Posted by Maggie, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Stephen Stuart has been a valued Palo Alto community volunteer for two decades, helping design and build the successful Palo Alto dark fiber network. He was instrumental in developing the Palo Alto Internet Exchange (PAIX) where over 70 Internet providers peer. He is a long time volunteer to the Media Center and helped design the I-Net which Comcast acquired to serve municipal buildings, schools in four districts, and the Media Center. Unbeknownst to most, Mr. Stuart also helped establish a non-profit which donated the equipment and services to interconnect Palo Alto municipal buildings and services to the Internet.
He did so without payment or public thanks for nearly two decades. This is a good citizen, any way you look at it.
Unfortunately, other city actions frustrated Mr. Stuart enough to reduce his passion for continuing his significant contributions to the city's Internet connection.
It can happen to any one of us who feel passionately about community issues. It is gratifying to see a more moderate approach is being taken to resolve this challenging situation.
Posted by Wondering, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Wondering what caused this change of plans. Perhaps the ISC did not want stuart speaking for them or maybe they realized their tax exempt status may be in danger or maybe they, like me, found stuarts actions childish and reprehensible. Either way the city should sever all ties with the ISC quickly. Mr stuarts attempts to bully the city have failed. Good.
Posted by henry, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Mr. Stuart, Thank you for 17 years of internet service to the City. I hope things will work out for you at the end of this fiasco. There must be a commercial or city property where AT&T can locate a cell tower. The tremendous profit from rent in the amount of thousands of dollar should not go to a non-profit organization. If it is making this much of money, then it should pay tax and contribute to our government like the other companies and common citizen like us.
Posted by Concerned Citizen, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
There should be no one citizen or entity, given power to control the whole city to the point that decisions are requested that are not in the best interest of ALL citizens.
I'm glad this was brought to public attention, albeit through Mr. Stuart's attitude of sour grapes. I attended the meeting held at the Church, and felt the officials, and the citizens that spoke that were educated in the towers field, spoke wisely and they used FACTS.
Whereas, I felt the cell phone tower people were just not being heard by the cell phone foes; they were rudely treated & accusations that were totally unfounded were hurdled against the church then, &
later, and by a handfull of irate bullies.
Twenty years of his service ought to be recognized and applauded. But a lot of citizens have given twenty years and even more than that, to Palo Alto, all for no thanks and for no recognition.
Having an "in" at the city ought not imply that he (or others like him) can bully the city into doing whatever they wish. All decisions must be made with accurate data, and in the best interest of the whole community.
There needs to be transparency, accountability, communication, and trust among all the parties at the City, Council and the general public. Who knew "civic engagement" was being done like this, 17 years ago.
The City should be paying its own bills, and not become beholden to any one person, in the event he/she gets into a snit, takes their marbles and goes home, like what happened now.
That's no way to run a city. It should serve as an example of what NOT to do- putting all the city's eggs in one basket, and being at the mercy of one person: not a wise move. Live & learn.
Congratulations to all the parties that got together quickly, and to resolve this equitably; so far, sanity has prevailed.
Posted by happy ending, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 11:46 am
This is wonderful news all around in my opinion:
-The City becomes someone's contractually paying customer for services provided(hopefully ISC's if it works for them, with appreciation for past services rendered gratis, over the Evil AT&T near-monopoly)
-AT&T, after a protracted battle, gets to serve its paying customers after a transparent and open regulatory process in which science and respect for the Commons triumphed
-Anyone who lent any marbles out gets them back to squirrel away in their toybox.
Questions: Since true "free stuff" is rare without strings, especially when it must cost to provide, and apparently no one wrote anything down, was the "free service" some quid pro quo for other issues (test bed for a new technology?) at the time this started?
Posted by JT, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Itís suspicious to me how Stuart, who says heís just a ďvolunteerĒ at ISC, can make a decision like this on behalf of ISC. Isnít there a board of directors or an executive director? ISCís website is vague. The newspapers say the ISC people won't return reporters' calls.
And what justification does a nonprofit have in making a decision simply because one of its volunteers is worried the real estate value of his home might be reduced? It seems Stuart is using the nonprofit for his own personal purposes. Iím going to contact the IRS and see if a nonprofit can keep its tax exempt status when it is used for personal purposes like this.
Posted by Forget about it, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Stuart claims his home value will decrease, but does her provide prof proof? Claiming home price will decline its a tried and true scare tactic. The real question is does the city have the obligation to protect the home value for an owner. If something done for the public good leads to decreased property values, should the project be abandoned in order that the home owner maintains his investment. On another note there are many questions raised by ISC and stuarts actions that need answering.
Posted by paly observer, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:34 am
Stephen Stuart and Tru Love are self serving and manipulative. They took a good thing they were doing as community service and spit all over the concept of 'service'. Community service is about giving without taking back. By expecting a quid pro quo roll-over from the city on their ill conceived and factually groundless objection to an essential community infrastructure project they acted as arrogant nouveau riche are stereotypically expected to act. Tru is particularly egregious though, being both belligerent and ignorant. Sort of like a drunken fool without even needing to take a drink, it's sadly just a permanent state. Thank goodness they moved to Los Altos, and good riddance. It won't be long before they are picking fights there too, so brace yourself, Los Altans.