Those of you who have read my posts on this forum will know how I feel about what was said last night, but it looks like it is full speed ahead with the fiber network and a whole new commission (environmental commission), to help, IMHO, the city council avoid having to make decisions with any sort of timelyness. Also it looks like PA has no infrastructure or budget problems since Kishimoto stated our cty is thriving.
Posted by Not so fast, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Thanks for pointing out that the entire speech was up--it was not when i posted my original comments. Nothing has changed for me--she put her rose-colored glasses on and gave the speech--really no difference between her talk and the talks by other mayors in the past.
Her talk makes me think even more that Palo Alto needs to move to a system where there is an elected mayor that is answerable to the voters and will PROVIDE LEADERSHIP for the city--not an "back room appointed" mayor who has a personal agenda to push for a year.
Posted by dott31, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I am not able to tune in to council meetings until shortly after 8:00 P.M. because of my husband's other interests. Last evening, when I did that, I learned that the council meeting had been adjourned shortly after 7:00 P.M. Had there actually been the mayor's "state of the city" speech that early? Were citizens given a chance to ask questions or respond, or will that opportunity come later? Does anyone know when replays of that council meeting are available on the local access channels? Our community has many elderly members who have lived and raised children here and paid taxes here for many years. Of course, our children have long ago completed school here; and their children are not enrolled in school here for various reasons, one big one being that their parents, even while residing in the general area, cannot afford homes wthin the PAUSD. Nevertheless, this is our community and we love it. We still play with our grandchildren at Mitchell Park and this summer will be there with a great-grandchild. But why in this most blessed of environments--starting with climate and ending with human kindness--must there be such opaqueness, even intrigue, in the machinations of our political bodies, one governing the city, the other governing the school district? A few weeks ago I was stunned to hear and read of a councilmember justifying travel expenses by the needs and desires of other communities to learn from us. Perhaps a better motivation would be for us to learn from communities who have struggled with far fewer priviliges and far greater problems and have survived.
Posted by David Lieberman, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Before the last council election I attended a candidate "coffee" for Kishimoto.
I commented that the retirement plan for city employees (90 percent of final salary at 55 with lifetime medical insurance) was unsustainable and would eventually lead to municipal bankruptcy if not altered. She replied that all of the cities financial problems had been "solved" by the council and everything was fine.
There was a time 20 or so years ago when the City Council was composed of people of real substance. Now we have empty heads on top of empty suits.
Posted by A concerned citizen, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2007 at 11:03 am
The most amazing omission from the speech was the lack of a comment on how to reduce CO2 and other pollutants from the air by commuters to the city, by city workers and others. This can be accomplished by reducing the commuter trips, estimated to be 60,000 each day, burning maybe 500,000 gallons of gas each day: Mandatory car pooling by the companies, bus service by the companies, if you are going to work in PALO ALTO live in Palo Alto and pay wages that allow that to happen. The city can mandate that all city vechiles be electric or natural gas. Require police and firefighters live in or very near the city and phase this in over a few years. Build low cost housing for many city workers within the city on city owned land. There are hundreds of acres suitable nearby for highdensity housing. The city can pressure Stanford build housing for a big part of the 30,000 workers as they have land nearby where this could happen