Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2007 at 9:18 am

Change most definitely is happening in Palo Alto. I see the problem more as the fact that whatever the change, 50% of the residents will not like it and 50% will not think it has gone far enough or has changed in the "wrong" direction. This is not exclusive to Palo Alto. Worldwide, changes happen, and there is always dissension about it. What makes Palo Alto different, is (a) there are always a vocal group who make so much noise that they can actually stop progress e.g. Alma Plaza and (b) there is always very good arguments as to why a change is good or bad e.g. MI.

Is this good or bad for Palo Alto? Once again, some will argue yes and some no. Face up to it, it is what makes Palo Alto what it is. One could argue that you can't change PA from the PA way and that just may be the only change around here that you can't make.

There are some changes we would all like to make and what I would like to make different is probably very different from the next guy. So, Palo Alto, will continue to be just what it is, if you like it, great and if you don't, wait a bit and see what happens next.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Ms. Noguchi found someone to use the old, tried and true method in for "diss"ing people she disagrees with, and his name is Der.

He characterized anyone who disagreed with HIM as being "individuals" (which sounds so much smaller than a group), who had a "tone of resentment", ( demonstrating to anyone who read and listened to everything that he cherry picked who he chose to represent) "against the changing face of Palo Alto", (implying that they were all issues concerning what the "face" of Palo Alto looks like, versus what the "policies" of Palo Alto look like, which is a subtle form of name calling), asserted that these individuals "fear change" ( which means there are no other valid reasons to oppose something "new") and finished with the great assertion about "reality" ( because obviously those who oppose turning us into a baby San Francisco school district are living in another world, and those who like it are living in reality).

He revealed a lot about himself in this finely crafted statement, and I don't like who I saw. Respectfully disagreeing is fine, but not this way. I guess he is a politician through and through.

Posted by another parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm

OK Resident, whichever one you are. It would be great for you to respond based on your differing view from Der's instead of just dissing him. That is:

1. You imply that individuals disagree with him. Well, what if it's a large group? Does majority rule always "win"? What about the rights of minority votes? And I don't mean ethnic minorities.

2. I believe it's fair to say that some people who disagree (perhaps individuals) are resentful. Do you see the rose-colored happy smiles everywhere? Change can draw strongly differing emotions. It's how to channel that emotion constructively instead of denying it's there.

3. Sorry, I don't understand your comment about name calling. I also don't understand your difference between the "changing face of Palo Alto" and the "changing policies of Palo Alto". Do you mean that one exists and the other doesn't, or one is right and the other wrong? Please explain.

4. OK, do you like "dislike change" better than "fear change"?

5. I don't understand your reality/San Francisco school district comment. Are you saying that Palo Alto school district could *never* change into San Francisco school district? Are you saying that Palo Alto school district could *never* change? Do you see any way that Palo Alto school district *might* shift towards being more like San Francisco school district? Have you closed your minds to the possibilities?

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Just pointing out a masterful way of biasing first time readers who have no clue about the "rest of the story". Those of us who know the full history don't care what anyone says, we know the full story. I care about the REST of the folks who read this for the first time and draw assumptions.

Let me "bias" it the other way to make my point.

" It doesn't speak well for the Palo Alto community if there is an underlying tone of resentment against the integrated face of Palo Alto. These individuals who fear integration need to get on with it and deal with reality"

This bias is as awful as the original. I would resent someone who spun the story this way as much as I did the original quote, even though there is a little tiny bit of truth in it for a few folks, as much as there is a little tiny bit of truth in the original statement. It would be unfair, and anyone reading this in big quotes for the first time would draw as absurd and inaccurate conclusions about Palo Alto as from the original quote.

That is my point.

Posted by another parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2007 at 5:41 pm

OK, so is this unbiased:

"It doesn't speak well for any community if there is an underlying tone of resentment against the changes that face that community. The individuals who dislike change need to get on with it and deal with the reality of change happening."

What do you mean by substituting "integrated" and "integration" into the quote?

From Wikipedia:

Integration is a process of combining or accumulating