It's Klein, Price, Holman, Shepherd and Scharff Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:07 am
Palo Altans chose experienced community-involvement veterans over political neophytes Tuesday, electing Larry Klein, Gail Price, Karen Holman and Nancy Shepherd to the City Council by comfortable margins.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 1:44 AM
Posted by W.L., a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:16 am
I don't think so. Politician have always used labor to win elections.
and once in office they forget who help them. I am not worried that the workers will get all they want. I am worried that the streets will never get fixed. Or they will continue to cut down trees when ever they want!
Posted by Civitas, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:52 am
Too bad that the community did not write in Marvin, Wayne Martin, Pat, and Lineman for City Council. Along with Victor Frost, those four would have made real change happen at City Hall.
Posted by PA man, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:54 am
Ha! Saying experience won out covers up the real story. It was a one issue race, folks: Gender! Taking one spot out for shoe-in Larry Klein, women won 80% of the available council vacancies.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:55 am
Yes, too bad. You sound a bit bitter, Civitas. Do not tell me you actually are happy that some of those candidates won? With the re-election of Larry Klein and the addition of Karen Holman, we are in for more of the same
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 8:36 am
It's amazing that 350 people voted for Victor Frost. Who are those people? It would have been better for them to give him $25 each so he could be set up with food for a few years and stop harrasing passers-by for change. That would be a positive move.
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:01 am
Two out of the three City Council candidates whom opponents and right wingers here tried to label as Union Stooges because they accepted SEIU endorsments got elected. I don't consider Price and Shepherd to be such, but when a smear campaign fails......]
Meanwhile, what does Gail Price exactly mean when she is quoted as saying..
"Price, a former city planner in Sunnyvale, said she expects the contract dispute between city administration and the city's largest labor union to remain one of the most pressing issues of the coming year. She said she would like the city to create a joint committee of administration and labor leaders who could meet regularly to discuss compensation and other labor-related issues.
"We have a lot work to do here as far as maintaining relationships with the city employees," Price said."
So we have an imposed contract which has apparently not been responded to fully yet by SEIU/City Workers. We have a legal challenge to the CPA as regards their refusal to negotiate in good faith (and the area wide price fixing scheme provides evidence of such ala motive at least), and now this proposal by Council Member Price.
Is this an attempt to open real negotiations? Or an olive branch such that perhaps when the economy picks up even more that the previous benefits may be restored?
Otherwise it's kind of like a guy and gal got stranded on an island, they are rescued and the guy says "necessity mandated I rape her" and the judge then suggests that the guy and gal meet regularly to discuss gender issues.
Posted by George, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:19 am
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The voters in Palo Alto are truly insane. Our town in governed by left wing automatons. All that matters is how we feel about one another. There is no truth. Just a state of being. Kumbaiah. Green, peace, budget deficits, more unneeded city programs, higher taxes, green, peace, more programs, love, diversity, green buildings, green roads, green cars, green love, green air, green hair, green happiness, green bananas, and green deficits.
Posted by Chris, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:01 am
Great, no change, no new ideas, more debt, more poorly planned development in neighborhoods where council members do not live. I didn't agree with all of the views of the candidates, but I valued diversity. Apparently, we are not as liberal in considering new or diverse ideas as some elitist Palo Alto residents like to think. Operate within our means! Make the tough choices of cutting services and jobs while considering investment for the future!!!
Posted by Timothy Gray, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:26 am
Big Marketing budgets may have won the election, but we don't have to be the victim. The people are the government and we can collectively "govern from the outside in."
Here is a solid starting point that we can start singing as a "community chorus", and if enough people join the choir, we can drown out the noise of the special interest that want to keep tapping into our bank account.
It is time to inventory and then prioritize City programs and expenditures. Then reduce spending starting with the lowest priorities. Or...carry on business as usual where we bring up each service as a separate topic and discuss them in City Council meetings that will last late into the middle of the night and continue to let the vocal minority will get its way.
We must stop trying to patch the budget: we need structural spending decreases. Stop, inventory, prioritize, cut from the bottom of the list, and get on with good business practices that will restore balance. Combined this with restructured city employee benefits that are more aligned with private sector benefits, and we will break free from an endless financial crisis.
This clarity might be rejected by those who want to manipulate for the benefit of narrow interests. Let's have some real transparency. We cannot accept anything less.
Citizen Gray (formerly known as Candidate Tim Gray)
Posted by Timothy Gray, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:20 am
Palo Alto has been told to get its financial house in order before putting its hands in our pockets.
The message to live within our means is clear. This is the same message that big Foundations send to those requesting grants: "Prove your fiscal responsibility before we turn over additional money."
The bottom line: People will pay for added value, but they do not want funds used to make up for a lack of discipline. We cannot accept anything less than the City implementing long-term structural spending adjustments. Then, a well-crafted fee structure that is clear about the value created will be welcomed by the voters.
It is the same rule I apply to our children: the chores must be done before I will turn over the allowance. This is a well-tested standard.
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:42 am
"Palo Alto has been told to get its financial house in order before putting its hands in our pockets."
Nice try at spin, but the electoral facts hardly support such a stretch.
Ugh you went down in flames. While I hardly think the voting was a referendum per se, 2 out of the 3 candidates endorsed by AFL-CIO (SEIU?) won. And Corey Levins wasn't way down there on the list with you either. You beat Gaither and Weiss,... oh and Frost.
With all the fanfare whipped up about City Council candidates accepting SEIU endorsement, if your take on it had a shred of credibility then the winners and loser would be a bit different heh?
And when one reads the opposition to Measure A some if it purports to be because of the "bad writing", but the overall avalanche seems to be outright umbrage that business is taxed at all.
The analogy of CPA being the parents and the city workers being kids "asking" for an allowance (like the city "asked" the union for concessions) is a bit off. The city workers are adults and unionized workers.
Measure A failed AFTER the city launched it's official attempt to impose it's conditions. Measure A was never touted as something to pay city workers what they were striving to get in negotiations. Quite the opposite as the supporters of Measure A touted it as a way to justify their "negotiation" stance.
Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:48 am
Timoth Gray says, 'Here is a solid starting point that we can start singing as a "community chorus", and if enough people join the choir, we can drown out the noise of the special interest that want to keep tapping into our bank account.'
You're living in a dream world, Timothy. Many of us have been advocating for years to "...prioritize City programs and expenditures. Then reduce spending starting with the lowest priorities,..." as you recommend.
If anyone cared, if anyone was listening, do you think Klein would have been re-elected? Would Price and Shepherd have been elected? Both were in favor of the business tax and are supported by the unions.
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 12:21 pm
What is REALLY sad and shocking is that less than 10,000 residents voted out of a claimed 26K eligible voters. And some threw away a vote on Victor Frost . Why are so many so disinterested? Maybe they all feel from experience that it is so useless and the Council and City doesn't listen anyway. I'm beginning to finally think they are so right. "Civic engagement" is a sham.
Posted by Civitas, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for waking everyone up from dreams of harmony to face the harsh realities of disputation, Pat. Your comments are a bracing gust of brisk, stinging sea air through the porthole of the unworldy cruise ship, "Palo Alto Dream Voyage". Very harsh but very real too.
Posted by Low turnout, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm
"What is REALLY sad and shocking is that less than 10,000 residents voted out of a claimed 26K eligible voters." That's because more than 40% of the residents of PA are renters and they don't care.
Posted by Renters Do Vote, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Excuse me, "Low turnout", but we are a renter household of four voting-age individuals, and we all voted (as we do in every election). Just because one doesn't have enough money to buy a pricey Palo Alto house doesn't mean that one isn't civically engaged.
Posted by Evan, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Seriously "Low turnout"? Maybe you should stop judging so harshly. I'm a renter, and I vote in every single election. Just because I don't have the money to buy a $2m house in Palo Alto doesn't mean I don't do my civic duty, even in off years.
Posted by Miss the trees on CA Ave., a member of the Gunn High School community, on Nov 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Ah, this was a done deal of who was getting into the circle of high muckymucks in the City Council...Sorry to those of you who spent your money trying to vie for a seat....I would have liked to see Victor Frost in there as special advisor to the Council to shake up the bunch...but now I am betting that we will have an "All Agreeable" City Council where there will be no discussions, disagreements, just all the green lights voting for the same agendas..... Typical Palo Alto.
Posted by Marie, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Dan, I've never seen Victor Frost harassing anyone for change. He keep it to himself. He just hold his sings. I believe he would have gotten many more votes if the city did not blow his encounter with the other panhandler that apparenlty was trying to get money out of his bucket. The police showed up in no time for him... Incredible! Also the fact that he holds a place in Redwood city may have caused some problems for his campaign. He is a good man and no one can denny that he is a Palo Altan. Just too many side stories to divert his voters.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 3:14 pm
"City Manager James Keene said at Monday night's City Council meeting that staff is proposing to transfer $16.8 million from the utility funds to the general fund, down from an earlier plan to transfer $19.6 million, a surge of about $4.5 million above last year's transfer.
The higher transfer would help the city close the projected deficit of $8 million to $10 million in fiscal year 2010.
"This is a commonly used methodology," Keene said Monday, explaining the transfer.""
The utility fund will be manipulated to provide whatever mainey is needed to preserve services. With the current and newly elected council, you can bet on it.
For a short review of how these things happen, check out this city memo on the subject: Web Link
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I was wrong. According to yesterday's Palo Alto Weekly,
"Palo Alto has 36,300 eligible voters. About one-quarter of them opted not to vote by mail and had the chance to vote in person today." That means that the percentage of residents actually voting was less than I thought. That is really sad, sadder saddest. How do we fight back?
Posted by Civitas, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I think that somehow the clearcut of California Avenue trees, the shock and timinig of this action, contributed to a negative opinion by many voters of how wisely any new money raisd by Measure A would be spent. Fairly or unfairly, what was done on California Avenue could not have happened at a worse time for supporters of a new tax in Palo Alto.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I hope that Price and Shepherd are not SEIU stooges as implied in the Wednesday Dail Post article - page 19, first paragraph - "With the election of Price and Shepherd, the unions will have four of nine votes."
I'm an optimist and believe all council members will vote on the facts, not on their hidden biases. I know. I said I was an optimist.
Posted by Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Well, for sure Price and Shepherd must have won their election thanks to union money. The unions are the ones who paid for the mailers that apparently influenced voters... How about the lawn signs? Were they also union financed?
Are they now going to owe the unions? It would seem so.
It seems to me it will be business as usual in Palo Alto.
And probably there will be more taxes on us average citizens, if only in the form of higher utility rates, now that the business license tax was turned down.
Posted by Anon, a member of the Walter Hays School community, on Nov 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Not everyone votes on labor and union issues alone. There areca lot of other issues at stake in this town that people think about when voting. ABAG, HSR, city/school cooperation, etc.
Posted by chris, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 6:46 pm
The person who said fewer than 10,000 voted is way off. As of Wednesday afternoon, almost 15,000 ballots have been counted, and according to the Weekly, about 20% of the votes remain to be counted.
Posted by Mil, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Well we have to accept the outcome. The citizens of Palo Alto have spoken. The votes are final. As civic minded voters we could always ask for a recall election if we feel that the elected officials are not performing as expected or they are compromising their integrity. Do you remember what happened to Governor Davis? The citizenry always has the last word. This is called democracy.
Posted by WP, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm
"Well, for sure Price and Shepherd must have won their election thanks to union money." Well maybe, but Price and Shepherd were the only two women on the ballot and women tend to support other women which is the more likely reason they were elected.
We were all aware that at the last City Council election four men were elected, making Yoriko Kishimoto the only woman on the City Council. I know from talking with my female friends they wanted to get more women onto the City Council.
Posted by Jake, a resident of another community, on Nov 5, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Diamond's article is just her opinion, she's openly anti labor and anti union.
Contrary to her opinion, contributing money towards a candidates running for office does not buy votes.
At best labor just hopes that the elected official will at least meet with them when an important item comes up. Buying face time at best.
Were not talking huge dollars here in peoples pockets. After the Council term is over, Labor or the Union does not have some $300,000 a year job waiting for the former Council member.
Not like corporate America, where shady deals occur every day. Thats where one is more inclined to see integrity problems.
Posted by Peter K. MUELLER, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2009 at 12:07 pm
The voter turn-out of just under 40% deserves analysis by writers of Palo Alto OnLine.
I recall reading somewhere that in the first democracy thousands of years ago in Athens, Greece, only about 30% of the population was allowed to vote because the others had the status of slave. We put ourselves figuratively into such a position when we dont vote.
On the other hand, to participate as a responsible voter requires substantial time commitments to study the issues and the candidates independently. To really understand the background and character of 15 candidates is a major task among all of our other obligations. For most citizens to devote that much time requires giving up minimally several hours of entertainment and relaxation.
If we cant devote that much time, is it better to vote simply on the basis of vague perceptions or is it wiser to not vote & simply rely on our fellow citizens who do trouble to study and thereby avoid inadvertently doing harm?
I personally did study several hours, exercised judgement and voted. I am also among those who would have preferred a greater fraction of new faces among the experienced slate voted in this time. Nevertheless, we did get a group of dedicated individuals who deserve our respect, trust, attention and comments during the course of their tenure of service to us.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
