Town Square

City misspending money

Original post made by common sense, Midtown, on Mar 1, 2013

The City Council & City Manager have been crying poverty when it comes to the city budget; here's what they are spending this week:

This story contains 247 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 1, 2013 at 11:31 pm

Are you surprised, common sense? I am not. this is business as usual for the council-- consultants, unneeded street stuff to appease the car haters, lawyers and " green" stuff.
Doesn't matter who is on the council, we get the same BS. Of course they will have plenty to at themselves over.

Like this comment
Posted by Knew it
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 2, 2013 at 9:02 am

I suspected this "poverty plea" of the city was just BS for a long time. My brother worked in city financial management for years, and told me the city and its schools we're rolling in dough. He said it was a dull job because there were no financial challenges. He quit and got a job working for the city of SF ( more challenging and paid better, to boot ).

Like this comment
Posted by paly parent
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 2, 2013 at 9:05 am

@Common sense (love the name!)

If the City is truly planning on trying to pass a bond, they need to show focus and restraint in their current spending. As Marrol says, needs not wants.

We don't need a bike bridge, we do need smooth, pot-hole free City streets.
We need fireman and police officers, we don't need a Children's Theater paid for by the City.

Until I see common sense spending by our City on ONLY needs, I will never vote to give them more money. Once the needs aka as backlog of infrastructure spending and safety issues are taken care of, THEN we can consider the more frivolous or feel good projects.

Like this comment
Posted by Knew it
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 2, 2013 at 9:14 am

One would think that the city council would be ashamed and embarrassed by all the potholes, crumbling bridges and streets, etc, especially since they all live here. Visitors to our home from out of state or out of the country are shocked when they learn how much a home and taxes here cost, and then see the decrepit infrastructure. This embarrasses the hell out of me and most other decent people here.

Apparently, it is just no fun to spend money on necessities. It is so much more glamorous to spend it on silly stuff that isn't really needed. Why do we have such CHILDISH people in charge???

Like this comment
Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 2, 2013 at 9:35 am

Also note that all these council members have been endorsed by the weekly. They seem to have a symbiotic relationship.

Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 2, 2013 at 10:49 am

Do you folks realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg!!! You are going to have sticker shock when the infrastructure bond measure is put on the ballot.

The word "infrastructure" is a catch-all word for much more that just the basics. How about $10. Million for on-going maintenance at Cubberley which will be conveniently hidden behind the word "infrastructure."

I'm sure by the time the infrastructure needs of the City get to the ballot there will be many other "hidden" fees put on that ballot measure. Just watch what you're voting for.

Like this comment
Posted by Midtown resident
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 2, 2013 at 11:12 pm

I want to add another ridiculous example of misspending - back in November Palo Alto Public Works department decided to remove my perfectly healthy Japanese maple in my front yard (city easement) and plant a Chinese pistachio instead without any notice and while we were away. Mr.Segna, the city arborist, gave the following explanation for the decision: "the crown of Chinese pistachio is wider and it gives more shade". It took the Public Works department a month to investigate the situation and in the end all they offered was "if your Japanese Maple does not survive after you plant it in another place, the City will replace it with a new tree". Noone in Palo Alto Public works department took responsibility for spending public money on such a ridiculous action.