Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 4:27 PM

Former mayor: Withdrawal is 'a black eye' for city
Mayor, city manager deny Palo Alto process went too far in Stanford Shopping Center expansion

by Jocelyn Dong, Sue Dremann and Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Joe, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm

This is bad in every possible way. Shame on you City Council for demanding so much and picking every detail apart.

Posted by JA3+, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Agree in full with Joe above.

Mayor Drekmeier, how will you and your fellow Councilmembers balance the City's budget? How will you offset expected significant revenue declines?

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 6:03 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

I agree with Bob.

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Let me try again:

Our city is run by environmental extremists who place no value on anything that doesn't further a radical green agenda, and by people who are instinctively hostile to business except as it can be milked for tax money. They are running our city into the ground. Things will not change until we elect different kinds of people to our Council.

(I actually thought the way I put it the first time was better.)

Posted by JA3+, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 7:42 pm

I, too, agree with Bob.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 7:48 pm

This anti-growth mentality will not end in Palo Alto, until the money truly runs out, and services are severely cut. There is a trust fund baby (TFB) mentality that runs this city. This includes Jack Morton, because his righteous defense of social amenities are the root of the problem, even though he is correct about the union contracts.

For a starter, just try cutting the Palo Alto Children's Theatre operating budget ($1M/year) out of our city budget. This should have been done years ago. It won't happen, because the TFBs have their own kids being subsidized.

The green cause is a typical TFB feel good buzz. Many of the TFBs can afford to weather the economic storm, but most of us cannot. This Stanford Shopping Center debacle is a logical outcome of the TFB mentality.

Posted by Me Too, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Bad leadership, bad bad bad. It will take a solid financial crisis to change things. Unfortunately we may well have one.

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:12 pm

I absolutely agree with Bob and John. If only we could get some people on the council who know how to run a business, instead of the Drekmeiers and Kishimotos who want to make a name for themselves as green champions. Instead of worrying about economic sustainability, they fret over plastic bags and civic engagement.

Rather than taking Stanford’s message to heart, Drekmeier whistles in the wind, claiming that all that extra sales tax wouldn’t cover long term costs to the city. But, no worries, Peter. The city can always keep raising utility rates to cover the budget deficits.

I’m tired of the city being ruined by ABAG’s insistence on high density and BMR housing. If we have to provide housing for local workers, can we kick them out of their homes when they change jobs and start working in another city?

Posted by Old Palo Alto, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Palo Alto seems to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I don't understand the rationale behind having to provide affordable housing. So, anytime lower paying jobs are created affordable housing must be created?

Posted by rob e, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:32 pm

If the council keeps it up the Palo Alto Fire Department will move to Redwood City.

Shame on you Palo Alto City Council, no Police Dept, No Fire Dept, No Hospital, No where to Shop.

I agree with Bob, but Bob was stolen.

Maybe we could do a world wide search for a new shopping center that would be willing to house the workers underground? If they lived in a bunker under the shopping center their carbon footprint would be something City council might approve.

If the Hospital moves to Redwood City we could use our new fiber network to upload our MRI on the information highway for a diagnosis. this would minimize traffic and please the Drekmeiers and Kishimotos who want to make a name for themselves as green.

Posted by newyankee, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 10:49 pm

Have to agree with Bob and John. Hard to say more without employing harsh invectives.

Posted by Funny, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 11:03 pm

The Palo Alto City Council reminds one of the last of the aristocrats - with lofty goals of affordable housing, walkable neighborhoods, pristine open space and unspoiled nature trails, top scale recreational programs, tree city and recycle capital of the world, etc., etc. Yet somehow, every action they take would end up working against these ideals, so we end up with a city that is:

too expensive in everything that why would people who need affordable housing want to live here?

too many theft and burglary that why would anyone want to walk around?

so minimal in public services that there are hardly anything to do in the parks and lands.

so little development that the south half of the city looks like it's out of a 60's movie set.

For a city that boasts a population of most advanced degrees and legal eagles outside of San Francisco, and average home value of over a million, it has a library system that is practically obsolete, a down town that locals don't go anymore, a city hall that is hardly functional, and a police headquarter that is falling apart. Incredible.

Posted by common sense, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Notice the last few sentences of this article: Web Link

Mayor Drekmeier, Councilmember Klein, City Manager Keene, and several other staff members traveling to Green conference in Portland Oregon!

1) How many people does the city need to send to a green conference?

2) How green is it to be sending so many people?

3) Could they teleconference and be more green?

4) How about spending some time on city's tax base?

5) Given the deficit the city is facing, does Palo Alto need to send so many people?

Geez - and the city wants a business license tax, and raise the utility rates to pay for this?

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 8:42 am

I agree, it's time for serious budgeting. Time to cut out the PA children's theatre 1M/yr budget. This is ridiculous in these times.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 8:56 am

There is plenty other things to cut beside PACT--the new Farmer's market subsidy, the donation to the Senior Games, the sustainability coordinator position that Drekmeier wants filled as starters.

Also this year is election year--finally Kishimoto and Morton will be termed out of office (I cannot wait to hear what they consider to be their accomplishments after 8 years in office, but that is another thread). More importantly we have the opportunity to vote Drekmeier out of office.

Of course, every election, I hope that we elect competent council members that will show some leadership--it never seems to happen. Pat Burt has turned out to be more of the same and Yeh is a non-entity on the council

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 9:13 am

When Drekmeier ran for council with little business experience and remarking that he never had to file an income tax form!!,his foot soldiers and financial base were the Sierra Club and the other tree huggers, mostly from outside Palo Alto from where he got his $$$. He had no business experience yet the media endorsed him over one candidate who had the experience - Karen Holman who may run again and who has served admirably on the Planning Commission. If we could recall this council NOW, maybe we could save Palo Alto before this bunch does any more harm....and take the city manager with them. But he was

hand picked by his friend, Benest. Go figure.

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 9:13 am

When Drekmeier ran for council with little business experience and remarking that he never had to file an income tax form!!,his foot soldiers and financial base were the Sierra Club and the other tree huggers, mostly from outside Palo Alto from where he got his $$$. He had no business experience yet the media endorsed him over one candidate who had the experience - Karen Holman who may run again and who has served admirably on the Planning Commission. If we could recall this council NOW, maybe we could save Palo Alto before this bunch does any more harm....and take the city manager with them. But he was

hand picked by his friend, Benest. Go figure.

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 9:13 am

When Drekmeier ran for council with little business experience and remarking that he never had to file an income tax form!!,his foot soldiers and financial base were the Sierra Club and the other tree huggers, mostly from outside Palo Alto from where he got his $$$. He had no business experience yet the media endorsed him over one candidate who had the experience - Karen Holman who may run again and who has served admirably on the Planning Commission. If we could recall this council NOW, maybe we could save Palo Alto before this bunch does any more harm....and take the city manager with them. But he was

hand picked by his friend, Benest. Go figure.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 9:26 am

Now is the time for those would be candidates for City Council to be making up their minds. I would like to ask those who are considering this task to read these posts thoughtfully and ask themselves if they have what it takes to sit on our Council.

They will have to have thick skins to take criticism, because they will never please all the people all the time.

They will need strong feet to keep them from wavering from one group to another.

They will need large ears and eyes so that they can hear, listen, see and read, what the community want. They need good eyesight so that they can see the broad picture rather than having tunnel vision on their own pet projects.

They will also need large brains to look at the large picture of what is happening to our City rather than small minds to see only a small part.

They need strong shoulders to take on the weight of the heavy problems that they will be inheriting.

They need strong backbones to make some hard decisions knowing that they will upset some when it comes to making decisions that will affect the good.

They will need to take off their blinkers and look beyond the bag bans, leaf blower ban, senior games, destination PA, and the myriad other touchy/feely wastes of time that their fellow councilors seem to think up.

If you feel that you have these qualifications and are willing to serve, we are looking for you to step up to the mark. In fact we will applaud you and welcome you with open arms.

Posted by DaveV, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:35 am

In response to "Resident's" comments:

Interesting to me that we are getting so many responses that so vocally criticize the existing political regime. Is this just a vocal minority? Or is there a silent majority of truely enraged citizens who want their politicians to be more "realistic" or "pragmatic"?

To digress: On the ABAG housing issue, this is not something that the City can ignore, as I understand this is a State law mandate for there to be more in-fill higher density housing. This may not be such a bad idea if it is situated appropriately. Too bad the site owned by Stanford at Page Mill and El Camino was turned into a soccer field. Perhaps the area around the P.A. train station could be used for such housing. But, the "right thinkers" [is that really "left thinkers" would most likely not abide by that.

Do we have any persons brave enough to go through the political gauntlet and run for office on a "moderate" program?

Posted by Jimmy, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:44 am

You need GREEN [money] to be GREEN! Palo Alto City Council members just don't get it!

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:45 am

To Dave and others re the soccer field.

This site was previously a gas station and there were problems about contamination underground. I think that housing on this site was not an option, although I am not sure about business or hotel use.

Posted by Norman Beamer, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:45 am

A crazy action on Stanford's part. An emotional "dog in the manger" tactic. They are the ones who requested a single EIR for both projects. Is Stanford above the notion of coming to the table to negotiate? Palo Alto has not made a single absolute demand as yet -- everything on it's wish list was on the table for negotiation. Both sides wanted the project to happen -- it was just a matter of working out an arm's length settlement that ultimately neither side would have loved but both could live with.

The presence or absence of the Shooping Center component is not going to make Palo Alto's wish list go away, or make the negotiation much easier. It may be even harder to make a deal. I for one don't think it would be so bad if Stanford decides to do the expansion on its Redwood City property. The current location is really very impractical from a traffic standpoint.

Posted by Help!, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:46 am

Are there any means to save the Stanford Shopping Center project? Are they "walking away" in order to send a signal to us that our City Council is overreaching? Can we do anything now, or do we have to wait until the next election?

Posted by Its the economy stupid, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:47 am

Sounds like some Palo Alto business people haven't heard about the depression. Including Beecham and Kleinberg. Of course, some people are so rich, a little reduction in their portfolios hardly matters. Kleinberg's connection to the shopping center has always been a little too close. She even pranced about for them in a fashion show while she was Mayor. Undignified, to put a good face on it.

Has anyone noticed that retail is way down, stores are closing, real estate is down, hotel income is way down, and the very expensive Town and Country stores will eat their lunch.

People who want to spend $4 for a cupcake or $15 for a baby's rattle can now spend their money at Town and Country. T&C tossed out the moderate priced restaurants and stores and replaced them with glossy overpriced junk.

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:49 am

My sense is that Stanford probably took a wholistic look at the economy, and made projections as to how long economic recovery might take. Their conclusion? Commercial real estate is the next shoe to drop. If anything they might even have to lower rents to the already existing stores.

Stanford probably saw that with unemployment on the rise, (they're cutting back on own staff and sports programs) people will most likely have less discretionary income to spend at high end stores such as Saks Fifth, Coach, Tiffany's, etc.

At least with a new hospital they can be better assured of a higher ROI than a shopping mall. People still need medical services, but they don't necessarily need another Louis Vuitton bag.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:55 am

Norman--and it was the council that requested the shopping center expansion--I do not think that Stanford would have gone ahead withit had the city not wanted it.

"Palo Alto has not made a single absolute demand as yet "

Well, Jack Morton made it clear that he saw all 50+ demands were non-negotiable as far as getting approval from the council.,

Actually I think the shopping center issue going away will make some of the cities demands go away. After all, the concern with the shopping center was the traffic component and housing for workers (though what shopping center in the world depends on only public transportation and what city in the world demands that a shopping center provide housing for it's workers). At least two council members had serious reservations about the expansion--now that that is off the table, the list of demands needs to be revisited.

I also believe that in other cities people pay taxes to support local hospitals in their jurisdiction--do Palo Alto residents pay such a tax?

Posted by R Wray, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:57 am

I agree with Bob.

Posted by Monty, a resident of Woodside, on Apr 15, 2009 at 11:10 am

This points to internal problems in City governance and process. When will Menlo Park and Palo Alto learn their prosperity is a direct result of their proximity to Stanford. We should all want a world class institution in our backyards, we all benefit. We benefit by having the best medical care in the country in our backyards, we all benefit when Lucille Packard Children's Hospital never turns a child away because of a family's ability to pay. We all benefit when sales tax revenues help us accomplish larger community goals like fiber optics to every home. At a time when city budgets are strained to provide even basic services, heaping additional onerous requirements like providing housing for shopping center employees is a sure way to kill a deal. I agree with Mr. Keenan, I'm sure Redwood City wont make these types of mistakes, they certainly didn't when car dealerships decided to leave Palo Alto. Redwood City was there with open arms, just waiting to take Palo Alto's cast-offs. Council should pull their heads out of those plastic bags they are so worried about and start focusing on the matters that really count.

Posted by KM, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 15, 2009 at 11:48 am

Hear, hear, Monty of Woodside. Menlo Park is as bad as Palo Alto in cutting off its nose to spite its face. Palo Alto asked Stanford to expand the shopping center, to increase its tax base. The council has dithered and piled on outrageous demand after outrageous demand, so it seems perfectly reasonable for Stanford to separate the hospital project from the shopping center expansion. It will be a lot harder to justify extorting "benefits" from the hospital, as every expense will mean rising prices for sick people. Keep in mind, Stanford Hospital has a SEPARATE balance sheet from the university. You can't raise its costs without raising the rates it charges patients (and thus all our medical insurance premiums). How's that for a hidden tax? For shame, Palo Alto council.

Posted by same old same old, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 11:55 am

well the city blew it with hyatt ricky's and now with a hotel in the shopping center. you think they would have learned their lesson.

Posted by Annoyed, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:31 pm

What a disaster. In the commercial world heads would roll. Significant revenues evaporate and no one on the council seems to regard this as anything but a minor issue. It would be nice if they took the time to compare Palo Alto's cost structure with other cities and saw just how out of line it is in the current economy..

Posted by resident, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:37 pm

The City Council is run by developers and their cronies. Where are the nieghborhood markets? They are are being replaced with more homes and townhomes, and low income housing.

The city council decides to donate $300,000 to the Opportunity Center, which attracts crime into the city - proof is the arrest of the purse snatcher who had ties to the Opportunity Center.

Where are the tax dollars going to come from to fund police and fire dept. to keep us safe from the decisions of the City Council!

Posted by litebug, a resident of another community, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Palo Alto conflicts drove me crazy for 38 years but now my attitude has totally changed because:

I no longer have to look at all the ugly high density housing;

I no longer have to go to another town to shop because I'm not rich;

I no longer have to be in grid-lock traffic in my town;

I no longer have to experience the heart-breaking, steady decline in the beauty and quality of life in of Palo Alto.

Instead, I now find that the familiar Palo Alto Comedy Show is actually quite amusing from afar, in our new location. I look forward to each new episode as I can always use a good laugh.

Posted by Maxie, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Let's not wait for election time as it may be too late.Time for a recall of Drekmeier and Kishimoto. Anyone knows about recall laws?

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:49 pm

I am not sure recalling Kishimoto now would work--she only has 8 months left on the council and until a recall could be authorized her time would be up. Also the cost of a recall election is pretty high.

What needs to be done is to work to make sure the Drekmeier is not re-elected in November. The man is clueless--has he ever worked in his life,like most of us have to do? He is a lifelong Stanford-basher nad is caught up in his farmer's markets, plastic bag banning and other environmental stuff to the detriment of our city.

Posted by Great posts!, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:50 pm

I am impressed at the astute, thought-provoking and informative posts on this subject. Not being in your city but aware of some of your issues, you all are nailing them. How many to a green conference, indeed?!? Ugh.

It'd be great to trust that your city's leaders green concerns were just that, but one must be shrewd in assessing what they do/don't do and why.

I do have to say that your city's also reaping what it's sown, leadership-wise. I know this because as a former PA resident and current EPA resident, I've been appalled at some of the past folks who've been elected in EPA and always suspicious of their agendas.

Posted by Ques about afford housing, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:55 pm

So PA was insisting on affordable housing for shopping center workers? Hospital workers? Both?

Um, I am guessing the economy would be improved by the time this project would have been finished, but aren't there enough people such as college students, EPA, MP, MV, RWC and PA residents who'd take the jobs & don't need housing because they're housed? Plenty of Stanford students need jobs, too. I worked retail w/plenty of Stanford undergrad and grad students when I was in high school, and I've managed many a local college student who worked pt. What gives w/the affordable housing aspect?

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Common Sense: Thanks for the link to the story about our city “leaders” going to a green conference in Portland. Web Link

The last line of the article says: “Klein said they hope to return with more innovative ideas for easing the city's impact on the environment.”

The LAST thing we need are more environmental ideas! Do these guys not understand that we’re facing a real financial crisis? I wish they’d go to an economic summit and hear from the folks in Vallejo and San Jose (Web Link ).

Recalling Drekmeier and Kishimoto would be truly satisfying – and it would stop Kishimoto’s run for the Assembly! -- but it’s probably not going to happen.

Even if someone has the courage to run for city council, he/she would have to raise a LOT of money and have the support of the unions. Not an easy prospect.

Posted by JerryL, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Well, now the only option left, as a revenue source is to

develop the former ITT properly along the 101 Freeway as an auto mall.

The car business is down now, but will recover. By being able to shop for cars locally instead of making the trek to Stevens Creek, I'll be making my contribution to the environment and contributing to my city at the same time.

Posted by Mike, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Re Kishimoto and the run for state assembly (and its importance as an indicator that no bad result goes unrewarded by our political system);if Ira Ruskin can get elected, anyone can.

We are propogating the culture of incompetence throughout our entire goverment top to bottom. But maybe that is pretty much how it's always been.

Posted by Imgoingtobeill, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 2:57 pm

The mayor thinks WE have to pay for housing for mall employees. Outrageous!

Posted by ellieg, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Several comments cited the proposed ban on plastic bags as an example of irrational behavior and unjustified. Below is a link from another poster on a different thread:

For a look at the impact plastic bags make on our environment, it's worth taking a close look at a slideshow on the following website. Quotes are made by highly respected, reliable sources.

Web Link

Web Link

This is a matter that needs to be taken seriously in our efforts to help the planet.

Posted by Ellieg, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm

web link corrected in this version;

Several comments cited the proposed ban on plastic bags as an example of irrational behavior and unjustified. Below is a link from another poster on a different thread:

For a look at the impact plastic bags make on our environment, it's worth taking a close look at a slideshow on the following website. Quotes are made by highly respected, reliable sources.

---------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Carol T., a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 17, 2009 at 1:51 pm

For a look at the impact plastic bags make on our environment, it's worth taking a close look at a slideshow on the following website. Quotes are made by highly respected, reliable sources.

Web Link

Web Link

This is a matter that needs to be taken seriously in our efforts to help the planet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Palo Altan, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 7:45 pm

The vast majority of Palo Altans opposed expansion of the shopping center. This is purely good news. No need to be whores for a small increment of sales tax revenue. That is not important.

Posted by Neighbor, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 2:46 am

Interesting perspectives all-around. My two-cents worth:

I don't see why Palo Alto believes they have to provide high-density, low-income housing if Stanford expands. If more housing is needed, let Stanford build it. The reality is that most of us commute somewhere, Stanford workers will certainly have that option as well. The big issues to me are practical in nature -- can our roads handle the additional traffic without reducing quality of life? Can our schools handle more children without reducing quality of education? To say the expansion increases our tax base without taking into account the increased demand on our infrastructure makes no sense. There are so many ways we can tighten the city's budget (do starting fireman really deserve starting salaries of $80,000 +++ overtime, and retirement at 75-85% pay at age 50, when they often collect these sums while pursuing a second career????. Why no work to reduce the tax base need???? Can we justify pay raises and crazy bonuses for city employees that exceed other governmental agencies -- especially when these bonuses are given just for doing the job they're paid to do? I'm paying a hefty supplemental tax so that Palo Alto's school teachers make more in 9mos. of teaching than I do working a full year.

C'mon, folks, we need to move toward a reasoned approach to budgeting, city salaries, and definitely at excesses like sick-leave payouts and bonuses.

AND we need to stop building these awful, cookie-cutter, high-density housing developments. Palo Alto will be unrecognizable.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:46 am

Chop Keenan summed it quite nicely in today's Daily Post:

"The current council are unbelievably disconnected from reality. This city is so misguided"

Posted by Ada, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 10:13 am

There is remarkable unity of opinion on this issue. But what can be really done to influence City Council?

Posted by Sun and Sand, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 10:14 am

Doesn't anyone think that this withdrawal itself might be a negotiation ploy, set forward by Stanford because for its own reasons, and what it sees coming forward in terms of State and general economic constraints for a *long* time? High-end retail is becoming more and more challenged. If not, you're not thinking like a negotiator, who knows how to move things on and off a negotiating table, just to elicit reaction. What's happening here is that Stanford is looking at forward demand for the kind of retail experience elicited by the Stanford Mall. Is that demand there, really? I don't think it is. Times are changing. For those who are whining about the PA process, above, they are net seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, the PA "process" is often dysfunctional, but it's not the reason for this withdrawal. Stanford *knows* how to negotiate, and certain portions of the Palo Alto demographic react the same way, every time. This is all a move to intimidate (and in some ways, properly so, because of the length of the list of demands put forward on Stanford), and show who's in charge here. One never knows what one is missing until its taken away. Act first, apologize later. Stanford is flexing its muscle, and showing everyone that it will not be whipped into submission. It's going to get really interesting from here. Believe it or not, I still think that everything is on the table. Never say "never" in negotiation.

Posted by Sun and Sand, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 10:24 am

btw, I agree with Bern Beecham; the list of conditions is too long. You have to know where to start, what to put on the table, what are essential "must haves", and do that in a coordinated fashion for the process to move forward. There cannot be 10 voices (City Council and City Manager) all saying what they want. Palo Alto really has a problem with Stanford, because we have never been good negotiators. Stanford cleans our clock every time. Palo Alto must realize that Stanford is an important partner, and find ways to innovate around Stanford development. Palo Alto must realize that its position int eh Valley is largely an historical accident, bolstered by Stanford's presence. THis doesn't mean we kowtow to Stanford; it means we look for from and just ways to **partner** with Stanford, shake off outworn preconceptions, and move forward, instead of stalling. We have missed SO many opportunities to partner with Stanford because of our own ineptness at negotiation, as well as our inability to be proactive in approaching Stanford in ways that don't always have our hands out. Stanford is not a victim in this process; nor, is Palo Alto. The two entities need to restart their relationship. That will not be easy, because the current relationship is has nearly degraded to a feud. Perhaps a mediation? I don't know what the answer is, but we, and Stanford, are losing opportunity. What a shame!

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 10:24 am

Ellieg: Of course plastic bags are bad for the environment. I agree wholeheartedly. What I object to is Council spending so much time on bag bans, hate-free zones, Color of Palo Alto, and other (costly) non-essentials, while spending miniscule amounts of time on economic planning and budgeting.

To all those who keep complaining about traffic: Unless we build a moat around the city, traffic isn’t going to stop. People drive through the city -- e.g., along Oregon, Embarcadero, Middlefield, El Camino -- to spend their money at stores in Mountain View and EPA.

Palo Altan says, “No need to be whores for a small increment of sales tax revenue.” What’s a “small increment”? From Web Link: “City staff has estimated that the new retail space would have brought in about $1.6 million in annual sales-tax revenues, while a 120-room hotel would have given the city $1.1 million in revenues.”

Would you rather have utility rates raised even more to pay for the deficit?

Unless we want to be another Atherton, we have to have a tax base. AND we have to cut staffing/salaries/benefits!

Posted by Its the economy stupid, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 11:01 am

"Doesn't anyone think that this withdrawal itself might be a negotiation ploy, set forward by Stanford because for its own reasons, and what it sees coming forward in terms of State and general economic constraints for a *long* time? High-end retail is becoming more and more challenged. If not, you're not thinking like a negotiator,"

Sun and Sand sheds some light on the Stanford developers. It makes sense to look at it as a ploy because the chief of Stanford's development, Jean McCown, is a developer's land use attorney with lots of experience getting big developments approved, like 800 High Street and big houses in the Open Space District.

Having once been on the City Council, she knows exactly how to exploit our weaknesses.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 7:52 pm

Palo Alto is now Berkeley Jr. The council learned their moves from the Berkeley's.

Posted by Sun and Sand, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 9:39 pm

ITES, I don't mean "ploy" a pejorative way? I mean it as a "negotiable means to an end". Palo Alto simply lacks negotiation skill, and moxy. This has been a problem for a long time. I think the reason for it is that well-meaning policy makers who care just aren't ablbe to coordinate a strong negotiating position. The very structure by which demand lists are created for negotiation is anathema to effective negotiation. It's very, very hard to condense the desires of 9 City Council members and the City Manager into a coordinated whole, and deploy them within an effective negotiation strategy. We begin at a disadvantage every time, just because of that. There are ways to fix this, but I'm not sure it's possible in open Council sessions that give too much away to the other side. The only way around this is to find ways to innovate around Stanford developments. We are simply not going to win in negotiations with Stanford (over large issues). However, if we *adapt* well to Stanford developments; if we open our minds to new possibilities, we can stop this "winner and loser" zero sum nonsense.