Town Square

Post a New Topic

Manager's house?

Original post made by Walter_E_Wallis on Mar 6, 2009

So the council is going to dip back into the housing market for our new manager. I suggest, instead, that a portion of the unfinished third floor of City Hall be remodeled into a manager's residential suite, replete with all the goodies. We might even find room to house other department directors there, to hold down their commuting carbon footprint. Our President has the White House, California used to have Governor's mansion until Reagan refused to live in it, and isn't New York's Mayor ensconced in Gracie Mansion? Can we do less for our Worthy Manager?

Comments (11)

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm

It was Gerry Brown who refused to live in the mansion which Reagan had built, he lived in an apartment and slept on a mattress on the floor.

Reagan loved opulence; Brown preferred simplicity. Republicans revere Reagan and revile Brown.


Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community
on Mar 6, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Good idea. Isn't the 3rd floor the floor that houses the Utilities Department?

I suspect there will be lots of new free space on the 3rd floor after the completion of the DOT investigation.


Posted by Just Kidding, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 6, 2009 at 4:26 pm

In the past there has been talk of rebuilding the police garage with space to detain adults, juveniles and evidence storage, how about that for our new City Manager!!!


Posted by BMR & A Bike, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 6, 2009 at 4:47 pm

I had suggested this as soon as he was hired.
Since he has not lasted long managing other cities, I suggest the city put him up in BMR housing, cut the travel allowance, and buy him a bike. (Walmart $50.00). If he stays for 5 years, than we can consider subsidizing a home for him. This will give him incentive to work hard to stay. Unfortunately, I think his contract has been signed.

He seems like a nice guy, and I hope he does stay.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 6, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Reagan said, accurately, the old mansion was a fire trap. Brown rode around in a Plymouth, but with a driver. Brown proved women had truly arrived when he demonstrated that incompetent women had just as much right to a government job as incompetent men. Gianturko and Bird did more damage to California's economy than would an invading army.


Posted by Jim, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 6, 2009 at 9:01 pm

The city should buy the home. Rent it to the City Manager and then sell it when he moves or when the housing market jumps up.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 7, 2009 at 3:25 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Or, perhaps, the city might decide that if he can't manage his own housing he sure can't manage a city.


Posted by fireman, a resident of another community
on Mar 7, 2009 at 8:08 am

Why would this be edited.

The city buys a home, You are the city manager you live in it.

You are not the city manager anymore, You move out of it. That is not too hard?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 7, 2009 at 8:26 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

That sounds reasonable, fireman. That's why it will never fly.


Posted by Anna, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Fireman and Walter are right: what in the world makes anyone think we should BUY the manager a house??! Last time I looked, the manager was getting well north of $200000/yr. Not enough to buy the biggest house in town, but plenty to buy something - particularly if the guy has been in the real estate market in Berkeley.

And he can always rent. Why is this considered a hardship? Plenty of people do it. This is just a way to pad these guys' salaries.

With all the benefits and perks these guys get, I bet the city is paying the equivalent of $500,000/year for its manager. We are such suckers here in town!


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The council routinely uses their position to advance their own social theories, and routinely hires managers who share that progressive view of the function of city governments. This is the ethical equivalent of tapping petty cash for lunch, or abusing secretaries. Who said "To hell with the law, ain't I got the power?" reflected a council that has no problem with interposition either toward the State and Federal governments or toward individual choice. They are like a mother who sings to her baby but won't change the diaper.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Services, Dining and Shopping Downtown in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 2,053 views

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 1,697 views

It's the End of the World as We Know It: "Snowpiercer"
By Anita Felicelli | 1 comment | 1,385 views

What is the new couple's paradigm these days?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,033 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 916 views