Search the Archive:

Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Publication Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Mr. Justman goes to City Hall? Mr. Justman goes to City Hall? (October 15, 2003)

Candidates' innocent appearance could be big advantage in council race

by Bill D'Agostino

With his oversized glasses and childlike middle name, Harold "Skip" Justman is the most "aw-shucks" candidate in this year's Palo Alto City Council campaign.

At a time when the sitting council is viewed as lacking civility, his "gee-whiz" demeanor could be the challenger's biggest advantage. Like many in the community, Justman has made no secret about the embarrassment he feels watching the current council quarrel. But he's not a cream puff either.

According to those who have known him for a long time, bickering is not Justman's style. "He is someone who is incapable of engaging in Machiavellian, mean-spirited, backroom politics," said former mayor Gary Fazzino.

The two attended Palo Alto High School in the 1960s and served on the school's student government. This is Justman's second attempt to win a seat on the City Council; the first was in 1977, the same year Fazzino won a seat on the elected body.

Fazzino sees his former schoolmate and competitor in a "Mr. Justman goes to City Hall" light. The candidate's early campaign postcards -- featuring glossy photos of him with his elderly mother, children and wife -- only added to this Capraesque image.

"There's an innocence to them," Fazzino said. "It's not slick. It's not Sacramento. It's not Palo Alto, 1990s."

On the backside of the postcard featuring Justman's mother, Norma, she included a statement. "I am 87 and depend on my son, Harold 'Skip' Justman to handle all my tax returns and other paperwork," she wrote. "Skip is a big help to me." The candidate got his nickname when he taught sailing at Stanford. Originally, "Skipper," the name got shortened to "Skip."

The candidate isn't a softie, however. An early newspaper campaign advertisement -- where Justman quoted two editorials criticizing fellow candidates LaDoris Cordell and Councilwoman Nancy Lytle -- led some to believe he is not above Palo Alto's divisive politics-as-usual.

Justman, a former real estate columnist for the Weekly, also has strong words for City Manager Frank Benest, who he views as ineffective because the city has not laid off any workers during the current economic downturn. But 40 positions have been cut through attrition, Benest has said.

"It's just obscene not to recognize that you have to lay people off," Justman said. "It is just living in a state of denial."

Like one of his supporters, attorney and council critic Richard Alexander, the budget has been Justman's signature issue. "Money has been wasted," Justman said.

As a result, "Palo Alto has just deteriorated," he said. "It just is unfortunate that more of the city's revenues aren't directed toward keeping our city looking like the world-class place that it is."

What prompted Justman to run for council again this year was the fact that his neighborhood -- known as University South -- has yet to receive a new park, as the city promised a few years ago.

"That really bothered me that that wasn't done," he said.

On the campaign trail, he has been prominently promoting the idea that the planning department's budget needs to be reduced by $3 million.

In the mid-1990s, Justman got into a public wrangle with that department when he applied to remodel a deck at his mother's home. Because the house was included in the city's historic preservation ordinance, he initially could not renovate the deck.

Eventually, he prevailed (thanks to a vote by Fazzino, among others) and became a moderate and calm voice in the otherwise contentious debate over historic preservation.

Still, Justman's proposal to dramatically slash the planning department's $8.8 million budget is a dicey prospect, given that much of that spending is recovered by fees paid by those applying to build or remodel their property.

By limiting the department's budget, Justman hopes planning applications can be processed faster. Plus, he said the city is letting long-range studies run out of control.

Besides, he said, the studies don't really resolve the disputes that arise around hot-topic real estate decisions, such as 800 High St., a condominium project located in his neighborhood.

"I don't care how many consultants and studies you had on 800 High, there was still going to be a political fight" over the size and height of the project, Justman said.

The 61-unit project is the center of a citywide November ballot measure. The University South Neighborhood Association opposes the project and a few neighbors led the campaign to get the referendum placed on the ballot. But Justman -- who briefly was president of the organization -- approves of 800 High, and will be voting in favor of it in November.

"If there's a place in Palo alto where density and a little urbanization is appropriate, it's downtown," he said.

Justman's decision to oppose 800 High St. has caused some bad blood in his neighborhood. And apparently, so was the way he ran the neighborhood association.

"He tried very hard to do the thing right, but I don't think he understood the nature of the organization he was apart of," said current president Elaine Meyer, who in opposed to 800 High St.

"He's a nice man but he had no idea about how to handle our finances," Meyer added. "He spent money as though we were a wealthy organization," purchasing newspaper advertisements for meetings, among other things, "without realizing he was about to break the bank."

Justman reimbursed the group for lost funds with his own money, Meyer said.

"To me, it didn't seem like that big a deal," said Paul Kelleher, a member of the neighborhood association's board. Justman, he said, "helped us out in a time of need" by taking the post.

E-mail Bill D'Agostino at bdagostino@paweekly.com


 

Copyright © 2003 Embarcadero Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or online links to anything other than the home page
without permission is strictly prohibited.