City Council to review Sister Cities program
Original post made on Aug 11, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, August 11, 2013, 5:16 PM
on Aug 11, 2013 at 7:41 pm
"Leverage our existing relationships", "add new ones", "enhance our position in the global marketplace". The next sentence in the City staff report might as well read "pump up the demand for office space". As far as "technology sharing" among companies, why would the City be involved in any way in that area? Anybody out there have any thoughts about any of this?
on Aug 12, 2013 at 8:52 am
> Staff lauded Neighbors Abroad's significance, saying it
> provided cultural, educational and ambassadorial benefits.
It also seems to be providing some people prone to fantasy cushy jobs on the City payroll.
> Topics of discussion could include energy efficiency,
> cloud computing, interactive digital arts and gaming,
> nanotechnology, biotechnology and medical devices,
> sustainable development, "smart" cars and renewable energy.
While these topics are all "hot", and will doubtless be the focus of hundreds of billions of dollars of private, and possibly general government, investment--none of these topics are relevant to the role of local governments.
Some of these topics might be appropriate for State-level governments to be investigating, but small, poorly managed governments like Palo Alto, after its stellar performance with projects like Mitchell Park, should renew its efforts to mind its own business, and get the streets paved, and trying to find efficiency of scale by working with neighboring governments to reduce costs.
What the employees of the City of Palo Alto, or its elected City Council, can add to the investigations of nanotechnology defies the imagination.
on Aug 12, 2013 at 11:09 am
It has already been established by the Secretary of State Clinton in her closing speech the problem of technology transfer between the US and China, all else is a top level government issue. Palo Alto, as a small city government, is not technically competent to encroach into this subject and has no authority to do so. You have nothing to sell. Collaboration on these topics resides in private companies and universities. Stanford is equipped to handle this on their own terms as are the private companies -they are doing just fine. Palo Alto is not Stanford. Palo Alto is re-thinking the cost of maintenance of infrastructure as a bond issue or extra tax. Reconsider what the city is doing bottom line - all actions requiring funding, and print that so the public can see the whole picture. Put a priority on the whole list - the public will tell you what needs to go.