Palo Alto City Council
(See editorial published Oct. 5)
Marc Berman
Pat Burt (i)
Liz Kniss
Greg Schmid (i)
Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education
(See editorial published Oct. 12)
Melissa Baten Caswell (i)
Ken Dauber
Heidi Emberling
Foothill-DeAnza College District Board of Trustees
Joan Barram (i)
Betsy Bechtel (i)
Laura Casas Frier (i)
County Board of Education
Grace Mah (i)
U.S. House of Representatives
Anna Eshoo (D) (i)
State Senate
Jerry Hill (D)
State Assembly
Rich Gordon (D) (i)
County Measure A (Sales tax increase)
(See editorial published Oct. 26)
Yes
County Measure B (Water parcel tax extension)
(See editorial published Oct. 26)
Yes
Palo Alto Measure C (Marijuana dispensaries)
(See editorial published Sept. 14)
No
State Propositions
(See editorial published Oct. 19)
30 (Sales & income tax increase) -- Yes
31 (Political reform package) -- Yes
32 (Bans political payroll deductions) -- No
33 (Auto insurance) -- No
34 (Repeal death penalty) -- Yes
35 (Penalties for human trafficking) -- Yes
36 (Revises Three Strikes law) -- Yes
37 (Food labeling) -- No
38 (School tax measure) -- Yes
39 (Fix corporate tax loophole) -- Yes
40 (Redistricting) -- Yes
(i) = Incumbent
(D) = Democrat
To read full editorials and our past election coverage online, go to www.PaloAltoOnline.com/election
Comments
Midtown
on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:37 pm
on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:37 pm
I was really surprised to see the letters of support for Ken Dauber lauding him as a person who will be collaborative if he is elected to the School Board. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Even though he says he does not believe in top-down decision making, this is exactly what he is advocating in his attacks on the Gunn counseling program. He believes he has all the right answers to Save Our Schools. Our schools do not need saving. Many Palo Altans do not realize how lucky we are to have such fantastic schools with dedicated teachers and staff. All schools can improve but we should also celebrate what a great system we are so lucky to have. I am proud that my children went to Palo Alto schools and wish that all children could be so fortunate to attend one of the best school districts in the country. Our schools do not need to be "saved" by Ken Dauber.
Registered user
Nixon School
on Nov 3, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Registered user
on Nov 3, 2012 at 6:38 pm
I disagree strongly with you about Ken Dauber and I am personally offended by the level of vitriol that has been posted on paloaltoonline today. I voted for Ken because he wants to improve counseling at Gunn, implement best practices at all our schools, improve student health, reduce academic stress, close the achievement gap and other helpful things. He has great ideas, cares about kids, and is brilliant -- he's a Yale graduate, a former college processor, and a Google engineer. He's a smart, high quality individual who will serve on a board that could use some intellectual horsepower and improved clarity.
These attacks are just creating more support for Ken while punishing the candidates and others who are behind them. It is ironic that Ken, who has run a clean, positive, issue oriented campaign which is widely regarded as one of the best campaigns that anyone has seen for years in Palo Alto and asked the voters to judge him on his ideas, is being viciously attacked for being "negative." Do your preferred candidates have so few real accomplishments that you have to resort to tearing down another candidate?
Registered user
Charleston Meadows
on Nov 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Registered user
on Nov 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm
It is fair to offer the qualifying comments from the Palo ALto Weekly:
"For voters looking for an alternative to Kniss, either out of principle or because of her views, Tim Gray is the best alternative. Gray is a CPA and financial consultant specializing in recovering overpayments by companies that have gone through mergers or acquisitions. He lives in south Palo Alto with his wife and three school-age kids, and he wants to contribute his financial skills to the city's budget issues and to evaluating development proposals. He is concerned that the council is too responsive to developers and that continuing to approve new commercial development will lead to the city being forced to provide more housing to compensate for the jobs being created and that will lead to unwanted intensification."
In addition, in Palo Alto Daily and Daily Post endorsements, those two newspapers said:
"We’re also pleased to recommend Tim Gray, an accountant who has been on the civic scene for years,
consistently arguing against overdevelopment and for spending restraint.
"...For those who are unhappy with the status quo at city hall, Gray is absolutely their best choice in this election."
Thanks for checking in on this additional information.
Timothy Gray (Candidate for Palo Alto City Council)
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:22 am
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:22 am
Food Labelling - YES
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:29 am
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:29 am
From cited editorial:
Proposition 37: No on genetically engineered food labeling
Prop. 37 would require that genetically engineered foods sold in California be specifically labeled as such. Genetic engineering has been used for some 15 years to make plants grow bigger, stronger, faster and resist spoilage or insect damage. It is estimated that more than 40 percent of food products contain some genetically engineered ingredients. Although no studies have found any health impacts, the industry is too young to know with certainty. Labeling isn't a bad idea, but imposing it by initiative in California prior to further studies and absent any evidence of harmful effects seems premature, and better addressed on a national level by the FDA or Congress.
Let's see, GMO have been used for 15 years and we have had several big problems with them - like putting them in the public food without labels, and because this is an initiative and not perfect we should wait until some future imaginary legislation comes along that is better in some kind of way? Absolutely idiotic.
GMOs should never have been foisted on people and forced down their throats - ever, without information and labelling.
I am a teckie, and there is are many places with genetic engineering, but forcing it on people is not the right way, but I see no mention of that or an opinion on it.
Of course this is just pressure from the bio-sciences industry who somehow we are supposed to imagine is much better and more responsible than the nuclear industry?
This recommendation impeaches any other comments or suggestions Palo Alto Online has about anything and proves they are just a political tool.
By the way, I am pro-nuclear, but these industries and scientists and politicians in general have to stop forcing their opinions on people. We need a more educated populace, so why don't you force some media corporations to start really educating people on these issues instead of expanding the apathy and ignorance of the population with the absolute garbage the airwaves are full or now?
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 am
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 am
oops ... many good places ( and applications ) for genetic engineering ...
The past and present wrongs and irresponsibilities of the purveyors of genetic engineering in food in releasing this crap into the environment and what is going on in India around cotton and other agricultural industries has not even been addressed and somehow we are pushed to move forward on this anyway? Unilateral insanity.