News


Palo Alto City Council incumbents, challengers vie in debate

Challengers strike 'residentialist' themes in Palo Alto Rotary Club debate

Making no bones about their desire to shake up the Palo Alto City Council, self-described "residentialist" council candidates came out swinging Monday at the first debate of the campaign season, offering sharp words about how the city's been run over the past several years.

"We need a new majority on the council focused on residents' concerns," said business consultant Tom DuBois, one of nine challengers out of a field of 12 candidates. DuBois got involved in city issues through last year's successful referendum of a development on Maybell Avenue, which had been approved by the council.

"I want to fight for the soul of our city," he said of his bid for one of five seats in the Nov. 4 election.

Realtor Lydia Kou, who was also involved in the Measure D referendum, explicitly called for new council leadership. Saying the culture at City Hall is faulty, she criticized project-by-project decision-making that she said neither considers what residents want nor accounts for the cumulative problems brought on by development. She cited a recent county Grand Jury report that took the council to task for a failure to deliberate in a transparent manner.

If elected, she said, "I'll establish expectations of what the culture is going to be."

Joining DuBois and Kou at the debate, hosted by the Rotary Club of Palo Alto, were retired technical writer Wayne Douglass, technology executive Eric Filseth, retired teacher John Fredrich, councilwoman and historic conservation consultant Karen Holman, attorney A.C. Johnston, councilman and attorney Greg Scharff, mayor and former managerial accountant Nancy Shepherd, business owner Mark Weiss and legislative staff member Cory Wolbach. Engineer Seelam Reddy, the 12th candidate, did not participate.

Among numerous civic issues, the debate touched upon development, city finances, homelessness and quality of life. But the dominant undercurrent was the performance of the city staff and council over the past four years. Since last year, when the outcry of "over-development" reached a fevered pitch through Measure D, the city has focused its resources on programs to curb large-scale building, ease parking problems and lessen traffic.

Incumbents defend their records

The three incumbents, for their part, rebuffed characterizations of their work as favoring developers at the expense of residents.

Scharff said he has always been a residentialist, thinking about how each potential decision will affect those who live in Palo Alto.

"That's the way I vote," he said of his decisions. "They are not pro-development; they are pro-resident."

He pointed to his December 2012 vote to enforce standard parking requirements for two redevelopment projects downtown rather than allow the buildings to provide fewer parking spaces. His was one of five votes in the split decision.

Likewise, Shepherd said that she has been active in the current revision of the city's Comprehensive Plan, Palo Alto's guiding land-use document, so that its regulations will produce the kind of city that residents want.

Defending her work on the council to solve encroaching traffic, parking and over-development problems, Shepherd said, "Our city has been resilient about getting back to where we want to be."

Holman, meanwhile, tried to reassure the audience that she understands the mistrust that people have with City Hall.

It's not just traffic and parking that trouble residents, "it's the pace of changes that are of great concern," Holman said.

Furthermore, "residents don't feel particularly heard," she said, adding later in the debate that her priority in a second council term would be to create a more inclusive and effective process of assessing the benefits and drawbacks of proposed plans.

Challenger Filseth, whose civic involvement was sparked by parking problems in his neighborhood of Downtown North and who is a member of the grassroots group Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning, sought to strike broader themes during the debate, saying that citizens' dissatisfaction with the city goes beyond one issue or project.

"There's a growing disconnect between City Hall and the values and priorities of residents," he said.

He called the Maybell referendum "a microcosm of all the wrong things," including the city not paying attention to residents' wishes.

Bike bridge, Mitchell Park Library

Among the issues that differentiated candidates at the debate was the planned bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101, which is the subject of an upcoming design competition. Debate moderator and journalist Diana Diamond remarked that the project was originally estimated to cost $2 million. Now, the price tag is between $8 million and $10 million.

Scharff noted that $6 million of the budget will be supplied by Santa Clara County. He also indicated that project costs would be scrutinized. But overall, he enthusiastically supports the project, which will connect south Palo Alto pedestrians and bicyclists to the Baylands.

"Palo Alto deserves a fantastic bridge, a bridge we can be proud of for the next 50 years," Scharff said.

Johnston questioned the cost, saying it "seems like an awful lot of money for a bridge," but he also admitted that it could be "a spectacular addition to the city."

Weiss, however, derided the plan.

"It's an absolutely horrible pork project," he said. "I'm very upset."

Filseth likened the bike bridge to the planned $4.5 million renovation of the first floor of City Hall, which has attracted criticism and charges of being unneccesary.

"It seems like a glamour thing," he said, echoing a viewpoint that the council spends too much energy on developing projects that aim to be "world-class."

Four candidates Monday were asked to analyze what went wrong with the construction of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, a project whose completion has been delayed two and a half years and resulted in various lawsuits between the city and the contractor it fired in January, Flintco Pacific.

All identified the city's failure to properly manage the project as the culprit in the delay and said that in hindsight the city should have replaced Flintco as the number of costly change orders kept mounting.

DuBois likened the partnership to a bad marriage.

"We should have had the divorce much earlier," he said.

Kou criticized the lack of periodic assessments of the contractor's work by city staff and said timely evaluations should be included in future projects.

Answering 'mean' questions

Diamond also took the liberty of asking each candidate what she called a "mean" question -- one designed to target a perceived weakness.

Johnston was asked whether he could list any civic engagement prior to this campaign -- and whether he had even voted in past City Council elections.

While affirming that he has voted consistently, he admitted, "I do not have the same experience as the incumbents and even some of the people running."

But as an attorney, he said, he has experience resolving complicated disputes, "which I think would be very helpful to the city now."

Shepherd was asked about the council's dealings with John Arrillaga, whose proposal to build an office and theater complex at 27 University Ave. was discussed in private for months before being brought to public attention. She was asked to explain why she didn't apologize earlier this month as her colleagues did for meeting behind closed doors with the billionaire developer.

Shepherd said Monday that her meeting was informational, not deliberative.

"I met with Arrillaga one time. It's an all-or-nothing conversation, where ... if you don't like it, you don't do it," she said.

Holman was asked to explain her relationship with Steve Pierce, a real estate broker for whom she has worked as a consultant. Her failure to recuse herself during a council committee meeting at which she advocated for rezoning of land owned by Pierce triggered an anonymous complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

She reminded the audience Monday that the FPPC in August declined to investigate her for a conflict of interest.

A former Planning and Transportation Commission member, Holman was also asked whether she should have recused herself during that tenure. Holman, however, said that the last time Pierce brought a project before the city was 1998.

Weiss, head of a concert-promotion business, was asked about his familiarity with city issues outside of the arts. He responded that he's written extensively on policy on his blog, "Plastic Alto."

"I've been to more meetings than anyone on this panel, including incumbents," he said.

Affordable housing, city manager, car camping

Given the chance to speak about affordable housing, Wolbach, a staff member for state Senator Jerry Hill, said a dearth of small-scale housing, just 3 percent of the city's total housing stock, pointed to the need for more low- or moderate-income homes.

If young adults can't return to Palo Alto to live and if retirees cannot afford to stay in town when downsizing, he asked, "What is it going to mean for the long-term character of the community?"

Separately, Wohlbach criticized the City Hall renovation, noting that the millions of dollars might have been money better spent on other priorities, such as services for the homeless.

Frederich was asked to evaluate the work of City Manager James Keene.

"Keene is doing a good job," Fredrich said, agreeing with other candidates that it is the council's job to give the city manager clear direction.

Fredrich noted that the size of city government has doubled since the '70s.

"I think maintaining a nine-person council is essential to giving staff good direction," he said, referencing this November's Measure D, which proposes to shrink the council size from nine to seven members.

The debate's most poignant moment came when Douglass, when asked why he was suddenly jumping into the race after years of non-participation in city issues, said he was emerging from isolation following the death of his wife.

The council's deliberations over the city's car-camping ban galvanized him, given that he knows people who live in their cars. He is campaigning to raise awareness of the city's homeless and low-income residents, he said, and to urge the city to make room for them.

"Let us not forget the less fortunate, be they folks camping at Cubberley (Community Center) or ... Buena Vista (Mobile Home Park)," he said. "There is virtue in diversity ... including economic diversity ... and we need to preserve it."

"That's my cause," he said. "That's why I'm here."

The City Council candidates will square off next at a League of Women Voters of Palo Alto public forum on Tuesday, Sept. 30, from 7 to 9:30 p.m. at the Congregation Etz Chayim, 4161 Alma St., Palo Alto. They are contesting for five open seats. Co-sponsors of the forum are the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Online, Avenidas, AAUW Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center.

The candidates will also debate two days later, on Thursday, Oct. 2, from 7 to 9 p.m. at Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave., in an event sponsored by the group Palo Alto Neighborhoods.

Find them online

Tom DuBois

Eric Filseth

John Karl Fredrich

Karen Holman

A.C. Johnston

Lydia Kou

Greg Scharff

Nancy Shepherd

Mark Weiss

Cory Wolbach

Comments

3 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2014 at 8:43 pm

So .. presumably this debate about the management of the public's business was not open to the public?

Got to wonder why the Rotary Club is so important, but the general public--not so much?


1 person likes this
Posted by Iconoclast
a resident of University South
on Sep 22, 2014 at 8:56 pm

Why not host a debate yourself and invite the town?


3 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2014 at 9:15 pm

> Why not host a debate yourself and invite the town?

What's wrong with expecting debates for public office being open to the public? We've seen far too much footsie between downtown and City Hall. Hard to believe that there are a lot of South of Oregon people attending this session.

It looks like the Civil Grand Jury's review of Palo Alto government hasn't been read by very many people, or people who want the people's business conducted in public.


2 people like this
Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 22, 2014 at 9:24 pm

So could someone summarize who the most anti-development candidates are? DuBois and Kou? I want to see some dramatic change in city hall.


1 person likes this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2014 at 9:35 pm

> So could someone summarize who the most anti-development candidates are

It's very easy to say you are a "residentialist" (as Greg Scharff is claiming about himself above). The problem here is what exactly are the "anti-development"/"residentialist" candidates plan to do to actually stop/mitigate growth, in terms of policy, or ordinances, that will stand legal challenge.

So far--we've not heard anything from any of these candidates about how they plan to implement their views.


5 people like this
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 22, 2014 at 9:45 pm

Article says 'Scharff said he has always been a residentialist, thinking about how each potential decision will affect those who live in Palo Alto.
"That's the way I vote," he said of his decisions. "They are not pro-development; they are pro-resident."

Lytton Gateway was granted a variance to develop a project of much higher density that it was zoned for, and also a variance to have much fewer parking spaces than what is specified. Many residents spoke up against this project - Scharf & Shepard's response: "The building itself is a public benefit" as to why they voted for variance.

The Maybell project was another zoning vote, where Scharf & Shepard voted to allow much high density, along a safe schools route (a route in which schools kids are recommended to use to get to school). Despite much evidence given by a highly regarded traffic consultant hired by the those concerned, and much input from the neighborhood, Scharf & Shepard voted to allow the higher density. The residents gathered enough signatures to put this on the ballot; in a debate on the ballot measure, Scharf represented the pro-development group.

And now Scharf is saying his decisions are "pro-resident"????


2 people like this
Posted by Joe's world
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 22, 2014 at 10:04 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 22, 2014 at 10:07 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

Regarding public forums (from "Wondering?")

There will be two public debates next week:

Tuesday Sept 30, 7:00-9:30pm at Congregation Etz Chayim, 4161 Alma St
sponsored by League of Women Voters

Thursday Oct 01, 7:00-9:00pm in City Council Chambers
sponsored by Palo Alto Neighborhoods

The PAN forum is being broadcast by the Media Center. I don't know if the LWV forum is being recorded for broadcast/webcast.

Because I know that someone will ask: The reason that the two forums is that Vote-by-Mail ballots are schedule to go out on the following Monday (10/6) and a significant fraction of the people vote within a few days of receiving the ballots. Last I checked, about 85% of Palo Alto voters are Vote-by-Mail (some have chosen this, other have been involuntarily converted to VBM because their precinct has a high percentage of VBM votes and been converted to all VBM).


8 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2014 at 10:11 pm

The incumbents know which way the wind is blowing. Even the most pro-development insiders will be trying to camouflage themselves as residentialists in the run-up to the election.


1 person likes this
Posted by Jo Ann
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm

Douglas, thanks so much for the schedule for the two public debates next week.

Does anyone know if the one today was recorded and, if so, where we can watch it?


Like this comment
Posted by Priorities
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:11 am

Maybe Palo Alto deserves a fantastic bridge, but not that long ago we were told we needed a safety building. Palo Alto needs leaders who will put safety first, before any shiny objects.


Like this comment
Posted by Sea-Seelam Reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:47 am

Dear Palo Alto Citizens

With due respect, I could not make it to the debate as one of the 12 candidates.

Sept 22, today, is my first day at work working as a consultant for a prominent technology company on Data Center Moves at a major client and had to be there 42 miles north of us.

I plan to be there for the remaining debates since they are in the evening.

Missed you all,

Respectfully


3 people like this
Posted by easy talk
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 23, 2014 at 9:11 am

They can claim they're residentialist all they like, but at the end of the day, they still need to come up with actual solutions to traffic and parking. And they still need to build housing, they're required to do so by law. So, what I really want to hear is how they're going to handle those responsibilities because this blind statement of "we just won't build anything ever again" is just a dream they're selling to people that they know are emotional about the issue. It's never going to happen and we won't know what they really stand for until they get elected and start handling project proposals. They can build well or they can build poorly but when they tell you nothing will get built, that's a flat out lie meant to distract you from the hard questions- do they actually know a way to build WELL?


3 people like this
Posted by mj
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 23, 2014 at 10:59 am

2009.

Greg Scharff, who opposed Measure A and won election to the City Council, said he would prefer to see Palo Alto

"invigorate its business climate" and generate more revenue by promoting more growth.


4 people like this
Posted by Jo Ann
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 23, 2014 at 11:45 am

I hope at the next debates all the candidates are asked what they intend to do about ABAG and the growth that is a regional problem. Shepherd has already said that it's too expensive to oppose ABAG but other communities are doing it.

I'd also like to see the incumbents explain why they've let the gridlock near Town & Country continue for so many years. Is shutting off one traffic light really so hard? And how long will it be until the fix the light at El Camino. Have they even sent out the RFP's and gotten community input on that yet?


7 people like this
Posted by Margaret Fruth
a resident of Ventura
on Sep 23, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Margaret Fruth is a registered user.

[Post removed due to overt candidate endorsement.]


7 people like this
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm

"So could someone summarize who the most anti-development candidates are?"

Alphabetically: DuBois, Filseth, Holman, and Kou.


1 person likes this
Posted by Rupert of Henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 23, 2014 at 1:00 pm

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]


9 people like this
Posted by Eric F
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 23, 2014 at 2:27 pm

For the record, I don't think anybody running in this election is "anti-development."

What several of us are is "pro-resident." If there's a development that is clearly a good thing for residents, then I am happy to support it.

What's happened is that too many developments over the last several years, both individually and especially cumulatively, don't meet the "good for residents" criteria; even though they do follow common City practices. The issue here is City practices, which need to be brought back into alignment with what's good for residents.


4 people like this
Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Any new development is good for the developer only in a small town that has reached its capacity and ability to absorb more density and more traffic many years ago. Declaring that one is for "developments that are really good for residents", unless they are additional parks and open space, is a de-facto pro development statement that will not get the residentialist vote. When you are a Boeing 737 captain you don't allow a thousand passenger to board your plane even if they really, really, really want to join the flight and are very persistent and noisy in demanding to board.


Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:29 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:53 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:59 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 23, 2014 at 4:05 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Really?
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 23, 2014 at 5:05 pm

Greg "The Building is the Benefit" Scharff, who ignored every resident in the Maybell debacle and even went so far as to debate on the developer's side, is not calling himself a "residentialist?" [Portion removed.]

I voted for him the first time, when he ran against "PC zoning abuses" and will not make the same mistake again.

Shepherd, I got right the first time and didn't vote for. She must go too. She is as pro-developer than Scharff or more [portion removed.]

Kniss is worried that she won't get to be mayor, the next step in her career of politics. Berman is worried that he won't get to be vice mayor under Kniss, and then Mayor in the next election year when he wants to run for higher office. I heard from a prospective candidate who later did not run that the first question "the establishment" asked vetted candidates was: "Will you vote for Kniss for mayor?" Shows how much these self-serving political types care about Palo Alto.


3 people like this
Posted by History Buff
a resident of another community
on Sep 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm

> Shepherd said Monday that her meeting [with Arrillaga] was informational, not deliberative.

From the grand jury report at Web Link

“ … the City Manager emailed the entire City Council informing them that the developer would probably be contacting each of them to set up meetings to explain his proposal to them. What followed were numerous meetings between members of the City Council, City staff, and representatives of the developer regarding his proposal. There were no public notices of these
meetings.

“During interviews of City officials, the Grand Jury was told that these meetings were deliberately kept to no more than three council members at a time, in order not to constitute a quorum of the City Council, which would have violated the Brown Act.”

And how about the CLOSED SESSION meeting to discuss selling 7.7 acres of city land to Arrillaga?

> Scharff noted that $6 million of the [bike bridge] budget will be supplied by Santa Clara County.

That money also come from us tax payers. Just because it doesn’t come out of the PA budget doesn’t mean it’s free money.


Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown

on Sep 23, 2014 at 5:23 pm


Remember me?
Forgot Password?
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.


1 person likes this
Posted by Infrastructure
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm

I agree that the candidate debates / conversation needs to be more focused on how to fix our infrastructure to support future growth.... it is easy to get private investments for more housing, more office space, but the community frustration is that the supporting infrastructure/capacity has not kept pace reducing quality of life.... who is going to pay for the enabling infrastructure ? In fact, do we even know what we want to do to enable the infrastructure ? Whoever can provide thought leadership to those questions will get my vote.....


3 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 23, 2014 at 6:08 pm

> I agree that the candidate debates / conversation needs to
> be more focused on how to fix our infrastructure to
> support future growth

What?

What exactly are you saying?

We have been talking about infrastructure issues since the 1998, when the first 100M Infrastructure Plan was issued by then City Manager June Fleming. The cost of this work has drifted up and down, because we have never really had an honest assessment of what needs to be done, and in what time frame that work needs to be done. Certainly, few people in town are expecting this work (probably more than $1B dollars) to be done to support future growth!

The last infrastructure plan didn’t include that acquisition of that &$&^%& airport—which now adds potentially several million dollars more to the bill to support the expensive toys of CEOs from Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, and other neighboring communities. Perhaps we should be asking all of these candidates why the City of Palo Alto should be paying for a giant playpen for these non-resident “richies”?

Talk about infrastructure if you will—but at least be honest about the issues. Future growth in a town that is pretty much “built out” would seem to be the last thing taxpayers would be looking for in the next group of City Council members.


Posted by Questions
a resident of Fairmeadow School

on Sep 23, 2014 at 11:29 pm


Remember me?
Forgot Password?
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.


Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 24, 2014 at 10:58 am

> For the record, I don't think anybody running in this
> election is "anti-development."

Best if candidates spoke for themselves--or at least produced some sort of documentation that proves what they are saying.


4 people like this
Posted by the building itself
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 24, 2014 at 11:08 am

wondering?

"some sort of documentation that proves what they are saying."

The documentation that keeps coming to mind about Scharff is

"I think this is a prime site and having an office building -- a Gateway project -- is itself a public benefit," Scharff said.

Web Link

which Sheperd later echoed...


2 people like this
Posted by mark weiss
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 24, 2014 at 2:25 pm

Tim Gray and I in 2012 ran as "new residentialists and got 7,000 plus and nearly 6,000 votes, neither of us accepting contributions either. I ran anti-PC, anti-Arrillaga Towers and anti-developer.

In Palo Alto The Establishment are for rapid change and people like me, here since 1974, for continuity and enforcement of existing Comp or General Plan are labeled Insurgents or worse.

Strange that.


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 24, 2014 at 2:33 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by 6Djockey
a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 24, 2014 at 6:45 pm

to Rupert of Henzau,

The reason to vote for only the four sensible growth candidates (DuBois, Filseth, Holman, and Kou) is that these four, combined with the sitting Greg Schmid, form a majority on the council who could actually make the growth sensible. If you vote for five, you are voting for a candidate who is in favor of more development than the above four. If enough people vote for one of those with their extra vote, that candidate could displace one of the sensible growth candidates. We would then have a council majority that could approve of the kind of recent development we have grown to dislike (moderate adjective selected so this comment won't be thrown out).


Like this comment
Posted by Battle scars
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Sep 24, 2014 at 7:06 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by stanhutchings
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 2, 2014 at 4:53 pm

stanhutchings is a registered user.


I often get questionnaires to fill out from various groups. They are trying to get an idea of what their customers/supporters/members want.

I propose that the City Council do a poll in advance of all Council meetings, and it be announced in the Palo Alto Weekly and also by an opt-in email list to all Palo Alto residents. The poll should be online. It should be designed to prevent ballot stuffing, to clearly but concisely allow distinct choices for the Council to pursue. A "No Opinion", "Other" (with text field to explain if desired) choices should always be included. This would not be very different from the "Best of Palo Alto" survey. Whoever designed it could be an adviser to the council as they prepare the surveys.

All Council members should agree on the questions as well as the multiple-choice responses. The survey should be available as soon as the meeting agenda is announced. The results should be sent to council members, the email list, reported in the PA Weekly, and online on the City of Palo Alto website, with a brief report of any discussion at the meeting, and Council action.

There will be bugs and kinks to work out, but in the long run, it should give interested Palo Alto residents a real voice in the decisions that affect them and their city, as well as a better understanding of the mood and gestalt at the time.


Like this comment
Posted by Bob Moss
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:01 pm

In terms of overall desirability, there is absolutely no question that the best and candidates most deserving support are Lydia Kou, Tom DuBois, Eric Filseth, an Karen Holman. All of them have demonstrated real concerns about the scale and type of development in Palo Alto recently, and would like to scale it back. They are by far the best selections for council and can make a real difference combined with Greg Schmid. Voting for these four only is better than voting for 5 if the 5th is a bad candidate.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident 2
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:22 pm

Mr. Moss you did not mention to endorse Greg Scharff in your last post. Why not?


1 person likes this
Posted by what
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 3, 2014 at 12:55 am

Did anyone catch debate tonight? Nancy Shepherd put Measure D on ballot and now she doesn't even support it. Flushing our taxpayer money down the drain to play for a ballot measure.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 40 comments | 1,482 views

Global Warming Diet
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,245 views

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,095 views

Preparing for kindergarten
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 600 views

 

Pre-registration ends tomorrow!

​On Friday, September 21, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run, or—for the first time—half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More