Posted by Beth Guislin, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 7:44 am

I appreciate the Open City Hall / Peak Democracy civil forum for thoughtful discussion. The choice to be semi-anonymous or identified is a welcome feature. I would not want an anonymous forum. The feedback to the City in this forum represents what I think are views held by more City residents I know than the feedback/opinions expressed on anonymous forums.

Having the relevant documents readily available is another good feature of Open City Hall. This forum allows residents to hear each others views in advance of a Council meeting, and allows Council members to read comments before the meeting as well.

The City Council agendas are sent out to Open City Hall participants about two days before the meeting, and responses due by noon the day of the meeting. If agendas were sent earlier, and response deadlines were earlier, the service might have increased use.

You can view Open City Hall at Web Link

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 7:49 am

This is a good idea even in its limited uses. (What other uses do those other cities use it for?) However, it needs to be better advertised - even listed here with a headline and a link. I used it a couple of times when it first started, then completely forgot about it as I was never reminded of it.

Better publicity would definitely help.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 7:56 am

If I thought the Open City remarks had any impact on the City Council, I'd use it more often.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of another community, on Nov 3, 2009 at 8:19 am

Agree that anonymous forum comments are generally useless.

Posted by arnold wihtol, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 9:12 am

$200 per year for this"forum"? Good investment even if only 1 idea leaks through.

$270K FOR MISSHAPEN CONCRETE BLOCKS ??? !!!

IS THE COUNCIL REALLY DETERMINED TO PROVE THEIR CREDULITY?

Posted by It's only money, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 9:34 am

Of course they're going to keep it - it's only money and they've got lots of that.

Also last night a majority of the City Council wanted to go ahead and spend thousands on building trails and developing parkland at Bixbee Park (the City dump). Why, because they've got lots of money to waste on such projects. This decision has, however, been delayed for a couple of months awaiting a report.

But the attitude of City Council is still spend, spend, spend.

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 9:40 am

This council never had any credulity.

Beth, how is “semi-anonymous” different from anonymous? Here on Town Square a person is identified by a name and neighborhood. On Open City Hall, “semi-anonymous” just shows a poster’s city.

Ironic that a poster on Open City Hall says, “I just found out about the existence of this forum on Paloaltoonline.com. Until now I never knew it existed.”

Since Barton thinks this is “a relatively inexpensive item,” maybe he’d like to fund it out of his personal budget. Council members are very free with our money.

But if you really want to see how they waste big bucks, how about the $8.8 million the utilities department spent to do online billing? AND – it’s got so many glitches that “…the department has retained additional workers to deal with the flood of calls. Staff also asked the council to approve an additional $223,725 to resolve a list of "post-implementation issues" Web Link

Posted by Joop Verbaken, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Hello All,

First Beth thanks for adding the link to Open City Hall Web Link because that was missing.

It is a pity that the Council Agenda are so late available and people can not yet start giving their input on the subjects and vote.

Monday Nov 9th: 801 Alma Affordable Family Housing Project

will be on the agenda.

The Neighborhood with the help of all of you will ask the Council to put the project back in the Planning and Transportation Commission for proper review and do not give a "fast track" process to Eden Housing.

Please Sign the Petition on: www.801Alma.com

and support your neighbors and make sure that density, parking, schools and zoning issues are handled according to the process we have in place.

Posted by Half Baked, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Joop-- aren't you a resident of 800 High Street? don't you think it is a bit hypocritical to oppose the development at 801? Looks like PA NIMBYism at it's finest

Posted by Joop Verbaken, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Hello Previous blogger,

We, people in 800 High and in the SOFA 2 neighborhood are supporting the affordable housing, but it needs to meet the SOFA 2 zoning regulations and current parking and traffic issues in our Neighborhood.

This forum might not be the best to discuss this further.

I invite you to go to our web site Web Link and read what we like to see happen: a reduced well integrated affordable housing Project that follows the Palo Alto process for zoning. We

Let us know in our Blog on Web Link what your views are.

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 8:42 am

I am suspicious of a forum where the topics are chosen by staff from the City Manager's office. Topic selection is biased to begin with; it is typically north Palo Alto centric.

Also, the Peak Democracy webpage is so difficult to access. It takes passwords and far too many clicks. Why wasn't it designed like Town Square which is so easy to access?