Town Square

Post a New Topic

Holman cleared by FPPC after 'conflict of interest' claim

Original post made on Aug 25, 2014

Councilwoman Karen Holman did not violate state law when she urged city staff to explore rezoning sites on Arastradero Road without first disclosing her financial relationship with the owner of one of the sites, the Fair Political Practices Commission has concluded in a response to an anonymous complaint.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, August 25, 2014, 9:47 AM

Comments (82)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:27 am

Who cares why.

"Holman's advocacy of rezoning these housing sites from R-1 (single-family residential) to R-30 (which would allow more density at 30 housing units per acre)"

""Holman as using her considerable powers as a City Council member to attempt to effectuate an 'up zoning' from R-1 to RM-30 through the back door of the Housing Element,""

Holman, Shephard, and Scharff need to be voted out of office. The Compehensive Plan will be voted on in the next term, so the future of Palo Alto is at stake. We need people who will try to protect the quality of life in our City, not destroy the character of whole residential neighborhoods through their schemes, for whatever reason.

It's interesting to find out that she did this. During the Maybell debates, neighbors expressed the concern that allowing the high density development would be a slippery slope to more high density development on that corridor, because it was adjacent to other exceptions that had been made. The exception then becomes the rule.. Council of course denied they were doing this. And yet, at the same time, here was Karen Holman doing exactly that, trying to upzone that corridor.

I think we should have a rule that Councilmembers have to upzone their own block before they can do that to someone else's neighborhood.

I"m voting for Filseth, Kou, and Du Bois, and writing in Tim Gray, and not using my 5th vote since we don't have ranked choice and it's too important that we get in good candidates to give us a good Comprehensive Plan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ellie
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:28 am

This is hardly a surprise. No one running for City Council (she is an incumbent) has better credentials than Holman - 8 years on the Planning Commission and 4 yrs. on the Council. She by far understands best the land use issues facing us and is a cool, even-handed decision maker that we need for a 2nd term at this critical time. And no one can surpass her integrity - sadly lacking in those behind this complaint.

Scharff and Shepherd understand issues thru the lens as, in the case of Scharff - Real Estate Attorney, wealthy property owner (including downtown) and property manager, and Shepherd (who also owns a building downtown) as touting in her last campaign that she worked for years for developers as their project manager. The real or potential conflict that Nancy Shepherd and Greg Scharff have and have to shake my head that they may have benefitted from the attack on Holman. Dirty tricks are a sign of fear, not strength.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Green Gables
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:54 am

I, among many residents of Palo Alto, do NOT want density building whether it's on Arastradero or any other street in Palo Alto. We have TOO much as it is. When the State of California or Stanford says jump, Palo Alto asks how hight. This is such crap.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:56 am

The FPPC's finding is what I expected, but this is nonetheless a welcome article to read. If this story ends up in hard copy I hope it will appear above the fold as the story announcing the investigation did. As for the anonymous accusation, seems to me anonymity ought not be allowed when attacking a person's character. If an accusation has merit, be up front about it, own it, and let the debate begin. Otherwise, play clean. There's no need to drag local politics into a political sty. Annette Ross


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:01 am

Ellie, I could not agree with you more! the accusation was frivolous and no doubt motivated by those you stood to gain if Holman's reputation was harmed.

Holman's voting record on PTC and council stands for itself. She is thoughtful, informed and has a proven record of voting in favor of residential concerns.

She deserves to be re-eleccted and voted mayor by her colleagues on Council.

Scharf and Shepard have not demonstrated any concern for residential issues despite recent "trends" in voting that have been motivated entirely by desire to be re-elected.

Both scarf and Shepard are developer friendly and would favor the overdevelopment of our city and the traffic/parking jobs/housing problems that such over development creates!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anything goes
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:04 am

It is undisputed that Holman took "finder's fees" from a developer for 12 years. It is also undisputed that she advocated earlier this year for the city planners to examine that developer's site for high-density housing.

She's off the hook with the FPPC, but does this pass the smell test? In November, we'll have to decide if we want her, with her close financial ties to a developer, to remain on council.

My guess is that the Holman-Pierce relationship is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to council members having ties to developers.

We have a council that claims it's against big development, but doesn't vote that way. This revelation involving Holman explains why that is happening.

Do you want a council member who is on the payroll of a developer?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Despairing-In-Palo-Alto
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:21 am

Without knowing exactly what the FPPC complaint said--being cleared may, or may not, mean something. The FPPC complaints are generally secret, so we'll never really know what the FPPC was asked to investigate, nor the reasoning why they decided to drop the complaint.

One of the frustrating things about the FPPC in this area is that they don't provide any yearly stats about complaints field vs complaints sustained. To make matters worse, the whole area of conflict of interest is so poorly codified that you could drive a herd of wild horses through the holes in the system.

Holman's one clear filing failure indicates she does not know how to read, or does not take the FPPC 700 filing very seriously.

Palo Alto can do better than Karen Holman. Sadly, there just aren't very many choices this year.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:23 am

interesting how the Weekly did not carry a story about the complaint and investigation (that was reported by the real newspaper in town, the Daily Post), yet when she is "exonerated" they run this long article about it. I wonder why????

And of course one of the key issues is:
"On her Form 700 for 2013, the payments from the firm are listed in the $10,000-$100,000 range, though she told the Weekly that she had not received any payments from Pierce since May 2012. This disparity was highlighted in the anonymous complaint, which alleges that it would be perjury for Holman to list the firm as a source of income in 2013 if she in fact has not received any money from the firm."

So is it perjury? Will the Weekly bother to look into it and let us know? Certainly her explanation, as described in the article, does not pass the smell test—first she reports income, then says she is reporting it as potential source of income, then she changes it to say she did not receive any income.  Really??? 

""I'm hoping this will be put to rest and put aside so we can talk about real issues that are facing Palo Alto," Holman told the Weekly."
Of course, she is.  But one of the real issue spacing the city is who is competent to serve on the city council. IMHO, she is not.


"As for the anonymous accusation, seems to me anonymity ought not be allowed when attacking a person's character."
it is called anonymous whistleblowing and the complaint raised questions about her ethics. The fact that she was cleared regarding the conflict of interest complaint does not mean that she acted ethically.

Do not forget that Holman voted for the Maybell project and was aware of the Arillaga/27 University issue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anything goes
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 am

How did Holman allegedly earn these "finder's fees"? Did she find people who wanted to sell their house? How did she come into contact with these people? Did they meet because she was a council member? Who were these people she found? Why does a real estate agent need a council member as a finder of clients? If she's transparent, she would list the people she found for Steve Pierce.

Do we want our council members having side jobs of finding home-sellers for realtors?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:41 am

Holman's actions have been determined to be completely legal without demonstrated conflict by the city attorney
twice and now by the FPPC…..so what' the issue???

Please do not return us to the "political Sty" that Annette (earlier poster) referred to!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by I'm voting for Karen.
a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm

As a resident who pays attention, I'll be voting for Karen. Over many years, the vast majority of her votes have been thoughtful and consistent with Comp Plan and zoning requirements.

She consistently raises questions that move Council away from exceptions and variances that developers use to super-size their projects.

I'm glad she has been cleared, though I had no doubt she would be. Karen's character is excellent. She loves Palo Alto, and serves because she wants the vision of our Comp Plan realized.

Join me in voting for Karen Holman!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Despairing-In-Palo-Alto
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2014 at 12:16 pm

> Holman's actions have been determined to be completely legal without
> demonstrated conflict by the city attorney

The City Attorney has no authority to determine if a Council Member's actions off the Dias is legal, or not. That point has been made a number of times, by various players in the City government. When people continue to make false statements about points of law, or the role of Council Appointed Officials--gives one pause to wonder what these sorts of people are trying to hide, or how little these sorts of people believe in having the City operate according to the rules.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

I hope people tune in and follow the campaign 60 more days up until November 4 and do not mark their ballots too soon. Actually I hope people do "mark" their ballots. (that is, check my name, "mark").

I go back and forth, in the last month, between thinking I am going to vote for 0 incumbents with my FIVE (5) choices to picking all three, Karen Holman, Nancy Shepherd and Greg Scharff, plus Myself, Mark Weiss, the people's choice with nearly 6,000 votes in 2012, and one other, to be determined, sorting out which if any of the totally-jumping-on-the-bandwagon New Residentialists or as I call it Self-Serving Palo Altans for Self-Serving Sensibility to add to the mix.

After attending four kick-off events this weekend I am going to vote for Karen Holman with one of my five choices.
Call it an endorsements. More than Greg and Nancy, she has listened to us, even if she has made her mistakes -- and I typically let her know it, and she does sometimes acknowledge my point.

It is true that the other paper seemed to be working with the complaintiff in some way.

We do need change in leadership which could be accomplished in a number of ways, and including Karen.

Likewise, we should amend the Comp Plan / General Plan, not flush it into the Bay. Dig?

Read my blog. Plastic Alto.

Thanks, Karen, for your leadership and inspiration.

These kick off events are a little self-pleasing and inbred. We need 500 people to lean in, step up, listen, shake rattle and roll.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Haha
a resident of Monroe Park
on Aug 25, 2014 at 12:33 pm

Doesn't change the fact that she was dishonest for so long.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

And as I say numerous times, we could fix things a lot faster if it weren't the case that all the other first 14 posters here chose to use pseudonyms rather than actually signing their posts and standing in public behind their will. Let he or she who is without sin cast the first flaming troll post. (I loved the person who complained that I was sexist for using the term "man up" as a short hand for cowardice because I could not tell that her unsigned rant was from a woman -- she should be complimented over that! Reminds me of "Man Up' a parody song from the Broadway farce "Book of Mormon" by Parker and Stone of South Park fame -- they should base their next show here, oh wait, Michael Judge of Beavis and B-Head fame, who married a Gunn grad, beat them to it:

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gardener
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm

Holman is a farce. She's the proponent of "transparency" in government? Ha! She's been taking finder's fees without a real estate license and that's against the law. Where is the DA in all of this?

It's easy to vote "no" on everything; you don't have to actually study the materials and think about what's best for ALL of Palo Alto.

Go ahead and vote for Karen and her slate, and watch Palo Alto go from thriving to stagnating. We won't be the intellectual center of Silicon Valley any more, we'll be the laughing stock!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Throw in some BMR units, and Karen Holman will be all over it, almost no matter the density. It is truly astounding how much leverage the subsidized housing crew has in Palo Alto. PAHC went a bridge too far on the Maybell fiasco (with Holman in full support)... then the will of the people crushed them.

A vote for Holman will mean more of the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:12 pm

"Holman's actions have been determined to be completely legal without demonstrated conflict by the city attorney twice and now by the FPPC…..so what' the issue??? "

It's simple and direct: Holman has not played ball with and for the big developers in this town (Baer, Keenan, ...), and she will have to pay the price. The same thing happen to Nancy Lytle a decade ago. Holman apparently forgot that lesson, or maybe the Big Boys decided to make an example of her to keep the other council members in line. Or maybe it's both.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm

"And as I say numerous times, we could fix things a lot faster if it weren't the case that all the other first 14 posters here chose to use pseudonyms rather than actually signing their posts and standing in public behind their will."

And why are you using the pseudonym "Mark Weiss"?

I challenge you to prove in this forum that it's your real name. I can easily prove online that I'm a curmudgeon, and I have many times. Your turn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm

@ Despairing-In-Palo-Alto

"Without knowing exactly what the FPPC complaint said--being cleared may, or may not, mean something..."

The complaint is linked in the story, so you can decide for yourself what the FPPC decision means ... Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm

Sad, but not surprising to read this after- the-fact reporting. She helped a neighbor to quietly get her house re-zoned from r1 to r2 in the middle of an all r1 neighborhood... This neighbor was then able to build a second two story residence at the rear of the property and overlook all the adjacent properties' minuscule backyards. She's very familiar with figuring out how to work around the rules. Definitely NOT voting for her.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Is it perjury?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm

I think the important point to consider is not the fact the FPPC declared that Holman did not have a conflict of interest, but rather her well documented shenanigans regarding her form 700. It is too bad that the Weekly chooses to ignore that fact in their zeal to raise Holman to sainthood. As the complaint states, she filled out the form under penalty of perjury, yet is now claiming that the form is not true. As it states in the complaint, she is either lying on the form or to the press. The question is why is the DA's office not investigating this potential breaking of the law.
Also one has to question why some people are so in love with what Holman stands for (and what that is, I am not sure( that they continually sing her praises,while vilifying anyone who disagrees with them. It should also be noted that the FPPC said nothing about the perjury issue that has arisen.
One has to recall how Holman was put in her place over a decade ago when the public voted down an attempt by her to push through an onerous historic home ordinance. Maybe it is time for her to be brought back to earth again,
Surely our council can do better than having someone with her issue serving.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Reality check
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Holman is the victim of a smear campaign directed by Establishment politicians, including Scharff, Shepherd, and Kniss, looking to avoid Holman leading a majority in the next Council. Shepherd is particularly vulnerable. That is also why we are seeing the same politicians rallying around two radically unprepared candidates, Wohlbach and Johnston. They don't want DuBois, Filseth and Kou to take the two open seats, plus Shepherd's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by senor Blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen: The test for whether or not something is a conflict of Interest is: "its not what you did, Its what it looks like you did"

We have an election coming up. Its time too clean house of all incumbents in the Council. Let's start over.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 25, 2014 at 2:54 pm

Headline: Holman Cleared….end of that story.

Beginning of the NEW story….who is on the other side?

Which political hacks are responsible for these anonymous allegations? Why are these people afraid to make their allegations publicly?

Now that said allegations have been discredited it is of vital importance to the voting public to understand who made them!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 3:20 pm

"Now that said allegations have been discredited it is of vital importance to the voting public to understand who made them!"

Follow the money trail. Whose big money making interests has Holman voted against? Hmmm?

If we had a majority of Holmans on the council, we wouldn't have 101 Lytton and other big office projects.

A vote against Holman is a vote for big PC's, really big PC's. That's what her detractors want. Hence the under-the-table, behind-closed-door FPPC business and the rest of the smear campaign.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Norman Beamer
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 25, 2014 at 3:26 pm

If any city council member wrote the anonomous complaint or had a hand in it, or met with or lobbied with the Post to blast out the story in the first place, they should identify themselves and describe their involvment. Consider this a request under the Freedom of Information act.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm

What I find amusing is that the people that are indignant about Holman being reported to the FPPC are, and most of them anonymously, are accusing various council members and " establishment" people as being behind this " smear" campaign. We have yet to see any proof of this, as opposed to,the complaint against Holman, which is available online.
And as for " establishment" people, one only has to look at holman's election website to see a list of the city's career politicians and movers and shakers ( and as an aside, I did not realize that as a council member in Palo Alto, one gets to call themselves "The honorable " for the rest of their lives. Why does Holman feel the need to label her endorsers with that title ? Talk about establishment!!!!!!)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 9:59 pm

Hey Rupert of henzhaus

So what chicken (your nome du poulet indicates you are intimately acquainted with such) accuser filed the anonymous complaint? Probably some male too timid to face a strong woman in public.

Was it you, per chance?

Who are you fronting for? Baer? Keenan? Hohbach? MacNellis?

[Portion of post removed due to disrespectful comment.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HolmanProblems
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:34 pm

She took money from a developer. She advocated upcoming for denser development.

This is a non starter. I don't care that Fppc found her not violating law, it still stinks.

She is NOT acting the way she speaks. It is deceptive and dishonest. And she lied on disclosure. Perhaps not enough to prosecute, but more than sufficient evidence to lose my vote!

I don't paint the rest of council with the same brush - she stands out as corrupt and dishonest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HolmanProblems
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:34 pm

She took money from a developer. She advocated upcoming for denser development.

This is a non starter. I don't care that Fppc found her not violating law, it still stinks.

She is NOT acting the way she speaks. It is deceptive and dishonest. And she lied on disclosure. Perhaps not enough to prosecute, but more than sufficient evidence to lose my vote!

I don't paint the rest of council with the same brush - she stands out as corrupt and dishonest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Fairmeadow School
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:48 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by iconoclast
a resident of University South
on Aug 25, 2014 at 10:51 pm

@HolmanProblems

"And she lied on disclosure. Perhaps not enough to prosecute, but more than sufficient evidence to lose my vote!"

Cute. You posted your post twice because you can't figure out the Weekly's simple user interface, but you accuse Holman of making a small mistake on a very complex form that you've never seen.

So Tell us you never goofed on your 1040 or 540, huh?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:03 pm

"If any city council member wrote the anonomous complaint or had a hand in it, or met with or lobbied with the Post to blast out the story in the first place, they should identify themselves and describe their involvment."

Quiz Liz Kniss under oath. She's Baer's long time lapdog: Web Link.

Holman has consistently voted against Baer's overdevelopments. Kniss has always voted for Baer's overdevelopments like Lytton Gateway, as well as Keenan's, Mac Nellis (Alma Plaza) and Hohbach.

Who would most want Holman off the council and out of the way? Kniss and Baer, if anyone.

Depose them both.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Fairmeadow School
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:04 pm

Everyone here has a right to post anonymously. Each person may have their own reasons to choose an anonymous name rather than their own (which can't be proven anyway). Those who choose to attack others for using an anonymous name are simply bullies wishing to distract readers from the issues raised.

Those who choose to run for public office should not denigrate those who wish to participate in public discussion and also protect themselves from retaliation from any and all online readers who may disagree with them, and whom also be mentally/emotionally unbalanced.

For example, an 80 year-old woman who lives alone should be able to share her opinion without fear of vandalism or harm from those who disagree.

Continually insulting and challenging anonymous posters because they do not wish to use their real names, for any number of reasons, is bullying.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by iconclast
a resident of University South
on Aug 25, 2014 at 11:12 pm

@Seriously?

Hear, hear!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 5:20 am

[Portion removed.]
Maybe we should also,question Holman under oath regarding her form 700.
And if the form is so complicated for her to,fill out, it shows how out of her league she is on the council.

"Holman has consistently voted against Baer's overdevelopments. Kniss has always voted for Baer's overdevelopments like Lytton Gateway, as well as Keenan's, Mac Nellis (Alma Plaza) and Hohbach."
And Holman voted for maybell and knew of the arillaga/27 university project.

"Who would most want Holman off the council and out of the way? Kniss and Baer, if anyone." Let's see your proof


 +   Like this comment
Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 am

If she took money from a developer, which she did, whether she disclosed it or not, she is forever contaminated and doesn't deserve our vote. This council is so accommodating to developers that not one incumbent is deserving of of reelection, so there is no reason to single her out-do not vote for any of them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sea-Seelam Reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 26, 2014 at 8:21 am

Karen

Hang in there!

Ladies and gentleman; Let's move on!


Let us get our citizens to think about '25% potential trimmers during this week' after last Sunday earth quake.

Let get YMCA replaced with a decent gym for our elderly citizens and for our visitors that drive to Page Mill to meet and exercise!

Respectfully


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anneke
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 26, 2014 at 9:15 am

Three parts of my comments:

1. Launching an anonymous complaint, knowing full well that the complaint itself, if wrong, would still cause significant damage to someone's reputation, is highly unethical and says a lot about the character of the person or persons who launched the complaint.

2. We have to trust that the FPPC did a thorough job investigating the details before they officially decided that the complaint was unmerited.

3. I will vote for Karen Holman.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 9:22 am

"Let's see your proof "

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 9:40 am

No CURmudegeon-- proof for your claims that kniss is behind the complaint against Holman. All you provide is a 14 year old story dealing with kniss and Baer.
At least the complaintent against Holman provided documentation and an explanation for why he/she filed the complaint. Or maybe it was Holman herself to generate sympathy and distract us from the issue
[Portion removed due to excessive and/or repetitive post by same poster]
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a voter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2014 at 9:47 am

boscoli,

I agree with you about contamination, but this is where perfect is the enemy of good.

I'm not going to be holier than thou when the likely instigators of the charge are the really hazardous material. The "other side" is going to keep getting tougher and Holman is not nearly as bad as they are.

But I actually don't know for sure! Can we make sure what the developer family trees are for all candidates running?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 9:51 am

"you provide is a 14 year old story dealing with kniss and Baer"

Yes. It's a long relationship. And did you know Kniss was charged with an FPPC violation for it, and that it stuck?

More recently, Kniss voted for Baer's PC zoning giveaway at "Lytton Gateway." Holman voted against it. Holman has a price to pay.

"At least the complaintent against Holman provided documentation and an explanation"

Show me.

[Portion removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:00 am

[Post removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a voter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:01 am

boscoli,

The contamination by the way extends to the tenants of the developers - from startups to Stanford -anyone who "needs" the over development will be working to elect the usual suspects.

The scary part is that the developers and the tenants can at times be one and the same with residents. You'll have Stanford employees who live in Palo Alto endorsing an Arrillaga ticket.

I will be looking closely at which residents are endorsing who. Then we can follow this story later, and say, OH, I see, that's how this all happened.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 am

[Post removed due to excessive and/or repetitive post by same poster]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a voter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:24 am

Rupert,

I gather you are voting for Scharff and Sheperd. Anyone else?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ruoert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:48 am

I did not say i will vote for scharff or shepherd. I just wonder why Holman gets a pass on evemt thatbthe council took part in while the other incumbents get raked over the coals?
Who,else I vote for will depend on whom the weekly endorses. And for those of,younu happy with the current council, remember that all current members were heartily endorsed by the weekly


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Questioning
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:49 am

Here is a broader question for those in Real Estate to consider:
Is it legal to give any person without an active, valid California Department of Real Estate license a referral fee from Real Estate sales?

If not, then would not the Real Estate company be investigated first, assuming Councilwoman Holman does not have said license?

If Holman had/has an active and valid Broker's License, all is fine for her to receive a fee directly & the real estate company is fine for giving it.

But if she had/has only a salesperson's license, and she has no Broker, then it appears there is still a question, but one directed towards the real estate company too, and not only towards her.

Could someone please shine light on this query?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 26, 2014 at 11:16 am

I am having problems with some of assumptions of the local media reporting, and the comments of some posters. Perhaps some one can help me out with the points with which I am having problems?

While the FPPC does accept "anonymous" complaints over the telephone, none of the local media reports indicates that this was a "phone tip". Moreover, it's my understanding that the FPPC does not make the existence of these complaints known, such as posting them on its web-site.

Complaint Process:
Web Link

A. Sworn Complaint
The law provides that if you suspect a violation of the Act you may file a sworn complaint with the FPPC (Gov. Code Sec. 83115).

The Act and FPPC Regulations provide that a sworn complaint filed with the FPPC entitles the complainant to certain rights and processes, described below. A sworn complaint must comply with certain requirements. Using the complaint form and providing as detailed information as possible will assist the FPPC in processing your complaint. At a minimum, you must do all of the following:


1. Submit your complaint in writing.
2. Sign the complaint under penalty of perjury.
3. Identify the person(s) who allegedly violated the Act and list the specific provisions the person(s) violated.
4. Describe with particularity the facts constituting the alleged violation and provide any evidence to support the complaint.
5. Include names and addresses of witnesses, if known.

The FPPC may only act on complaints alleging violations within its jurisdiction. In order for us to process your complaint, all of the pertinent information the form asks of the complainant must appear on the form, not as an attachment. The complaint must state a specific violation of the act including the date on which it occurred, and must also state how you have personal knowledge of the violation. It may be helpful to contact our Enforcement Division prior to filing a complaint to determine whether the activity presents an issue on which the FPPC has jurisdiction to act. For immediate assistance from the Enforcement Division,

C. Anonymous Complaints: Toll Free "tip line" 800-561-1861 If you do not want your name disclosed in connection with your complaint under any circumstances, you may call 800-561-1861 on Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and make the complaint anonymously. Commission staff will evaluate your claims and has the authority to pursue a complaint on its own initiative.
---

If the complaint were submitted via a signed form—it's my belief that the FPPC would not release that information, meaning that FPPC complaints are generally "anonymous" in all cases. If the submitter wants to tell the media—that's their prerogative. But it would seem an unwise thing to do if one is not certain about the points of law in question, and is seeking the FPPC's help to sort out the perceived problem.

So, early on, only the complaint submitter, the FPPC, and the person who is the object of the complaint know about the complaint. So—how did the media find out about the complaint?

The link in the article points to a lot of background for the FPPC, but the actual complaint form is not present. This is important, since the submitter would need to clearly specify the problem he/she thinks the covered public official has with the law. I also don't believe that the FPPC would provide the complaint, or any background material upon request—but I could be wrong on that point. So—how did the media become aware of the complaint, and how did they get the background material? If the media knows who the complainant is—why shouldn't they be expected to reveal their source, as so many people are claiming the submitter should do?

Complexity of CA Ethics Laws

From researching this area for a bit, I have come to the conclusion that the Ethics Code is incredibly complex, and that very few people in California understand it. Point of example—both Council Member Klein and Scharff have been quoted as telling Holman that she had a "conflict of interest". Neither has been asked to explain themselves in detail, but at the moment—it would appear that both were wrong in their assessment of Holman's situation. Of course, Holman had improperly filed her Form 700 last year, so perhaps these two gentlemen did not have the correct financial information with which to make their assessments.

What's a little disturbing is that when two, top-of-the-line lawyers, both on the City Council—make a claim that another City Council Member has a conflict of interest—and neither does anything about it, such as file an FPPC complaint immediately. We all are left to wonder who/when such a complaint should be filed? Certainly these big-time lawyers are in a better position to craft a meanngful complaint than the rest of us ordinary people.

We are also left with the silence of the other Council members. Did they understand what Klien/Scharff were saying? If so, why would they sit on the sidelines and say nothing?

Many people have posted that sentiments along the following lines—"if it looks wrong, then it is wrong" (or words to that effect). Unfortunately, this is not the case where breach of ethical conduct is concerned (in the realm of State government). There are tests which can be applied that provide one the information to believe that a violation of ethics has occurred. nfortunately, wading through this topic is about as much fun as walking in a swamp with snow shoes on, so few actually acquire the knowledge as to what these tests are, and how to apply them.

Determination of "No Finding" vs "Exoneration"

When the FPPC decides to not pursue a complaint beyond its initial review, this would seem to me to be a determination of "no findings". The FPPC had decided (via is internal processes) to not investigate the complaint. This determination does not "exonerate" anyone. It simply states that in the FPPC's opinion, that there is not enough information supplied in the complaint to proceed. If the FPPC had proceeded, and exhaustively investigated the complaint—then it's findings would be different, but it's unlikely that any public agency would ever claim that it's investigation actually "exonerated" any person subject to its scrutiny. Declining to investigate a complaint also does not prove that any charges/allegations were false.

Moreover, this refusal to proceed does not preclude another complaint be submitted in the future, should additional information become available.

I hope that people will spend some time trying to review the California Ethics Code. It's not much fun, but it is the law that we have to deal with.

If anyone can help me better understand some of these issues, I would be appreciative.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 11:23 am

[Portion removed.]

Re 27 University: Holman and the rest of the council scolded city staff severely for meeting secretly with Arriaga for months without informing the council. In Palo Alto, the words "the city" do not always include the council. City staff has most of the real executive power.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 11:26 am

" So—how did the media become aware of the complaint, and how did they get the background material?"

Simple. The complainant(s) leaked it for political reasons -- to smear Holman.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2014 at 11:30 am

> Simple. The complainant(s) leaked it for political reasons -- to smear Holman.

Sir--do you know this for a fact, or is it your opinion?

And if the complaint had been sustained--would you continue to claim that this was a smear?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deep Throat
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2014 at 11:30 am

Moderator:

If you don't have the time to read Wayne Martin's entire comments, here is my summary of the import of what he wrote:

If the Palo Alto Weekly received from the FPPC the complaint linked to by this article, then the Weekly should tell us that fact and provide links to the forms filed by the complainant with the FPPC. If the Weekly received that complaint from somewhere else, then the Weekly should tell us both how they know it is the complaint the FPPC received and from whom the Weekly received the complaint.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupertnof Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 12:11 pm

[Portion removed.]
curmudgeon there is this story:
Web Link
and from it:
"As part of the discussion, council members took trips to the site in groups of three to avoid violating the Brown Act, which requires public disclosure when a majority of the council meets. The Weekly learned about these meetings in late 2012 after filing a Public Records Act request and receiving emails between staff and council members arranging the meetings."
and

"The Grand Jury concludes that "it would have been more appropriate and transparent for the City Council to first discuss whether property could or should be declared surplus in a public meeting before convening a closed session to discuss price and terms.""

The above deals with the 7.7 acre parkland. Holman was on the council at that time and participated in these events.  The grand jury scolded the city council and staff for 27 university and the parkland issue
Holman may gain brownie points from her followers with her self-righteous, after-the-fact indignation about these matters, but she does not fool me


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 26, 2014 at 12:16 pm

"Sir--do you know this for a fact, or is it your opinion?"

It is an elementary deduction based on the facts as you so capably presented them, my dear Martin. Leaks are hardly unknown in politics. As you point out, who else had the information? Not to mention motivation. We may very confidently attribute an anonymous complainant with both.

As for you calling me Sir: do you know this for a fact, or is it your opinion?

"And if the complaint had been sustained--would you continue to claim that this was a smear?"

But it wasn't sustained, was it? So, so what?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 12:41 pm

"The above deals with the 7.7 acre parkland. Holman was on the council at that time and participated in these events. The grand jury scolded the city council and staff for 27 university and the parkland issue"

[Portion removed.}

Look, it is perfectly legal for councilmembers to visit anywhere they want in groups of three or less. Four or more violates the Brown Act. I think it's a very good thing for them to have first-hand knowledge of a piece of city property. The more homework, the better.

And, most actions referred to as being done by "the city" are actually done by city staff acting independently of the council. Unfortunately, under our government arrangement, councilmembers can and do get tarred for the activities of a largely autonomous and only loosely accountable staff.

We need a strong-mayor system.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 12:51 pm

Curmudgeon-- bottom line is that the grand jury found the actions of the city--- both staff and council, as being inappropriate. Holman is part of that council. [Portion removed.] Holman went along with spending $250k for design work for the 27 university project.
[Portion removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anything goes
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 26, 2014 at 1:24 pm

I don't think it's correct for Holman to claim she was "exonerated." The FPPC didn't conduct a full-blown investigation. It just decided there wasn't enough evidence to proceed, so it dropped the case. It didn't declare she was innocent. And the case can be re-opened at any time, if new evidence arises.

I agree with an earlier commenter who said it is curious that the Weekly didn't write anything about these allegations before, but when the FPPC dropped its investigation, the Weekly did a long story saying Holman was cleared. The other paper in town covered the whole thing from the beginning until now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 1:30 pm

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ronna Devincenzi
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm

Palo Alto Weekly received at least one other leaked document, writing news articles about it, without any further inquiry as to its source. Thus, the public will probably not ever hear who is responsible for making this story public now, the truth and motive hidden forever, if history repeats itself.

Case in point, illustrating what I mean is "The Executive Summary", leaked to the Weekly in 2010, about "The Project", Phase One of California Avenue's Streetscape, completed as a Concept Plan in 2006, with work commencing in September 2009, right after the completed plan was incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan for this district at that time.

Supposedly, it was illegal to leak that internal city document to anyone, it was meant never to see the light of day. Someone did, and it was never investigated.

I was grateful to be able to read what was reported back then to the city's top brass and to council because much of that internally prepared document had 'elementary deductions' in it as well. When people are not given facts, all we have are elementary deductions - accurate or not.

Too few city staff members were interviewed in order to get a true picture of what actually happened, and no non-city workers were interviewed at all.
Residents were never given documented facts or timelines about The Project. They too, made 'elementary deductions'.

The press asked too few questions, not giving timelines or summaries about how the Project came to be, based on documentation. It was mostly hearsay.
Just like with this story now. Transparency, accountability & DOCUMENTATION is in short supply. People are left to speculate. Causes a lack of trust and hard feelings. It's not healthy. It need not be like this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 26, 2014 at 4:12 pm

After reading through all the newspaper articles and online commennts here is I've concluded:
1.) Holman didn't show the best judgment be allowing herself to be associated with this issue
2.) Holman did nothing to lessen my trust in her as some one who is going to stand up to the developer special interest lobby
3.) The folks who sent this to the FPPC knew it was a merit less issue, but a good opportunity to try to smear Holman
4.) I won't vote for Shepherd or Scharff. And if Kniss ever runs for anything afain, I'll never vote for her.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm

Rupert

[Portion removed.]

I have accused nobody. I have only indicated that two prominent citizens with a documented track record of campaign dirty tricks Web Link might be very happy to have an overdevelopment obstacle like Holman out of the way.

[Portion removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm

"If someone posted a rant like the one I pointed you to Web Link under my name, I'd demand that the Weekly remove it pronto. So would you, I think. As you plainly saw, it is still there. Connect the dots."
Flawed assumptions-- you are assuming that Baer was aware of the posting.

"I have accused nobody. I have only indicated that two prominent citizens with a documented track record of campaign dirty tricks Web Link might be very happy to have an overdevelopment obstacle like Holman out of the way. Defend them as you want."
You have suggested that kniss and Baer are behind the Holman complaint, without providing any evidence. You are basically doing what you claim was wrongly done to Holman-- being accused anonymously of oding something. As for " track record" it was a single occurrence and it was disavowed by kniss. But that is irrelevant to your attempt to make Holman look like a wronged innocent.
Ignore the fact that Holman voted for Maybell, was criticize by the grand jury for its involvement with arillaga and a number of years ago was defeated in an attempt to push through an onerous historic home ordinance-- all signs that she is out of touch, and out of her league
"Your continuing attacks on Holman after she has been cleared by definitive legal authority demonstrate conclusively that you cannot distinguish accusation from guilt. "
I am not attacking Holman. I am criticizing her actions, questioning what she has done and pointing out, IMHO, her lack of fitness for public office. I realize that in the vanilla world of Palo Alto politics it is forbidden to question or criticize the actions of a council candidate. And it looks like her supporters are circling the wagons by denigrating anyone that dares to criticize Holman.


"All of us should be glad you are not in a position of authority."
Oh. But I am


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Town Square Moderator
online staff of Palo Alto Online
on Aug 26, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Town Square Moderator is a registered user.

@Deep Throat, the Weekly received the complaint from the FPPC. The text of the complaint is provided in the article, above. The commission did not attach any forms completed by the complainant, nor anything that would reveal the complainant's identity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by wmartin46
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 26, 2014 at 7:06 pm

wmartin46 is a registered user.

@Weekly .. thanks for clarifying the source of the Holman complaint linked to in the article. I am a little surprised that the FPPC released this information--but on the other hand, I suppose I am pleased that they did.

Since the documentation came from the FPPC, this nullifies a few of my speculations.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

For the record, I met Karen Holman while campaigning for the 2009 City Council seats. She was a planning commissioner at the time, while I was a Gunn graduate (where I was an honor student, in student government, in theatre, a varsity athlete and league champion and two-time Editor in Chief of the newspaper), dating an arts commissioner (still am), running my two small businesses and trying to follow the suggestions of people like Sid Espinosa and Peter Drekmeier who advocated "civic engagement". I got 800 votes, but learned a lot, and started to develop a thick skin and an appetite to learn more about self-governance and Democracy in these trying times. Karen was an exemplary ally, in that she took the time to get to know some of the fellow candidates (compared to Larry Klein, who gives me, constantly a cold shoulder, for instance -- by the way, Nancy Shepherd also developed a rapport with me, although I at times have disagreed with some of her actions).

For five years, as I continue to track policy, and as of fall, 2010 write about it on Plastic Alto, my blog, Karen Holman has kept a line of communication open to me.

So as I have campaigned for Council (after getting nearly 6,000 votes in 2012, all without spending a dime, in a time when seated candidates spent on average $20, 000) these last 30 days, I thought about the incumbents, especially in the wake of the Grand Jury report of June 16, 2014 and the referendum of 2013. I have seriously thought about voting for 0 incumbents (and therefore myself and four other challengers) or voting back in all 3 (because in certain ways Greg Scharff and I are experiencing a type of glasnost, although I disagreed with a lot of his actions and tactics in the ensuing years).

So, despite it's awkwardness, I announced I am voting for Karen, after I vote for myself -- in my imaginary-rank-choice ballot. She is one of my five choices, with the other three remain to be seen. There are 60 more days in the campaign.

There is no one on Council or Commissions that I would refuse to work shoulder-to-shoulder with, for the good of the community. I give them hell on my blog, here sometimes and at times it gets dicey in person -- for instance when Vino Locale sat Terry and I at a captains table with Pat and Sally Burt and two other couples, on St. Patricks day, a few days after Pat and I went at it after he objected to my giving him the business online or on my blog -- and ironically, or fittingly, I was questioning his tone and believability over....27 UNIVERSITY. But I still hit up Pat from time to time, for instance, I saw him at the Mads Tolling show at Mitchell Park and asked him about 456 Uni. Also, people point out that as I lobby for A NEW PARK AT VENTURA, ON FRY'S PROPERTY, 15 ACRES, Pat is given credit for bringing Heritage Park to fruition, so he may come on board as my ally.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

I recommend attending some of the campaign events and not relying on the internet.

So, yeah, this is me. (You can check that my cross-referencing my blog; I tend to back up my posts there).

Thank you Karen for your years of service, good luck, but yeah, watch your step, sister!

Web Link
That's for the person who objects to my use of the term "man-up". It's from the Broadway show by the founders of South Park.

Namaste.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jeff Keller
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 26, 2014 at 10:26 pm

Jeff Keller is a registered user.

The anonymous complaint reads like an honest concern. Even if the FPPC doesn't see any reason to investigate further Holman's support for a project which would benefit someone who has given and apparently will continue giving money to her while no one else would support the move(up zoning by putting the properties in the Housing Element) raises plenty of concern.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 27, 2014 at 12:19 am

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"The anonymous complaint reads like an honest concern."

Yes, it reads very amateurish. That is exactly what I would front if I were a PR firm hired to smear Holman. Then I would hire some shills to pound and pillory the woman in the media, even after she is exonerated.

Inconveniently, she has in fact been exonerated.

So what's left? smear PR, smear PR, smear PR, and more smear PR.

Holman is an obstacle to powerful developer interests, and she must pay the price.

In Palo Alto money rules, and money's shills wax shrill.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sunnytown
a resident of University South
on Aug 28, 2014 at 2:58 pm

Sunnytown is a registered user.

There's a direct message from Karen Holman on her Facebook page:

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 30, 2014 at 4:56 pm

Fred Balin is a registered user.

The Weekly article writes:
"Councilman Greg Scharff, who also sits on the housing committee and is seeking re-election this year, said her failure to recuse herself from discussing the sites during April and May meetings constituted a conflict of interest. Scharff said he had mentioned his concern to Holman during the May meeting."

As the agency in charge, the FPPC, has ruled there was no conflict of interest.

What is in order now is either public retraction of the statement above or explanation as to how it was incorrectly reported here and in the 6/11/14 edition of the Palo Alto Daily News.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm

Craig Laughton is a registered user.

Fred,

I understand that you are a public supporter on Holman's re-elect campaign. Nothing wrong with that, but I think you should probably make that clear.

Holman took finder fees, then supported an up-zoning for the guy that paid her the fees. She was not in technical violation of election laws, but it does not pass the smell test.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 31, 2014 at 11:01 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"She [Holman] was not in technical violation of election laws, but it does not pass the smell test."

"technical violation" is the legal gold standard in the US and the Free World, Mr. Laugh-ton. "Smell test" prevailed in Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union, and prevails today in North Korea, Iran, and ISIS.

Having established your ideological sympathies, come clean locally. Which PC developer(s) are you fronting for in your little smear Holman campaign? we both know she voted agaibst most that came before the council in her term.

Don't be shy. Nancy Shepard, who's ad and image tops the page that I write this on, has infallibly supported any PC development. Why aren't you on her case?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 1, 2014 at 9:03 am

Craig Laughton is a registered user.

Karen Holman supported the historical homes campaign, until the people voted it down. She continues to support BMR mandates. I oppose both. Name some PC projects that include a significant BMR element that she has opposed.

In politics, both policies and smell tests matter, Curmudgeon. I have no business dealings with any real estate project, PC or not.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 am

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"I have no business dealings with any real estate project, PC or not."

Clever dodge attempt, easily sniffed out. I asked which developers you were fronting for, not which of their projects you were invested in. So name them.

Are they perchance the ones paying for that expensive glitzy ad at the head of this page that features Shepard's mugshot? You know, unlike Holman, Shepard has voted for every last PC that came up.

So let's hear it from ya for Shepherd.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 1, 2014 at 11:43 am

Craig Laughton is a registered user.

>Clever dodge attempt, easily sniffed out.

Go ahead and waste your time sniffing. There is no there, there. If you find something, please let us all know.

This thread is about Holman, not about Sheppard. I don't support anybody who votes, reflexively, for PC projects. However, I don't reject PC projects out of hand. I just want subsidized housing removed from consideration...and Holmam will never agree to do this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 2, 2014 at 12:02 am

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"This thread is about Holman, not about Sheppard."

Sheppard's paid-for mugshot atop this thread's page would seem to contradict that assertion.

BTW, who's paying for Sheppard's mugshot at the top of this thread's page? Could it be the PC developers she always votes for?

"I don't support anybody who votes, reflexively, for PC projects."

Good for you. You are therefore totally against Sheppard.

"I just want subsidized housing removed from consideration...and Holmam will never agree to do this"

Nor has/will Sheppard.

Face the facts, Laughton. Sheppard has voted for PC welfare housing all the way, and all other PCs too.

Dump Sheppard!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Craig Laughton is a registered user.

>Face the facts, Laughton. Sheppard has voted for PC welfare housing all the way, and all other PCs too.

I have never supported Sheppard. However, if she were to announce that she would no longer accept subsidized housing as a public benefit, I could then consider it...that would leave me to support or oppose any PC project she considers. Holman is a lost cause in this respect...she will support almost anything that includes significant subsidized housing; also, she tramples all over private property rights (e.g. the historical home fiasco).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:43 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

Was Holman on the council when it passed the historical preservation encouragement ordinance? Uh-uh.

Too bad it went down under a flood of misinformation. It could have saved a bunch of people from having to face that new MacMansion across the street every morning. I wonder how many of them wish they could revote.

Holman was way ahead of her time. I'm definitely voting for her. And definitely not for Sheppard.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm

Craig Laughton is a registered user.

>Was Holman on the council when it passed the historical preservation encouragement ordinance? Uh-uh.

It was not an "encouragement"...it was a hard and fast new zoning rule, which would have been a huge public taking of private property (including my own). She could care less about other peoples' private property rights. She is a real fright.

She wasn't on the council at the time, but she was there all the time pushing that fiasco. When the people revolted, and forced a vote, she and hers got deservedly defeated.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:42 am

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

Keep trying, Laughton, and eventually you will get something right.

And BTW, half-truths are not facts.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,287 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 2,310 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 2,251 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 23 comments | 1,749 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 8 comments | 705 views