
Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka remain OUTSTANDING leaders!
I thought Eisenberg came off uninformed, emotional and judgmental. I don’t view her as a strong candidate.
Templeton (from watching her on XCAP) seems to me a weak leader and, frankly, what she says in her campaign is inconsistent with the angry, radical politics she previously prescribed to on social media–though it appears her old Twitter feed has been scrubbed. I wonder about her sincerity.
I agree with the comments on Lee who exhibited the irritable, anxious personality I’ve observed on Human Relations Commission.
Varma surprised me. He is better-informed than I expected for a newbie. I do worry that he has no previous government experience that I know of. To be effective, it’s important to understand how government works differently (much differently) from the private sector. Applying for commissions would give him some insight into how City Hall actually works.
Ditto for Malone who is young, though bright, very inexperienced.
Pat Burt was articulate, thoughtful as usual. He had my vote before the debate. He stood out on Council for years as an effective leader. We need his experience and historical knowledge to get through the next few years.
Ed Lauing has private sector and some government experience. He’s growing on me. Still undecided.
I didn’t like Greer Stone in the last election, but I think he has gotten some experience and gained some knowledge in the last four years. He has grown, but I’m not sure yet.
Tanaka has disappointed me on Council. Originally I voted for him bc he was a fiscal conservative, but he seems unable to lead on the budget. He appears overwhelmed by the complex city budget, so he keeps being the lone “no” vote on single expenditures. He misses a lot of committee meetings. This isn’t good. Colleagues feel he’s not pulling his weight. He seems unable to work with his colleagues to build consensus to get traction for anything. That is how you lead in a democracy. If you can’t do that, you get little done; hence his very light track record. He’s a nice guy and a good listener. I’ll give him that.
Not sure what to think of Kou. I didn’t vote for her previously, but her experience on Council is slowly changing her. She supported the Wilton Court and Buena Vista projects. Those votes were good surprises–not what I expected from her. She does seem to be coming around on the budget.
In a nutshell, I’m voting for Pat Burt, and struggling with the rest of my votes. Lee, Templeton and Eisenberg are out for me.
The title of this blog is that they – the candidates – are united on police reform. Then reading in the Daily Post that Lee wants to overhaul the Police Department. I am extremely uncomfortable with that idea. Mr. Lee is young and does not appear to have any great experience in police activity. However he is politically very aggressive.
My thought right now is that the county at the top level should put all of the city police departments in a united pool and develop a united set of policies so that each small city in the county has a standard approach to problems, can share equipment when the need arises, and back each other up if there is a major activity in any one of the county cities. Right now we are struggling with police funding which is unclear and number of police in each city. If the number of police is reduced then we are collectively in trouble. We could share a county center for 911 calls – a shared expense.
Compare to the size of LA – I think we – the county – are about that size – get some feedback from them on how they manage a large city within a larger county. within the state of CA we should have a collective agreement on how we function, and collective training.
Police training takes place in a “police academy” and there are college classes on law enforcement. We should not have individuals who are not directly involved in that environment dictate how people do their jobs and how the whole force operates.
We need to promote within that environment and specialty. We need to let the trained people in law enforcement put their plan together then provide the plan to the county and cities for approval. If something works for San Jose – the biggest city in the county – then we should be able to function within those parameters.
Noted:
Eisenberg as no experience on a City Commission or Committee, doesn’t know how the town works, the staff, community organizations. Governance takes a different skill set from a business or a law firm as we are reminded of by Trump’s example.
In Malone’s case, the same, but also doesn’t know the residents – she’s has barely lived here 7 months. Ai yi yi.
Malone thought it fine to have up to 6 units of housing on 1 neighborhood lot, even after Burt accurately explained that SB1120 allows this. Why would anyone vote for a candidate supportive of this for all our neighborhoods?
Templeton said the biggest challenge facing Palo Alto was transportation, so wants a shuttle. Wow, go big, Cari. Funny how this exactly echos your backer, Councilwoman Cormack’s big campaign issue in 2018 – a shuttle.
Lee has amassed a lot of money – $43,572. That over 40% of donors are out of town is hugely significant. None can vote here, yet are influencing our election. That’s outrageous.
Tanaka has a lot of out-of-towners too. For contrast, donors to Kou, Burt, Stone and Lauing have taken little out-of-town money. That’s not partisan, that’s just fact.
Not sure what some commenting on the debate saw to cause such positive reviews of Malone. Maybe if one is looking for an ultra-progressive approach to issues that’s enough to warrant applause. It is inconceivable to me that we give any serious consideration to a candidate for the city council who has been a resident for a fraction of one year and has no history of serving on other subordinate committees.
If you look at her actual voting record, Kou has never been inconsistent on housing. Her biggest issue is that she can sometimes be inarticulate, especially on topics she’s passionate about.
The Slow-Growthers’ position, which Kou embodies, has been repeatedly distorted by the YIMBYs. In reality it’s strongly pro Affordable housing, but ambivalent on Market-rate housing – that market-rate housing projects should follow zoning and pay for their impacts, in terms of traffic, parking, services, park space, aesthetics, heights and daylight planes, etc. Kou’s support of Buena Vista, Wilton Court, and also the President Hotel is totally consistent with this position, as is her opposition to oversized and underparked market-rate projects.
The YIMBY position is actually the exact opposite: strongly pro market rate housing (much of which is consumed by YIMBY professionals), but ambivalent on affordable housing. “Housing at all levels” is code for this – everybody knows Affordable can’t be built without subsidies, but the “all levels” advocates are also not interested in market-rate housing paying its full impacts either.
One issue with the latter position is the “Kate Downing Dilemma:” in your 20’s you’re ok with high density housing, but in your 30’s you want a single-family home and space, which even for professionals can mean leaving Palo Alto. Hence the current enthusiasm for Duplexes, and the notion of a possible price point between $1.7M condos and $3M single-family homes. Adding some duplexes to R-1 neighborhoods won’t make Palo Alto more affordable for non-professionals, but that’s not the point.
The Slow-Growthers’ position, i.e. Kou, isn’t categorically opposed to that; it’s basically, let the market deal with market-rate, as long as impacts get covered and residents make the zoning decisions. The push to supersede local control via SB50 or SB1120, supported by some candidates though not Kou, comes from fear that a majority of residents may not decide this way, especially if impacts must be covered, and therefore zoning decisions should be transferred to Sacramento instead. The Slow-Growthers adamantly oppose taking that power away from residents, hence the conflict and the litmus test on SB1120.
Note that every city within the state is having to work with what ever the governor is up to and the CA legislators who are trying to remap the state. The peninsula is a focal point based on it’s location to major companies that are going through their own controversies with the public and government. It is like ski trip – the snow level is always changing and the storm level is marking the territory. Our city and council has to continually adjust to the political weather that affects the financial security of the city. Some years are harder than others. We need people who know this city and have experience riding the waves. Our experienced council members have the scars to prove their participation in the on-going controversies. I am going with those who have proven their worth.
Thank you for providing the “debate” discussion on topics. The candidates have clearly identified their qualifications – either good or bad – regarding how to run a city. We have everything here from soup to nuts. Experience vs inexperience, progressive vs stabilization. Thank you.
First thanks to the Weekly for hosting the forum. I would have really liked to see more interaction between the candidates.
For me, there was a clear dividing line between candidates interested in increasing density in R1 neighborhoods and those that want to put denser housing in commercial areas. 5 candidates are against what they call exclusionary housing – Greg, Raven, Cari, Steven, and Rebecca. Sounds good right? Except what they mean is they are dedicated to ending single family homes. We are a suburban town. For that reason alone I will not be supporting these five. I’m also not interested in taking funding away from our public safety agencies. Throw in Tanaka’s outright excessive funding by development interests and he will never get my vote. Varma seems to be a Facebook representative. He seems to be all about big tech. So I will be supporting the remaining candidates because I think they are espousing values I appreciate – working for me, protecting my quality of life, and balancing some very complex issues. While each different, I think they are an exciting group that complements each other – Greer Stone, Lydia Kou, Pat Burt, and Ed Lauing. All experienced, all dedicated public servants and all concerned about a broad range of issues.
WOW – interesting news today is the SJM/BAN – 09.30.20. Rep. from Berkley is doing something right – SB 1079. This prevents corporate buying of residential homes in foreclosure – and gives a path for the home owners to buy those homes. Turns out the corporate buying of residential properties is a big time event of late. Does this ring a bell for anyone here in this city? How about EPA in which the apartment buildings are owned by a giant corporation. Google has all of it
s people working from “home” – what ever qualifies as home.
At a time when the push is to breakdown R-1 neighborhoods with multi-unit residences you can see where this is going. How many of our candidates are renters in corporate owned buildings? If you have a multi-unit building go up next door to you how long will you be living in that home? NOT LONG.
Newsome rejected the AB 69 which would have provided financing to home owners for in-law units.
Also in the news – Sunnyvale is ranked as one of the safest cities in the state, followed by San Mateo. No mention of Palo Alto in the “safest” category. I attribute that to the members of the various Commissions which have spent a month riling about the shortfalls of the city which did not follow their advice to be “saved”. All of such advice to push an agenda which has questionable legal basis.
So Berkley and Oakland now see the beast in the bushes and are working to support their residents. And Sunnyvale can wallow in the being that “safe’ city. It’s residents are not running around creating national coverage to push their individual agendas.
Kou is an excellent person to have on City Council.
We perhaps need more low income housing that is affordable to those who service various industries. We do not need simply more housing that often turns out to be market rate.
When it comes to retail, please keep real retail–small shops that serve the local residents such as shops that sell usable items. We do not need more exercise places on University or California. When I want to purchase something I do not want to watch people doing exercise. Exercise places should be on side streets. Moreover, I would not want to exercise in front of a lot of strangers; that is for exhibitionists.
We need small shops where we can purchase usable items and clothing that is not all overly expensive. Bring back our second hand and antique stores.
Years ago council voted to expand the definition of what is considered “retail” to include non-traditional retail.
This allows landlords to lease their retail space to non-traditional retail businesses that can pay a higher rent and outcompete traditional retail. Which also makes the property more valuable. A big win-win for the developer backed council members and a loss for the community.
At the time, Liz Kniss specifically and successfully lobbied her fellow council members to include personal training studios on the list of allowable retail. We have seen how that hollowed out the California Avenue retail area.
We need council members who are not beholden to developer money.
Landlords complain they are losing tenants. Lower your rent. Be responsive to market changes–especially those of you who have done little to improve your properties over time while you take advantage of Prop 13 tax advantages.
My son lived in SF in an apartment on Jones Street – that has a very hilly section. Once they decided to create a family they moved to a house in the Oakland Hills which is near a school. Young people go through evolutions regarding their personal life based on many factors, including job changes, family matters, location to schools, etc.
A friend who works for Oracle has moved to New Mexico where she grew up and is a work-from-home employee. She now has a house with a yard. Excitement. She also has a corner office in the Oracle building in RWC which she visits on a periodic basis.
That is continual change based on a number of situations. What does that have to do with putting duplexes in R-1 housing sections? NOTHING! Why are we breaking down the whole fabric of our city? They are using these situations to promote this destruction of the city.
From one end of this city to the other end there are apartment buildings – we do not lack apartment buildings. What we lack is a plan for El Camino to replace the one story commercial buildings that are over 50 years old and falling apart. If you go up to RWC they are in a building boom in the downtown area and it looks great. It is near the Caltrain tracks so that checks a box. That is where the multi-unit residences belong. They do not belong in areas that have houses.
Let’s not fool ourselves here – if a duplex appears in the middle of your block then there will be a major scramble for people to leave. And who will be buying your house? A corporation. And soon there will be corporations that own housing in PA controlling the PACC. That is where this is going. Our time to stop it.
As a policy matter, what is the proportion of rentals vs homeownership Palo Alto residents want to see in future?
Already close to half of Palo Alto’s population are renters. Should the city encourage more rentals and change the ratio of Palo Alto’s population to predominantly renters? And how would that change the future direction of Palo Alto?
Has anyone else noticed the big discrepancy between those that endorsed Tanaka 4 years ago and now? Over 85% of the people who endorsed him last time did not endorse him again, nor did many of the political organizations. What does that say?
Data can be found by looking at his endorsements on his web site now and using teh “waybackmachine” for 2016
A home is an investment. It is a long range plan for the children going through school in one location with all of the activities that children participate in. If people think that we have a high proportion of renters that does not mean the renters are in houses. They could be in apartments. I view the renters as the younger people who are busy starting their careers and could be moved around by their companies. They do not want to make the long term commitment for a house at this time in their lives. That is okay. There are apartments all over this city – we have a lot of apartments.
There are also renters in houses who make a good salary and can afford the price of the rental. They are professional people.
You do not have to go any further than the papers to see how many house are listed and bought. I personally do not care – I care that our neighborhoods are what we buy into and I do not want to see a neighborhood broken down by people who do not care. It says nothing good about this city if it has neighborhoods it hypes then turns around and starts uprooting those neighborhoods. We sell neighborhoods as a marketing tool.
Time to make El Camino a neighborhood and take down all of those old, ugly buildings that must be infested with termites. Other cities are putting their apartments on El Camino and downtown. That is where they belong.
Palo Alto has always had a very high percentage of renters for an affluent city. I remember reading a 1960 Palo Alto Census, and 1/3 of the population were renters back then. Why?
I have renters on my street in houses – they are visiting and working at SU, some in the medical center – to gather more up to date info and skills in their chosen specialty. They have their children in school and intend to go back home after the children graduate. Their children are multi-lingual now which makes them good candidates for college. These are high level professionals in high skill jobs. They are renting a HOME – not an apartment or duplex.
We have H1B workers here whose high level jobs are tied to specific jobs and time frames. Buying a house for them is not their long-range plan. But they want a HOUSE – not an apartment or duplex. Between visiting professionals at SU and high tech we have people who can afford to rent homes.
Where does Jennifer live? It shows another city – unnamed. What is going on in her city? It depends on why people are here in the first place – usually work related to begin with – then when the children get entrenched stay until they graduate and go to college.
Reading the Wall Street Journal today – Friday is the “Mansions” Section – it is featuring people who have moved out of the bay area and SOCAL – Malibu – due to numerous reasons – one of which is no longer desirable, and the children have grown up so no reason to have a high priced home in a tax heavy area when you can have a nicer home in a different state that is lower priced and has a better tax advantage.
I think the school system is the major driver of a lot of home buying. PA better watch out – other bay area cities are surpassing PA for the school systems – Cupertino. If the school system is a major reason for families to be here then the HOME is the way to go. An apartment or duplex is not a mid-range goal in this environment.
In Redwood City there are huge groups of people who went to school there, have families there, and are not moving out. That city has a different mix of people and they are there to stay. Lots on new buildings in downtown – where they belong – for the new SU campus in that city. I think RWC has figured out their city imperatives and are correctly working the apartment and home combo.
Templeton, Lee, and Malone have the most serious platform on housing. They have the backing of groups actually fighting for affordable housing and have been solid in their support for actually getting affordable housing built. Pat Burt, Greer Stone, Ed Lauing, and Lydia Kou may talk about affordable housing but their record is very different. They are the candidates bent on keeping Palo Alto an exclusive, segregated place inaccessible to young people, a place where people who grow up here don’t stand a chance of being able to move back to with any reasonable income. Don’t buy their lies. Don’t vote for candidates with Donald Trump values.
Paly Student – the problem with your candidates is WHERE they want to put the low cost housing. If you tear down a single family home in an R-1 neighborhood you first have to buy that house to tear it down. Then you have to build another building and at this point you have now set the property tax at a new, current level. The property alone is very expensive. If you already own the house and then tear it down to rebuild you still change the property tax value of the building. You are now going to have to ask for rent to cover that new value. The cost of rebuilding is prohibitive so you are still charging high rent.
People put out ideas but you need to follow through with that idea to its completion. There a a lot of “throw-out” ideas that mathematically don’t make sense.
Low cost housing has to be a concentrated, approved transaction in a low cost area that is up for redevelopment due to age of the buildings. And a special loan has to be used that is transacted through the government to qualify for a special loan.
Paly Student – your job is to go to college and major in a specialty that will give you enough money to first rent an apartment, save up for a down payment, then work your butt off. That is what everyone else has done.