Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:21 PM

Stanford offers $124M in 'benefits' for hospital expansion
Proposal includes fees for affordable housing, wider bus service, bike improvements

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

Posted by Bill, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Stanford: "We don't have the space to build the desired new housing, so here's a $23 Mil

present for you, Palo Alto. You've got the space and don't mind the traffic or

future upkeep expenses!" You build the new housing, and don't worry too

much about tomorrow."

Palo Alto: "Thank you."

Posted by Me Too, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2009 at 9:21 pm

The idea that an employer should build housing for its employees - huh? This sounds like something right out of the central planning textbook. What makes you think they would want to live there? If non-employees live there, you've created even more commuting traffic.

"Thank you" seems like a good response.

Posted by What The, a resident of Stanford, on Jun 16, 2009 at 10:34 pm

You know, it just seems odd that, in any other part of the country, cities are clamoring to attract business growth -- offering tax breaks, whatever they can do to help their unemployed. But in Palo Alto, it's just the reverse. Stanford is bringing in 2,000 new jobs, and what does Palo Alto have to say about that? "You need to build housing! You need to give us money! What, you're only offering us $124 million?! We want more!"

Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:24 am

Palo Alto should be grateful for this amazing offer...but then, it's only a matter of time until they start asking for MORE. The selfishness in PA is tiresome.

Posted by Cassandra, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:49 am

The money offered will pay for only a fraction of the expenses incurred by the city as a result of the added traffic, new housing (and new spaces in already crowded schools for students), and other strains on the infrastructure.

If so many cities would be grateful for this offer, then let Stanford build its medical center in one of those cities. Despite Stanford's claims, I'm not at all worried that Palo Alto will become Podunk, USA if the university moves its facilities to another town. But I seriously doubt they will find another city in the Bay Area that would put up with the burden of this medical center, even in exchange for a few thousand low-paying jobs.

It's good to see the city trying to hold the line on this project. If we wanted to live in Manhattan, we'd move there.

Posted by Cool move, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:57 am

They get to pay off the developers and the Housing Advocates, and we get the low income people in our already overbuilt town.

Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:08 am

TO: 'Cool Move' or any other like-minded reader

Please explain "we get the low income people in our already overbuilt town" Who are you referring to....hospital staff, patients???

What is you definition of "low income" and how does the presence of Stanford or its hospital degrade your town???

Posted by Mary, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:12 am

where will the kids in this new housing go to school?

Posted by resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:16 am

Take the money and run.

Posted by jim h., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:27 am

Cassandra,

It is the city that demands that stanford provide housing. stanford is not the one overcrowding the schools, it's the city's demand that there be housing for every worker in the city that's crowding schools and straining the infrastructure.

While it'd be great to reduce traffic, it's unreasonable to require business to provide housing for it's employees. Stanford, and the rest of Palo Alto is easily accessible by train. Workers can live anywhere along the train lines and take the stanford provided free shuttle. That, also will reduce traffic.

If stanford or any other business is forced to provide housing (although I'm pretty sure the city will only make such demands of stanford), then what happens when those employees get a new job? Do they get kicked out of their house?

If the city wants more housing, then when they figure out how to save some money, they can build it.

Posted by Jim H., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:31 am

And Cassandra, if Stanford moved the hospital to another city Palo Alto would not become Podunk, USA, that's true. But only because the university is here.

Without the university, Palo Alto would be something more along the lines of Novato, Morgan Hill, or Vacaville.

Posted by Cassandra, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:35 am

Ever heard of ABAG, Jim? Their formulas require cities to build housing in proportion to jobs. If Stanford adds jobs, that increases the requirement for housing in the city. Palo Alto is not alone in asking Stanford for housing assistance -- Menlo Park is traveling the same path with the proposed Bohannon project that would add hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space to MP.

Because of ABAG, more jobs = more housing. It would be very short-sighted of Palo Alto to ignore half the equation (and its ramifications).

Posted by John Roberts, a member of the Escondido School community, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:44 am

I think Palo Alto is outrageous in its attempts to extort money out of Stanford via the hospitals. I urge the University to investigate moving its medical center further south where it might be appreciated for the immense service it provides to the local community.

Posted by tight squeeze, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 11:20 am

Why does there have to be more low income housing in Palo Alto? I for one don't want to see anymore high density housing. Between the JCC, the projects on East Meadow and those in the old Hyatt site I feel completely hemmed in by buildings and traffic. Don't even get me started on the impact to the schools, especially Gunn High School.

Posted by Barbara, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 11:59 am

Just take the offer and stop shilly-shalling.

Posted by Jim H., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ABAG membership is voluntary, and their "requirement" is a suggestion. There are no legal ramifications for failure to do as they say. ABAG has NO control over what the city does.

City council has been demanding Stanford to give them details of what their maximum build out is in terms of building space, housing, etc.... I'd like to see the city's projections for Palo Alto's maximum build out.

If the city were to build housing according to ABAG's requirements, we'd be a city of ten-story high rises, no parks, and schools 4X the size they are now.

In 2007, ABAG said Palo Alto was "required" to build nearly 2900 housing units by 2014. They also projected Palo Alto's growth at 26% over the next 27 years. Yet the city's growth over the previous 30 years was less than 5%, and 8% in recent years.

Web Link

ABAG threatens the loss of some grant money if PA does not comply. Former council member Bern Beecham has said that to comply with ABAG's below market rate units the city would need to tear down all of the houses in Downtown north and put in condos and apartments from Lytton to the creek.

I highly doubt that ABAG has Palo Alto's best interests in mind.

Posted by mhumphries, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm

This appears to be a series of payments totalling $124M but spread over 51 years. $2.5M/year. That will not begin to pay for the yearly arguments and discussions by Palo Alto government about what to do with the additional traffic, housing and educational requirements.

The largest item (about $90M) is Caltrain passes for hospital employees, which they already do. They would just extend it in the future to more employees of the medical centers.

Posted by Mary Carlstead, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:19 pm

It is NOT Palo Alto requiring the housing. It is ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments - which is the henchman for the California Legislature which ordered ABAG to manage it. The Legislature has strong ties with the California building associations and contractors associations. And housing has been on the Legislature's radar for over 40 years until it finally figured out a way to put it into law which is only enforceable by threatening to take away money from the cities who do not cave in. It doesn't need ABAG to do that. Los Gatos told ABAG 'where to go" . ABAG itself has 'no teeth', but some pro-housing groups threaten to sue. Los Gatos told ABAG and potential suers to go ahead and try it - and get lost. Palo Alto does not have to cave in to housing demands. Our schools, traffic, and infrastructure can't handle it.

As for low paying jobs. That's a misnomer and misconception. Skilled nurses, LVN's, x-ray technicians, laboratory technicians, anesthesia technicians, and other skilled medical professional personnel are not what one would call" low income" or minimum wage, but it's a lot lower that what it should be for what they do. There are cooks, bedside tray servers, cleaners, gurney transporters, and this list goes on. Some are lower paid than others, certainly, but each contributes to the giant personnel machinery which keeps a hospital running. The MD's can't function without the RN's and the RN's can't function without myriad support people, and each depends on each other up and down the chain.

And many hospital personnel, especially nurses, work four-day twelve-hour shifts - on their feet.

Many, many years ago then-Palo Alto Mayor Frances Dias in a dramatic speech to the council warned about the newly minted phrase "Jobs to housing Imbalance". She said that the "time is coming when Palo Alto will have to say that we have no more room or the quality of life for those who already live here will be destroyed." I remember that night as if it were yesterday. And the time came over and over, The city has to dig in its heels and tell ABAG to 'get lost'. Some city has to take a stand besides Los Gatos. There are groups that want to build massive in-fill and transit-corridor housing along Alma and Page Mill - and that's just for starters - with the necessary mass transit. <www.cities21.org> But Palo Alto has too often jumped at the crack of ABAG's whip. I don't ever remember Palo Alto just saying "NO".

As for housing, if Stanford is a 'regional' hospital, then the 'region' and Stanford University itself have to support it. ALL of the region. (The hospital is IN Palo Alto. The University is IN the county.) So, Palo Alto, take the money and run - and offer it to other cities at an attractive interest rate- cities with land - like Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, and Woodside - to build more housing. People in those cities get sick too. As for schools, there are many children in the PAUSD who do not live here - reported to be equivalent to one elementary school enrollment. There is no requirement that I know of that people who live in Palo Alto have to work in Palo Alto. And would the people so housed have to move out if they don't work at Stanford - or anyplace else? It is time for cities with intestinal fortitude a/k/a 'guts' to take command and confront the Legislature over this, a Legislature which can't run this state, let along the cities. Stop running scared. Just say "no". Does Palo Alto being a 'charter city" give it some control over its destiny?

WE NEED THAT HOSPITAL NOW, AND WE NEED AN UP-TO-DATE BIGGER EMERGENCY ROOM YESTERDAY.

Posted by Bill, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm

I would like Stanford to build a Solar Energy Plant and start using

electric buses and maintenance vehicles.

Posted by Cool move, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 2:05 pm

>>Please explain "we get the low income people in our already overbuilt town" Who are you referring to....hospital staff, patients???

Of course not. The money is slated to go to AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

The statement that Stanford doesn't have the land to use for housing is unbelievable. They have land for students, they have land for faculty, and staff and land for seniors. And land as investments all over the area.

The Weekly didn't like my earlier statement that the amount of money they have to spend and use is obscene. I wonder what their problem is. We are discussing billions of dollars.

Posted by Amazed at PA Elitism, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 2:13 pm

I continue to be just amazed (and alarmed in THIS economy!) with the elitist attitudes of many Palo Alto residents. Without Stanford, Palo Alto would be nothing, and would certainly NOT enjoy many of the privileges that a world class university brings to the area.

What are some of you thinking? Do you want to "freeze" in time? The world is changing! Get a grip!

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Stanford University needs to do all necessary upgrades without expanding. It can build its regional hospital elsewhere, hopefully on the borderline between two cities in a non-congested area.

Did anyone listen to the City Council talking about the budget they approved? Palo Alto residents are paying more for water and sewer and other infrastructure charges because of the recent dense developments. When the Center for Jewish Life opens in South Palo Alto we will see another surge in rates. It is impossible to add population without increasing infrastructure. Although it is true that cities do have maintenance and repair costs associated with infrastructure whether or not the population grows, but it is also true that cities put aside funds to take care of this.

Saying very few people wrote in to oppose the increased fees therefore Palo Alto residents are in favor of increased fees is not true. We need a law that says 75% of the population has to approve these increases (not 75% of the 200 + people who go to the voting booth).

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jun 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Stanford,

Take the $124 million and buy a big parcel in Redwood City - they will welcome you with open arms. And then move the whole Medical Center there, de-annex the current Medical center from Palo Alto and use that land for academic purposes.

Palo Alto will never stop its short-sighted extortion.

Former Executive Director of the Stanford University Medical Center and former Palo Alto Planning Commissioner.

Posted by 02138, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm

I am in agreement with Ms Carlstead's points about ABAG.

I have some basic questions about Stanford's impact on PAUSD schools.

Please explain the mechanism by which PAUSD is compensated for the children of Stanford residents.

How much property tax does Stanford pay to Palo Alto?

What is the total of non-property tax payments made by Stanford to Palo Alto?

FYI, I remember Cambridge never being happy with Harvard's large amount of tax exempt land. Cambridge was able to work out some voluntary payments from the universities. The adequacy of the voluntary payments is, of course,open to debate. Fortunately, Palo Alto does not have the slums of Cambridge, yet.

Web Link

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Stanford, build a wall...

Posted by Dave, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm

> The money offered will pay for only a fraction of

> the expenses incurred by the city as a result of the

> added traffic... and other strains on the infrastructure

Nothing like doing a cost/benefit analysis and leaving out the benefit side. The money that Stanford costs Palo Alto pales in comparison to the dollars a world class university and teaching hospital bring to the city in taxable incomes and business revenues, increased property values, etc. Which the city squanders on self-absorbed processes that bloat its budget while yielding little benefit to residents.

This city owes its very lifeblood to Stanford. If the Farm were literally a farm, Palo Alto would be Redwood City.

Posted by Jim H., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:42 pm

Dave: Redwood City? That's being generous. Redwood City, wouldn't even be Redwood City without Stanford.

Bill: "I would like Stanford to build a Solar Energy Plant and start using, electric buses and maintenance vehicles."

Providing a free shuttle service, and free Caltrain passes to the workers isn't enough for you? Now they're going to give money for housing, infrastructure improvements and more and you're still not happy.

Hey, I would like Stanford to cure cancer, create world peace, save the ever so important Tiger Salamander, and while they're at it wash my car and give me some spending money every month.

Can someone find another example of a city squeezing this much out of someone wanting to build a hospital?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 7:19 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Stanford did cure my cancer, so I admit bias. Palo Alto, on the other hand, cured my idealism.

Posted by Lily, a resident of another community, on Jun 18, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Even if the benefits of having a hospital of Stanford Hospital's caliber is not always direct, do you think Palo Alto would enjoy the cachet it does without it? Not quite. Yes, there is the university, but it doesn't hurt to have one of the best hospitals IN THE WORLD in your neighborhood. Even if Palo Alto residents are not routine patients of the hospital, I'm sure any Palo Alto resident would be grateful to have Stanford Hospital so close by in the event of an emergency or critical health problem, such as a heart attack, cancer, car crash. These things have been known to happen even to rich people. Plus adding to the existing hospital work force is a good thing for Palo Alto eateries and businesses. I know people who work in the hospital, and they do in fact patronize these businesses. If Stanford Hospital must provide some monetary mitigation, ensure it goes to those who really need it and ensure its distribution is truly need based. The truth is that if this battle had occurred in a less affluent neighborhood (how about just next door in East Palo Alto?), the community residents would not be looking forward to a $124 million pay out in community benefits.

Posted by Me Too, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Mass General in Boston built a big addition about 10 years ago. The Mayor of Boston hemmed and hawed about the need for the city to get something back. I believe they ended up paying for a fix up on the subway station next door. The Mayor thanked them, everybody was pretty happy.

Posted by Cassandra, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Stanford is so insistent on seeing itself as the center of the universe that it doesn't bother with a reality check. Fact is that there are beautiful, prosperous cities all over the US (and the world!) that don't have universities located within their borders. Remember that the Stanfords decided to build here because of the area's natural amenities, which would exist with or without the school.

Also note that the benefits of having a "world class university" are specious. Stanford doesn't pay taxes on most of its operations and I assume pays no property taxes. The city would be far better off financially to have revenue generating businesses. "Prestige" doesn't pay the bills. The university does offer many cultural amenities, but the average mid-peninsula resident rarely hears about the speakers, concerts, and other performances because most are not promoted outside Stanford.

I have lived in quite a few other cities with colleges, and have never heard of one as avaricious and intent on growth as Stanford. If they are allowed to develop without any restraints, their next move will be to demand another expressway between their campus and the freeway -- it will be the only way to mitigate traffic (because, let's face it, few of those thousands of new employees will be taking the train or bicycling to work).

Posted by Cassandra, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm

P.S. If you've ever been to Stanford's emergency room, you quickly realize that it's not a true emergency facility but rather a drop-in health clinic for people without insurance. We're far better served by the PAMC's urgent care facility.

Posted by jim h., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Cassandra,

revenue generating businesses? You mean like the mall on Stanford land? Or the Stanford Research Park businesses? I wonder what the hotels and downtown businesses would look like without Stanford bringing in families and visitors from all over the world.

The residents of the homes on Stanford land pay property tax just as you and I do. The University is tax exempt as are the multitude of non-profit/educational entities in the state.

I'd love to see the PAMF urgent care facility try to handle the workload of all the greater Palo Alto area. My kids have been to both. On two occasions we were sent over to Stanford because PAMF was unable to take us.

Maybe Stanford should just close off it's campus and make everyone go around. Then you'll see traffic problems.

Stanford's benefits are specious? You've got to be kidding me. They publicize all of their events in the local papers and send out mailings if you sign up for them. But, I would hardly say that the cultural benefits are what make the university valuable.

Go downtown and see how many students fill the restaurants and stores during the school year. Even this year, a recession year, downtown was still full of students and university visitors.

Stanford does more than it's share. The city knows that and they try to squeeze every last dime out of them.

Posted by Lily, a resident of another community, on Jun 18, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Do people without insurance not need or deserve medical care? The existence of an emergency room at Stanford Hospital that is willing to treat people without insurance is laudable. I didn't have medical insurance for a period, and I was employed full time. People have this ridiculous, elitist notion that if you don't have health insurance you must be some lazy, unmotivated loser. Tell that to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.

Posted by Cassandra, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm

The mall could be located there where it is with or without Stanford, and would still be producing sales taxes. Ditto with the office park. You're proving my point: neither of those has anything to do with the university; they just happen to be located on land that is under the aegis of almighty Stanford.

Our health care system is in shambles, and it's shameful that so many people have no health care insurance. Everyone should be able to get treatment as needed. But to point to Stanford's ER as a key reason to approve the project is a joke. Its role within our community is as a provider of free treatment to the indigent and under-insured, not as a cutting edge care facility.

>>>Maybe Stanford should just close off it's [sic] campus and make everyone go around. Then you'll see traffic problems.<<<

Why would anyone cut through the campus? Most people avoid it whenever possible! The traffic there is horrendous already, which is another reason to stop the expansion.

Posted by jim h., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Had Stanford decided to keep all of their land and donate it to say, open space. there wouldn't be a mall or an office park, or a Palo Alto HS, or a hospital or much of anything for that matter.

Posted by Lily, a resident of another community, on Jun 18, 2009 at 4:54 pm

My comment was not intended to convey that I think Stanford Hospital's ER is a leader in indigent medical care. That would be ridiculous. I was merely responding to your comment about it being primarily a place for the uninsured. I'm just saying, well, that's not so bad if that's what they're doing.

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 4:58 pm

To Jim H.

The residents in homes on campus do not own the land under their homes. They do own the homes but only certain categories of employees can own homes e.g. professors of a certain level and, I think, campus top administrators. As I recall, the University pays the land portion of the taxes and the resident pays the assessed house part. The university also used to pay the water bill.

Posted by Jim h., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm

kate,

thanks for the specifics. Guess my point was that property taxes on houses on Stanford land, does get paid.

Looking at the Faculty Staff Housing site for Stanford, however, it does say that the leasee is responsible for all property taxes.

Web Link

Not really an important point in this discussion though.

Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community, on Jun 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Just re-read some of these letters....bizarre.

Many Peninsula towns wish their traffic issues were like yours -- jammed for 15 minutes at the am and pm "rush hour." And traffic ON the campus --- yup, watch out for those bicycles.

Nay-sayers...if you don't like living next to a world class university, and it's driving you so nuts...MOVE.

There are lots of lovely Peninsula towns without universities and hospitals. You'll be able to get a comparable home in one of these towns --- rid yourself of what seems to be a terrible pressure in your lives --- and have lots of money left over from your Palo Alto home's sale.

It's a University folks...not a huge factory, not a coal mine. Stanford isn't your enemy...you've become irrational.

Posted by midtown maven, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2009 at 11:29 am

Cassandra:

Stanford Shopping Center not on Stanford land is called Town and Country.

Posted by been here, a resident of Menlo Park, on Jun 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Quite sure it would be to the community's benefit for Stanford to have its hospital right here, but... it probably should not be here. To serve more people more conveniently, it should NOT be in a place where, SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION, there is now during the summer no public transportation all weekend long, unless you count the VTA 35 coming as close as almost to Crate and Barrel, and no transportation after about 8:30 at night any day of the week.

We want it to be here but are we being selfish? Redwood City, close to 101, shuttle a la Kaiser from train station? Better?

Posted by Jim H., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2009 at 3:07 pm

How will those Kaiser shuttles work on weekends without any trains? Not really a valid argument, is it?

Posted by been here, a resident of Menlo Park, on Jun 19, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Caltrain abandoned the idea of not having weekend trains. Patients could also take the bus to get to the train station which is a "transit center."

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2009 at 3:21 pm

The Stanford FREE Marguerite shuttle runs between the Caltrain station and the campus including the medical center. Web Link

Posted by been here, a resident of Menlo Park, on Jun 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Palo Alto Mom, don't think I don't know all about the Marguerite. It simply does not run on the weekend in the three-month summer. The "Midnight Express" does not run either.

Posted by jim h., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Not sure that lack of a train shuttle on the weekend three months out of the year is a good reason to abandon a $3.4B project.

Wouldn't be a stretch to start weekend shuttle service once the hospital is built.

Posted by been here, a resident of Menlo Park, on Jun 19, 2009 at 4:49 pm

I didn't say abandon. I am sure this will go through because of WHO wants it to.

It is pathetic that there is no way to get to the hospital on the weekend or at night during one quarter of the year unless you drive or can walk.

Posted by Dorothy Black, a resident of another community, on Jun 19, 2009 at 8:49 pm

Town vs Gown - it seems like this has been going on as long as I was a resident of the area (husband employed at the University beginning in 1950, ending when I moved away in 1999). Meaningful dialogue is missing here for the most part. Can't we agree that living in Palo Alto is a wonderful life. Can't we agree that having Stanford University enriching Palo Alto lives is a bonus? The sniping in comments here goes nowhere. A more positive approach is sadly absent. Can't we agree that creating jobs has merit? Can't we agree that Stanford is just as aware of problems such as housing and traffic as the rest us are? By the way, I now live in Oakland. Come on over!