Editorial: Stretching the Brown Act Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Sep 21, 2012 at 9:11 am
In the end, the idea of selling a small, seven-acre land-locked city-owned parcel in the foothills above Arastradero Preserve may have merit. It could bring the city some welcome revenue without any obvious negative impacts. But, alas, it's not that simple.
[Web Link Palo Alto mulls sale of land near Foothills Park]
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, September 21, 2012, 8:22 AM
Posted by Timothy Gray, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:07 am
This is a fair and balanced viewpoint that raises very valid questions about following principles of transparency and openess in City Government without criticism. Thank you Editor for the nice public service.
Remove the identities of both the city and the developer from the story and view it as an academic case study. The key principles are as follows:
1. Before any Government asset is considered for disposal, there should be a policy that is followed. Imagine what would happen to our City's assets if a piece of land was sold every time the Council didn't have the political will to exercise fiscal discipline and balance the budget?
2. Avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest is as valid as avoiding a conflict of interest. Even if the developer has a charitable and benevolent approach and offer, having both conversations going on at once shows, at the very least, a lack of judgement from the City. If they are linked, then let's package the conversations together and offer full disclosure.
3. And finally, even when viewing a benevolent proposal, from a developer who has a stellar charitable track record, we must apply an objective and consistent standard in valuing the price of piercing our skyline that we have so jealously protected, and awarding density credits. (How does it impact our jobs to housing balance, what is the value of community benefits we should expect, and how do the Citizen's want to spend that Community Benefit vs. being dictated by the project.?)
I appreciate that the Editor brings this to our attention, as the issues and principles can be applied to all project. The current proposal is just illustrative of the need for an objective standard of transparency and an objective standard of valuing and spending Community Benefit.
Timothy Gray (full disclosure: Palo Alto Council Candidate)
Posted by Wayne Martin, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:35 am
Unless there is a formalized procedure, or extant State law, that the City must follow when considering real estate matters, then the City is free to do what it wants—even if it seems like it flies in the face of openness, and transparency. So, is the Weekly going to call for a formalization of the City’s internal/external procedures, or just spin its wheels with another editorial that does not make much of a point?
Consider the possibility of all projects being posted on-line, with the name of the project manager, a description of the project and milestone dates for the project, so everyone can see what the City is doing, and when to expect to be able to provide public comment on these projects? Matters concerning real estate would be considered a project, so we would at least know which City employee is “calling the shots” on deals like this one—which may well have been decided behind closed doors before the public has the slightest idea what is going on.
Posted by Marcie, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm
We need to eliminate the public benefit portion of new projects otherwise Palo Alto will soon be full of looming buildings and way too much traffic. Presently developers can build anything they desire in Palo Alto.
Posted by Trying to understand, a resident of the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Marcie I think you mean eliminate the Planned Community zone. That is the big loophole the developers enjoy which allows them to build anything at all, they just use flowery language to describe what ends up big and ugly. They make additional millions of dollars using the PC zone.
Posted by Herb Borock, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2012 at 4:38 pm
The City Council Closed Session on September 18, 2012, for real estate negotiations regarding the 7.7 acre parcel next to the Oak Grove Group Picnic Area in Foothills Park was the second Closed Session the Council held for real estate negotions regarding this parcel.
On June 4, 2012, the Council also met in Closed Session on the same subject.
The newspaper's reporting of the upcoming discussions in Closed Session said the negotiations were with Arrillaga, but did not identify the property under discussion, because the Council's agenda description identified the parcel by its Assessor's Parcel Number, rather than by a text description that would have made the parcel's location next to Foothills Park obvious.
The September 14, 2012, newspaper report said, "The council plans to meet in a closed session for a property negotiation with John Arrillaga, who has proposed building a new office development and theater at 27 University Ave."
That description of the September 18, 2012, meeting identified who Arrillaga is, but it was vague about whether the property being discussed was at 27 University Avenue or some other place.
The June 1, 2012, newspaper report said, "The council will also meet with property negotiators to discuss the city’s negotiations with John Arillaga."
That description of the June 4, 2012, meeting did not identify the negotiations.
The Minutes of the June 4, 2012, City Council meeting are at: Web Link
Posted by SP, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Sep 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm
The Brown Act has pretty much been gutted anyway. The state legislature has defunded it, and since its a state mandate, local jurisdictions can ignore its posting requirements. There is a Change.org petition to restore it here: Web Link.
Posted by curmudgeon, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 pm
The Brown Act allows closed meetings when personnel issues are being discussed. Monetary compensation is a personnel issue. Therefore closed-door meetings in which the developer negotiates campaign contribution amounts with the council members do not violate the Brown Act.