Steve,

Thanks for setting the record straight. Are you suggesting that the CAC itself was full of conflict, and that the Council actually did its job by making some decisions after hearing public input? Crazy! Recall them now!

Thank you Mr Levy for setting the record straight. I think the editorial by Mr. DuBois was a clear effort to try to polarize our community where there is actually a lot more consensus than not. Not sure why Mr. DuBois felt the need to offer "alternative facts".
I've gone to many CAC meetings and watch the Council deliberations on TV and felt that the meeting last Monday evening was a great attempt to offer flexibility to the Comp Plan and actually found the different votes refreshing in that there weren't that many 5-4 votes.
I think Mr. DuBois should clarify or retract his editorial - and if he doesn't then the editorial board should. There's no place for "alternative facts" in Palo Alto.

I was watching from home too and agree that the Weekly's reporting was completely off. Everyone should go back and watch the tape because what I saw was a Council that was more functional and less divisive than in recent past. DuBois' editorial reads simply as setting the stage for a reelection campaign and doesn't represent what actually transpired. Thank you Steve Levy for setting the record straight!

The op-ed by Mr. Dubois is really absurd. He complains about the "undermining of democracy?"

-- He, Ms. Holman, Mr. Filseth and Ms. Kou upturned decades of precedent by campaigning as a "slate", which led to this year's polarizing election (where that same gang received $130K from 5 local families, further undermining our democratic process).
-- After personally complaining about the composition of the PTC and CAC, he and his erstwhile majority packed both bodies with their allies.
-- After survey after survey indicated that Palo Alto's most pressing problem is the cost of housing, he and his "slate" kept housing off the agenda for two years
-- Now, he writes a misleading op-ed complaining about being on the losing side of several land-use related votes

I am so thankful that someone is keeping track and setting the record straight. Furthermore, I am happy that this council appears to be serious about drafting a Comprehensive Plan that will serve us well in the future.

Thank you Mr. Levy, for your clarity and courage. You were a true direct witness to what occurs at the CAC and Mr. Dubois was not and yet makes grand statements about what the CAC does and the Comprehensive Plan is or was meant to be. Not acceptable on his part. I thought the "Opinion" by Mr. DuBois was horribly polarizing and full of invective for no good reason. I also reacted by thinking "alternate facts". If he disagrees with a position of his fellow Councilmen and Council women, and feels he is not getting his way, he could do so with rational, civil discourse. Instead he blasts insults,, personal attacks at those who don't agree with him. Truly unnecessary Mr. DuBois. Don't create a civil war or provoke just to get attention.

It always amazes me that people can't see any viewpoint other than their own. Two people watching the same events unfold see totally different things occurring depending upon their perspective. (portion removed) Ask yourself ... Do you think people would be upset about what happened at the council meeting if all the decisions made were totally reasonable and ideologically neutral?

(portion removed)

Disagreeing with statements is not equivalent to correcting misstatements. To be honest, you are only contrasting your judgements against the editorialist's judgements.

@Dan and Curmudgeon

There is what is called the Rashomon effect named after the famous 1950 movie by Akira Kurosawa that tells the different perceptions of people viewing the same event.

So people can disagree on whether the meeting members were reckless hijackers.

BUT

My blog is mostly about facts that were misstated such as

The council overturned a CAC consensus. That is contradicted by the CAC meetings and by the fact that the CAC offered CHOICES on key items to the council. If there was consensus there would have been no need for choices. So that charge is FALSE on the facts.

The charge that the CAC favored keeping the 50 foot height limit is FALSE on the facts. The most votes were given to choices that favored some exceptions to the height limit.

The charge that votes were mainly 5-4 is FALSE on the facts including the vote I cited where removing the height limit from the Comp Plan was 6-3 with council member Filseth joining the majority and the many 8-1 and 9-0 votes.

Similarly the charge that the CAC had a consensus favoring specific performance requirements and that the council disrespected the CAC work by eliminating them is FALSE on the record.

These are not disagreements on the behavior of members> these are as stated corrections of inaccurate factual allegations.

Disagreements will remain about the best course for the city to take but these are different issues from correcting what actually was the CAC position on the issues voted on Monday and incorrectly characterizing the number of times the votes were 5-4.

It is also true that on most land use policies the CAC was in consensus and their recommendations were adopted. On Monday the areas where there was no consensus were the focus of the meeting as was appropriate since the areas of agreement did not need to be discussed at length.

Not liking the outcome of a vote or meeting is different from and should not be confused with blaming or mis characterizing the process.

I have deleted comments about the best approach to growth in Palo Alto. That is another topic and I am happy to write another blog on that topic.

This blog is about Monday's meeting and the Weekly editorial and op ed.

A portion of Dan's comment and Curmudgeon's comment speak to that issue and remain posted.

A portion of Dan's comment that was deleted speculated on the motives and actions of some council members about future decisions. Another post was completely off topic and has been posted probably 40 times on the main Weekly Town Square.

"There is what is called the Rashomon effect named after the famous 1950 movie by Akira Kurosawa that tells the different perceptions of people viewing the same event."

Precisely. That's why I contest the claim of divine objectivity implied by your "Correcting Some Misstatements..." phraseology in this thread's headline. As your movie citation illustrates, it is unjustifiable.

Steve, thanks for your public service on the CAC (and IBRC) and for clarifying the recommendations and options that the CAC submitted to Council. Alternative facts and polarization should be avoided wherever and whenever they arise. Doing the hard work of long term planning is challenging enough without dragging the public into the mud. It is interesting to observe the elusive nature of a Vision to carry the city through 2030 that acknowledges the inevitability of certain changes that are happening all around Palo Alto. Perhaps the Council agenda should begin with public engagement and vigorous debate about the Vision, rather than dancing around the central question and leaving it for last.

I think we're on the right track. Keep things that could change, for good reasons, out of the Comprehensive Plan. Let current conditions prevail as direction CC should take on many issues going forward. Identifying specific programs like they are cast in concrete shouldn't be the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan in my opinion. Flexibility is required. I often wonder what value there is in having a Comprehensive Plan. Hasn't the current one been violated many times?

I mentioned this before: If you want to see examples of forward thinking and ways to handle both an aging population and provide housing for the future, Englewood, Colorado might give everyone a chance to see how this planning actually works! Using Google, you can learn how long the future planning started and how things unfolded. Their planning WORKED. And you can see the Mountains to the West....

I attended a few CAC meetings and agree that it offered diversity of opinion rather than some illusory consensus that was later sabotaged. By the way, even 5-4 votes are still a democratic majority and I did not understand Councilmember Dubois' comment that democracy was shanghaied. A majority is a majority.