News

Editorial: Approve open space bond Measure AA

After public visioning process, MROSD seeks voter funding support

It is not an overstatement to say that the creation of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in 1972 is the single biggest reason for the extensive open space and recreational opportunities we enjoy today up and down the Peninsula, and out to the coast.

One need only look west to the tree-covered coastal mountains to see the legacy of that voter initiative, passed locally the same historic year as voters statewide established the California Coastal Commission to protect the entire coastline.

On the June 3 ballot, voters in the 17 Santa Clara and San Mateo county cities that make up the open-space district will have the chance to ensure these lands are maintained properly and made more accessible for public enjoyment over the next few decades.

Measure AA, which requires a two-thirds vote for passage, authorizes the sale of up to $300 million in general obligation bonds over 30 years. It will increase local property taxes by up to $3.18 per $100,000 in assessed valuation, or about $30 a year for a homeowner with a property assessed at $1 million.

The district's current operations are funded primarily through a property tax of $17 per $100,000 in assessed value, which will continue unaffected by the outcome of Measure AA.

Over its 41-year history, there has always been a tension between land acquisition, whose aim is to seize opportunities as they arise to convert private land holdings into public open space, and developing trails and other facilities that allow the public to enjoy these acquired lands.

The elected governing board has done a good job over the years at this delicate balancing act, and the result is 62,000 acres in 26 different preserves between Los Gatos and San Carlos and from the bay to the ocean open for hiking, biking and horseback riding.

Over the last year and a half, the district has undertaken a public process to evaluate its priorities and develop a vision and plan for the next 40 years. After input from many public meetings, the district has created a list of 25 priority projects that will be undertaken if the bond measure passes.

These include opening more areas to public access, improving and constructing more trails and facilities, restoring creeks and streams, and strategic acquisition of additional land as it becomes available. A list of the specific projects can be found on the district's website at openspace.org/MeasureAA.

We are strong believers in the work of the Midpeninsula Open Space District and the value it brings to our increasingly urbanized environment. Having such extensive open space so close is a major contributor to our quality of life in this region.

We are also heartened by the district's commitment to focusing on increasing the public use and accessibility of these publicly funded lands rather than simple preservation. Going forward, the district's success should be measured by how many new trails, trail connections and facilities are added, and the extent that opportunities for all types of users, including hikers, bikers, horseback riders, campers and particularly dog owners are significantly expanded.

The public made clear these desires during the public meetings in preparation for the bond measure proposal, and the district needs to move in this direction regardless of the passage of Measure AA.

The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is made up of the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, Redwood City, San Carlos, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Half Moon Bay.

In essence, the taxpayers in these cities have banded together for the last four decades to preserve open space in perpetuity and create opportunities for readily accessible recreational activities.

Measure AA provides a way of spreading the costs of significantly improving these opportunities at a very low cost per taxpayer.

It is hard to imagine a more important public investment than to maintain and improve the valuable open space that provides us with beautiful views, recreational opportunities and protection against development.

We urge a "yes" vote on Measure AA on the June 3 ballot.

Comments

Posted by Voter, a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2014 at 9:02 am

I'm an outdoorsy type and I would normally vote for such a measure, but I'm taking a pass on this one. The salaries and benefits of the open space district employees are out of hand. There director makes more than the governor, for Pete's sake. I worry my extra taxes are just going to pay his pension and those of his unionized workforce.


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 2, 2014 at 9:25 am

"It will increase local property taxes by up to $3.18 per $100,000 in assessed valuation"

Prop 13 killed this. If it was based on actual value then it might have passed but as it is, I'm voting no.


Posted by Dean, a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2014 at 10:19 am

I am voting an enthusiastic yes on this measure - a large part of what makes this area so amazing to live in is the large open spaces we have so close by that everyone can enjoy. It is well worth the extremely small addition to my property taxes to help this investment.

Now, if we can only repeal prop 13 for commercial properties...


Posted by yes, a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2014 at 10:21 am

We are voting yes. The complaints above are petty. Voting no because you disagree with Prop 13? Come on. Are you voting no on all school and road projects as well?

The open space district does tremendous good for our area and the projects proposed for this money will make it tremendously better.


Posted by Garden Gnome, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2014 at 10:26 am

So this measure will ensure that no housing gets built on this land, thus ensuring continued sky-high real estate prices.

Sounds good!


Posted by yes, a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2014 at 10:39 am

The protected land is almost entirely west of I-280, where the land is too steep, dry, and earthquake-prone for housing development. If we want to increase local housing, we need to increase density between Foothill Expressway and Hwy 101.


Posted by Berry, a resident of College Terrace
on May 2, 2014 at 10:44 am

Vote YES! All the new incoming Ken Deleon customers will be taxed, not the Old Prop 13 home owners!!! Duh! And to shoot this down because the director is over paid is a double negative. Only the citizens and parks will suffer with that logic. YES YES YES YES YES.


Posted by Silly, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 2, 2014 at 10:45 am

We need more density and more gridlock?? How green of you.


Posted by jimmae, a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2014 at 10:50 am


I ride a Mt Bike, I participated in the MROSD outreach of the last 1 1/2 yrs to evaluate-establish priorities for existing and future properties.

I own 2 homes, 1 in Palo Alto,1 on the coastside that this bond will be funded directly from.

MROSD GM Steve Abbors took the time to attend our Midcoast Community Council mtng in El Granada last month to give a presentation of what the bond will do and took many questions from attendee's.

Cannot think of a better way for my taxes to be spent.

I support Measure AA 100% and my vote will reflect that



Posted by jimmae, a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2014 at 10:50 am


I ride a Mt Bike, I participated in the MROSD outreach of the last 1 1/2 yrs to evaluate-establish priorities for existing and future properties.

I own 2 homes, 1 in Palo Alto,1 on the coastside that this bond will be funded directly from.

MROSD GM Steve Abbors took the time to attend our Midcoast Community Council mtng in El Granada last month to give a presentation of what the bond will do and took many questions from attendee's.

Cannot think of a better way for my taxes to be spent.

I support Measure AA 100% and my vote will reflect that



Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 2, 2014 at 10:56 am

I'm voting no because the tax will cost me twice that of my neighbor. If you can arrange the tax so that like properties/individuals pay the same then I'm all for it.
It's not about prop 13, it's about a fair tax and this isn't a fair tax.


Posted by Berry, a resident of College Terrace
on May 2, 2014 at 11:31 am

Sounds like someone has a case of tax sour grapes. And don't drag everyone else under the tax buss because you moved here later then 78'. Thatz not ok. THINK OF THE KIDS! THE KIDS!


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 2, 2014 at 12:18 pm

I just think everyone should pay. If you want to introduce a taz, make it a parcel tax. That is fairer than using assessed value.

Unless this has a strong base of support such as that for the libraries, any prop 13 based tax initiative will get rejected by default.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

Preserving the qualities of this area should include the urban landscape
as well as the natural landscape. It should be a partnership of local
government, a responsible private sector, and the residents. With this
open space bond we are saying the residents need to step up, it's so
important to preserve our natural landscape, while our city and our local developers are destroying our urban landscape and never look back. Something is very wrong here.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Why should people with higher valued property be expected to pay more for open space than those with lower valued property? (In other words, why is this an "ad velorem" tax rather than a parcel tax, or a head-count tax?)

If people who rent are to be considered valid voters—then why shouldn't they be expected to pay into the fund just like property owners? To make matters worse, property owners who live out of the jurisdiction can not vote on this new tax!

And why is it that this huge bond has been hiding in the wings until now--and is being thrust on the voters in a low turnout election with virtually no public debate, and little information about how the money will be spent.

The people behind this tax, and the Open Space District, don't seem all that honest.

Vote NO!


Posted by Susan, a resident of Mountain View
on May 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm

I am no math whiz but $3.18 per 100,00 means that a $1,000,000 property would only be assessed an additional $31.80 per year. That is less than 2 movie tickets or a single meal in a nice restaurant, for Pete's Sake! Anyone in the $5M category still only comes to $159. Fuel for the Escalade! Stop whining and keep our precious resources safe from development and open to nature. Hike a trail with some out-of-town friends and watch them appreciate what we have just across the freeway!


Posted by Voter, a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm

"And to shoot this down because the director is over paid is a double negative. Only the citizens and parks will suffer with that logic."

I respectfully disagree. Unless we take a stand and say "no more revenue until the abuse of tax funds stops," the problem will only get worse and worse. Public employees are moderately to severely overpaid and the problem is only worse when the early retirements and huge defined benefit pensions (where the risk is all on the taxpayer) is factored in. A manager of a mid-sized bureaucracy should not be making more than the governor.


Posted by anonymous66, a resident of Barron Park
on May 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm

I was shocked to read in another newspaper that Steve Abbors, the general manager of the district, justified his $210,782 annual paycheck by saying he was at the same level as a city manager, and therefore should be paid the same. And then when the payroll came out (again, that other paper) it was surprising to see how many people in this district were pulling down 100K+ salaries for paper pushing jobs. And I think their "visioning" exercise earlier this year, in which they did a bunch of PR for the bond issue, cost $750,000. I think this district is too fat for my tastes. And I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars get wasted on salaries and pensions. So I'm voting NO.


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm

@Susan, then you'd have no problem in switching to a parcel tax since it would still only be the price of a couple of movie tickets or a meal in a nice restaurant.

Check out your property tax. The nickel and diming on prop 13 assessment based taxes add up to $$$ on your yearly property tax bill.


Posted by Bert, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2014 at 10:13 pm

MROSD polled me some months ago about how likely I would support this bond issue. Through out the poll, the numerous questions essentially boiled down to some variant of 'would you pay a tax to preserve and acquire open space on the Peninsula'. Posed like that, the answer is of course, yes. However, I asked questions back like, how about a few specific examples of what MROSD intends to do with that extra money? Answer, um, well, we need to preserve open space and it costs money. That is true, but I kept asking and got a non response. My conclusion was that the MROSD was absolutely certain that they needed more money, but could not or would not articulate one thing they needed to do. Their campaign literature is similarly vague, we need money (amount unspecified anywhere on the mailing I have received) and we do good things, but no specifics. Web Link gives a slightly dated window into the MROSD finances. About 1/4 of their annual budget goes towards salaries and benefits, half towards buying and maintaining land, and the rest goes to servicing loan debt. Is this a reasonable budget for an organization like this? I feel that the top guy pulling in a $210,000 salary is way out of line. The other staff are very well compensated as well Web Link


Posted by Karen, a resident of Stanford
on May 3, 2014 at 9:45 am

Interesting comments. "Dead in the Water" and "Joe" want the tax to be fair and can't understand why someone choosing to purchase a $5M dollar house would have to pay more…Hmmm? "Jimmae" is excited because a politician came to the coast side and made a bunch of promises. "Voter" and "anonymous66" are concerned that the public employees who build and maintain the infrastructure they enjoy make too much money, while the tech industry pays $100K + salaries for doing relatively little work with minimal social value. "Garden Gnome" thinks that the skyrocketing home values are linked to open space preservation, somehow ignoring the expanding tech industry with their Google busses and cries of gentrification from the lower income districts.

It sounds like people need to step back and consider the bigger picture that lies beyond the end of their noses.


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 10:59 am

Apparently Karen doesn't understand prop 13 based assessment taxes. Try understanding the tax before posting. That might lead you to the bigger picture.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 3, 2014 at 11:05 am

> It sounds like people need to step back and consider
> the bigger picture that lies beyond the end of their noses.

And what exactly, sir, is the bigger picture? Since you presumably see it—why don't you educate us? And be sure to make it very clear why someone who owns property has an obligation to pay for your open space, but someone who lives in an apartment, does not.

Can you do that for us?


Posted by Karen, a resident of Stanford
on May 3, 2014 at 1:53 pm

Prop 13 has allowed my parents and many older citizens on fixed income to keep their homes. I understand that people should educate themselves about the state they relocate to… its like buying a house next to the airport and complaining about the noise. All homes will eventually have their values re-assed when sold… but for some reason you want to make sure that the retired couple next door pays the same in property tax because it makes you feel better? FYI, MROSD is currently funded by a parcel tax that is $0.17 per $100 in assessed value.

The big picture is that we live in a closed system with finite resources and yet we have an economic system that is based on continued expansion. The big picture is beyond our own self-interest. We need wild places more than ever before.


It's very simple, when the owner of a 20 unit apartment gets an increase in his property tax bill of $190 he can, and will, pass that cost along to his renters.


Posted by Mike Alexander, a resident of South of Midtown
on May 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Mike Alexander is a registered user.

@Joe: I think it would be unusual for a landlord to not pass on ALL of his property tax expense to his tenants. So, renters do pay. Is that clear enough?
It isn't clear what you think the District and its supporters are being dishonest about. Timing of the ballot measure is probably a strategy suggested by consultants. It may or not be helpful, but it isn't dishonest.
As a public body, details of MROSD's governance and finances are in plain view. The District has operated in much the same way ever since its initiation in 1972. Each member of the Board of Directors is elected, and each is answerable to the constituents of the his or her Ward. The member for Ward 2, which includes Palo Alto, is Yoriko Kishimoto. You may want to address your concerns to her.


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Ah, Karen, you do understand that a prop 13 based assessment tax is unfair. I thought, from your previous comments that you were arguing the opposite. Glad we've cleared that up.

Now, what is the reason you would believe we would believe we should support an unfair tax model for this measure?


Posted by Karen, a resident of Stanford
on May 3, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Prop 13 is an amendment to the California Constitution, you can whine about the fairness but it's the law by which California assess property taxes. Your logic would have you voting no on all taxes based on assed value regardless of the benefit to the community? The problem is that your definition of fair is different from mine. Your definition includes just yourself mine includes the community.

Are you one of those people that feels if they don't have kids they shouldn't have to support public schools?


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm

I am one of those people who think your retired parents in their $5M mansion should pay more than the single mother next door in her $500,000 condo.

You might be looking out for your rich parents but I'm supporting the single mother.

We voted for prop 13 and everyone benefits. We're voting on this new tax and you should be clear in your pro-measure literature that you know it's an unfair tax but don't care.


Posted by Karen, a resident of Stanford
on May 3, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Ok, so if there was a parcel tax to support single mothers that was based on assessed valuation would you vote for it? You make a lot of assumptions. What if that $5M mansion was a 4 bedroom three bath rancher purchased for $150K on an annual income of $50,000.

The best way to support that single mother is to provide affordable healthcare and a living wage.

I have not once said I supported the bond measure so please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not here to tell people how to vote but when people make blanket statements about a openspace and housing prices, public employee salaries and whining about prop 13 I get a little annoyed.

You know what I say to my neighbor who pay only $1,500/year in property taxes???…good job!


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Need more specifics on multi-year tax assessments like this one.
Too much of a big black hole IMO. Government is monstrously out of control. What we need are specific disclosures and audits of current expenditures before agreeing to more. Vague statements we so often are told about in the news about government entities demanding more of our money (whether by fee, tax, etc.) for "programs" or for "grants" lead me to believe there is a lot of abuse and overspending in our government. All too often some huge figure is bandied about, say we will raise $400M with some fee, and local governments can apply for grants, and one just doesn't have much accountability with this in terms of how much is eaten up by pure bureaucracy, padded staffs, and how much goes to where the rubber hits the road (let's say, actually PAVING a road).
I don't know about this specific district - perhaps someone cares to inform us better about it - but the top salary IS very high and out of line and that makes one wonder about how else they spend their tax monies...
I know people are too busy to be detail-oriented but that's what we need to be NOW in California as over-taxed taxpayers.


Posted by Newman, a resident of another community
on May 3, 2014 at 4:18 pm

anonymous, I know that MROSD mentioned something about running out of money to purchase new property. Currently, they have around 20,000 acres closed to the public or accessed by permit only. As far as % of money going to salaries, benefits and operational costs they are better than most agencies at around 50%, where as East Bay Regional Parks is around 85%. I think their basic budget is 50% salaries benefits and operational costs, 10% for capital projects, 30% towards debt service and 10% for land purchase. I think they have a staff of around 125 so, yea, $210,000 is rather excessive. Not a very good point person to advocate fiscal responsibility.


Posted by Mark, a resident of another community
on May 3, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Every local government entity probably would like to have the authority to borrow money (by selling bonds) for any number of current and future projects.
Keep in mind, however, that any borrowed money must be repaid— with interest.
California "general obligation" bonds are guaranteed for repayment by the accompanying authority to raise property taxes.
Under the language of this measure,there is no telling how the $300 million will be used (except generally to purchase and maintain open space areas as provided in its Section 3). The section refers to an "Expenditure Plan" containing "priority actions" with lots of possible projects; however, no project is assured.
Another concern is that this measure contains no limitation on when the bonds may be sold. This is important because the projected tax rate is based on current interest rates. Years from now, if interest rates go up, the bonds authorized by this measure could be sold and pay interest as high as state law allows (currently 12% per year). The total cost of the borrowing could soar. Proponents should address the above-stated concerns and explain to voters:
(1) just how the Open Space District has been spending its current budget of more than $30 million per year,
(2) how much money each of the many possible projects listed in the current "Expenditure Plan" would cost, and
(3) how many of those projects could be completed for the $300 million sought in the current bond measure.
Vote No on Measure AA.


Posted by Garrett , a resident of another community
on May 3, 2014 at 4:58 pm

As someone for housing and who is low income. Will be glad to donate money for open space so some of you pay 50 dollars a year.

Yes, Yes, Yes.


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 6:32 pm

Karen, at least read the post. I too have no problem with prop 13. I don't even have a problem with non residential properties continuing to benefit. It's what we voted for.

Introduce another tax but don't extend the benefit of prop 13 beyond what it's intended use. It's weird that a parcel tax is now considered fairer than prop 13 but that's the case today.

You need 66 2/3 for this to pass. Good luck with that unless you come up with a fairer way to tax people.


Posted by karen, a resident of Stanford
on May 3, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Dead in the water wrote: "I'm voting no because the tax will cost me twice that of my neighbor." & "Prop 13 killed this. If it was based on actual value then it might have passed but as it is, I'm voting no."

Ok, I read your original posts and from what I can infer, you sound as if you are upset that your neighbor pays less than you and Prop 13 is the reason you're voting no.

After your last post I think I understand your position that a bond or parcel tax tied to assessed value extends the benefits of Prop 13. Understood, but I believe the reason for Prop 13 was to protect the lower income residence which have high valuation properties… basically LA, SF Bay Area and coastal California. What prop 13 also does is allow property owners to predict their yearly property taxes. One only needs to look at the impacts on property values and property taxes, when Californians began moving to Oregon. Many Oregonians were forced to sell their homes when their property taxes rose beyond their ability to pay them. Prop 13 helps the lower and middle class incomes and I find nothing wrong with that.


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm

No, Karen, what you can infer is that, for this new tax, basing it on prop 13 assessments is wrong.

Stopping additional taxes being leveraged on prop 13 assessments isn't an attack on or a request to remove prop 13.


Posted by boscoli, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 4, 2014 at 10:20 am

Those who threaten vote NO because they are angry at Prop. 13 are cutting off their ear to spite their face. Prop 13 h AA has enabled regressive taxation, and the solution is to work politically to amend or eliminate it, not to childishly fight against a very positive and life affirming measure such as AA.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 4, 2014 at 10:25 am

> Will be glad to donate money for open space so
> some of you pay 50 dollars a year.

This is exactly why all property tax increases should be voted up only by people who own property. This Garret person, who claims to live in another community, seems to be voting on this, and presumably other similar taxes, to punish people he perceives as more successful than himself. It probably never dawn on this man that if he worked a little harder, and spent his money a little more wisely, he would be better off than he currently is.

Prop.218 should be amended so that only property owners can vote on property-based taxes. This would open the door for new taxes on people, such as renters—who then would have a clear incentive to at least think about their votes before mindless casting them just to hurt other people


Posted by Silly, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 5, 2014 at 11:48 am

Isn't paying more for Open Space contradictory with the City's continued push for high density and greater gridlock?


Posted by Garden Gnome, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 7, 2014 at 10:36 am

Dear Silly,

Why, of course it's contradictory. What's your point?


Posted by Steve, a resident of Evergreen Park
on May 7, 2014 at 11:06 am

Ever been to LA. Notice all the hills covered with houses. And unless you're lucky suffer through grid lock and drive 30 minutes to go for a hike, trail run or a mount bike ride. They don't have a good agency like MROSD.

Having all accessible open space makes the Bay Area infinitely better place to live than LA. We are truly blessed with all the parks and open space. I'll be voting Yes.


Posted by Renter, a resident of Menlo Park
on May 7, 2014 at 4:23 pm

In response to Joe's comment: "Prop.218 should be amended so that only property owners can vote on property-based taxes. This would open the door for new taxes on people, such as renters—who then would have a clear incentive to at least think about their votes before mindless casting them just to hurt other people"

I'm a renter, also a voter, and also soon to be in the market for a home in the area. Do you simply refuse to understand that renters pay property taxes as a portion of their rent? If you are a landlord and you are not passing the cost of your property taxes onto your renters, then you are probably doing yourself a financial disservice. Obviously the commenter you are responding to doesn't live in the area, or simply does not understand that the costs of this measure will be paid, in part, by them.

However, what you are proposing is a system where property owners can not only pass on the cost of property taxes to their renters but also where we can pass new initiatives to tax renters on the basis of property that they reside in but do not own. That is possibly the worst idea I've seen in this string of comments.


Posted by sunshine, a resident of Barron Park
on May 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm

I am opposed to Measure AA for two major reasons:
1. It is a parcel tax. A parcel tax means that I must pay the same amount as someone who lives in a mansion in Professorville or Old Palo Alto. This is wrong. My house is small and on a very small parcel. Base the tax on property value or don't do it;
2. The budget for the Open Space district is even more bloated than that of the city of Palo Alto. We need to send the message that Palo Alto and the Open Space district need to trim their salary and benefits packages. Persons who are employed by local businesses must pay for their health benefits and must contribute to their own retirement plans. Also, employees of local businesses get much shorter vacation time and must work more hours per week for their salary than city employees do.
It is time for the residents of Palo Alto, especially those on limited budgets, to pull the cord on expenditures for local government salaries and benefits.
NO on AA


Posted by Hiker, a resident of Mountain View
on May 13, 2014 at 11:17 am

We are so fortunate to have open space so close by. Imagine if the founders in 1972 didn't act, our hills would all be privately owned with homes dotting the hillsides. As our population is growing, so is our need to create infrastructure for an increasing number of visitors. I am wholeheartedly supporting this measure. MROSD had numerous public meetings from the coast to the bay to allow all of us to add our opinions to the mix. This is the culmination of all of those meetings. Thanks to the group who spearheaded this! Definitely voting YES on AA!


Posted by dead in the water, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 13, 2014 at 11:34 am

Dear Hiker,

Yes, we should purchase land for the future but not at any price. Provide a fair taxation model and I'll vote yes, otherwise it's NO on AA!


Posted by Land For Sale, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 17, 2014 at 8:50 pm

Private "trusts" have purchased open space and are now looking to sell it to the MPOS District. Try to follow the money. You will lose the trail,


Posted by THE REAL PLAN, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 17, 2014 at 8:57 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,310 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 1,060 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 4 comments | 830 views

Weekly Update
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 720 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 1 comment | 242 views