Town Square

Post a New Topic

Editorial: Recap of election recommendations

Original post made on May 30, 2014

Seriously contested local elections are few and far between in next week's state primary election, but two judge campaigns, a challenge to the county's incumbent sheriff and an open-space bond measure deserve our readers' attention and vote.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 30, 2014, 12:00 AM

Comments (13)

Posted by Gary Ruppel, a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2014 at 11:37 am

Spot on!

Posted by Rupert of henzau, a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm

I am voting against measure AA? I look with suspicion on ANY endorsement given out by the weekly-- I wonder how the weekly will profit from the endorsement and/or how they have profited prior to,giving out the endorsement.
Another reasons for my vote is an op-ed endorsement that appeared in the Daily Post from yoriko kishimoto. Who knows,if a few weeks after the election she will change her mind-- remember her quick about face after the HSR vote she lobbied for????

Posted by common sense, a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2014 at 6:54 pm

The Daily Post had an article today about how the Open Space organization tried to use eminent domain to seize a convent and force out nuns who had fled from communist Russia.

So I'm a no on the bond.

Posted by Rich, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Jun 2, 2014 at 7:04 am

The open space district will not likely use the 300 million borrowed for new projects. Instead, district officials will probably buy land at a premium from the land trust and seize other land from private owners.

Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 2, 2014 at 7:22 pm


URL is - / elections / find-polling-place . htm


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 2, 2014 at 7:28 pm

No on AA.

$300mil bond that will cost twice that much after the interest is paid. Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by stephen levy, a resident of University South
on Jun 2, 2014 at 8:47 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.


I don't understand the argument for voting no because bonds have interest.

Do you vote against school bonds because they have interest payments.

More to the point do you advise people against taking out mortgages because the interest payments are close to or more than equal to the loan.

Your stupid is comment seems to imply that people who take mortgages or companies that borrow are stupid because they pay interest over thirty years equal to the amount of the loan.

Is that really what you meant to say?

Posted by HUTCH 7.62, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 2, 2014 at 9:31 pm

[Post removed.]

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 3, 2014 at 5:48 am

Do you take on debt that amounts to paying back double of what you borrowed?

Posted by stephen levy, a resident of University South
on Jun 3, 2014 at 6:35 am

stephen levy is a registered user.


Well anyone who takes out a 30 year mortgage, puts 20% down and borrows at 5.3% pays back double what they borrowed.

Most homebuyers over the past 30 years have paid more than 5.3% on their mortgage.

Are they all stupid?

And even if you borrow today at less than 5.3% you are paying almost double counting the interest.

Why is this stupid?

Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm

I voted for Measure AA, because I have a soft spot for conservation issues. Yes, bond measures always pay about double the face amount, over their lifetimes, but that is nothing new. The essential issue is whether the issue has an important time element. If we do not conserve our wild lands now, they will become nearly impossible to protect in the future.

I just spent a pleasant camping weekend in Big Basin. Andrew P. Hill led the effort to preserve those lands, and he was accused of stopping progress...yet he was actually the progressive, in the end. The State of California paid for that land and, yes, there was interest to be paid. It was worth it. It is the same with Measure AA.

Posted by Sparty, a resident of another community
on Jun 3, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Sparty is a registered user.

Sheriff Smith...who gives concealed gun permits to her big donors and in a last ditch effort to win has invoked a missing and presumed dead girl as a TV ad. Pretty sick. Especially since 2 years after the arrest there hasn't even been a trial

Posted by HUTCH 7.62, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:27 pm


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

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,337 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,649 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 886 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 674 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 536 views