News

Palo Alto mulls raising age for buying tobacco

Proposal by two City Council members would set minimum age at 21

With Palo Alto's crusade against tobacco rapidly gathering force, two members of the City Council on Tuesday floated a proposal to raise the minimum age for buying cigarettes to 21.

The proposal, made by Councilmen Pat Burt and Tom DuBois, came in the midst of a lengthy discussion by the council's Policy and Services Committee about updates to the city's ever-evolving smoking ordinance. Over the course of the meeting, the four-member committee unanimously agreed to recommend a ban on e-cigarette sales at all locations where the traditional kind is currently banned; to recommend a ban on smoking at all apartment complexes where non-smokers reside; and to pursue a licensing program that, for the first time, would keep track of cigarette vendors and require them pay an annual fee to the city.

There was far less consensus on the proposal to raise the legal age for cigarette purchases beyond the state threshold of 18. While Burt and DuBois voted to direct staff to draft an ordinance raising the age, Councilmen Marc Berman and Cory Wolbach opposed the move. All four agreed that tobacco products are deeply harmful, but they split on whether to make a distinction between different stages of young adulthood. Burt had no issue with doing that.

"It's completely reasonable for us to consider restrictions to sales of harmful material for those who are not fully adults yet," Burt said.

Wolbach, however, said adults have the right to make decisions, even "really bad" ones like smoking cigarettes. He said that while he despises tobacco, he cannot support legislation that would raise the legal age for buying it to 21.

"It's age discrimination among adults," Wolbach said.

Berman agreed and, to demonstrate his reasoning, proposed an even more radical move: banning tobacco sales for everyone. When that proposal predictably fizzled, Berman made the point that if something is so harmful that it should require prohibition, it shouldn't be sold to anyone in the community. Like Wolbach, he took issue with a proposal to raise the buying age.

"I haven't heard any rationale for why someone who is 20 should be treated differently from someone who is 21," Berman said.

The unexpected discussion about raising the tobacco-buying legal age sprouted out of a recommendation from Public Works staff that the council support efforts in the state Legislature to raise the age limit. This includes, most notably, Senate Bill 151, a proposal by state Sen. Ed Hernandez to change the state's legal age (he withdrew the bill in July just before a scheduled hearing). Burt and DuBois both supported this recommendation.

Burt then proposed taking things a step further and pursuing a local ordinance to that effect. Santa Clara County recently passed an ordinance raising the legal age to 21 in unincorporated areas. And while questions remain whether cities and counties can legally adopt a stricter threshold than the state, City Attorney Molly Stump cited the determination by the county's legal counsel that they could. She said her office will have to explore the subject further before returning to the committee with more information. It will ultimately be up to the full nine-member council to determine whether the city should make the change.

But while the proposal to raise the smoking age remains hazy and controversial, a recommendation to include electronic cigarettes in the existing ban is heading toward almost certain adoption. The committee agreed that the devices, which turn nicotine and other chemicals into vapors, should be treated like regular cigarettes. Berman said e-cigarettes are something that "really scare me." He said he was worried about all of a sudden seeing Palo Alto's youth adopting this habit.

"I worry a lot that they're going to transition to real cigarettes, and we're going to be back to where we were 20 years ago, before the gains were made," Berman said.

Committee members had previously expressed support for including e-cigarettes in the ban, and they reaffirmed that position Tuesday night when they directed staff to return with an ordinance that achieves this.

There was far more discussion and uncertainty, however, about a proposal to ban smoking at multi-family buildings. The committee considered this issue earlier this year but balked at making the change. Instead, they asked staff to evaluate whether it's possible to isolate smoking areas in buildings and protect individual apartments from second-hand smoke through the use of air-cleaning systems, ventilation and air-conditioning systems.

On Tuesday, Public Works staff and several public-health experts testified that preventing second-hand smoke from spreading is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Their testimony in many ways echoed the 2006 finding by the U.S. Surgeon General that "separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke."

Suzaynn Schick, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said "third-hand smoke" can persist for days, months and years. It can also travel as a vapor and can combine with other chemicals to form a "very toxic, lung-specific carcinogen."

Liz Williams, project manager for American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, pointed to a 2005 conclusion from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, which concluded that "ventilation cannot eliminate the health danger posed by secondhand smoke, and smoking does not belong indoors."

Given the difficulty of protecting apartments from secondhand smoke, the Policy and Services Committee voted to simply ban smoking at multi-family complexes. This recommendation went well beyond the recommendation from Public Works staff to limit the ban to common areas, balconies and outdoor areas close to doors and windows. Phil Bobel, assistant director of Public Works, argued that enforcing the ban would be far more difficult if it were also extended to individual apartments.

The committee, however, was not swayed. Enforcement of the ordinance, Berman said, will be a challenge -- but it's not that different from enforcing other nuisance issues, including noise.

"We all know we need to do a better job enforcing the gas leaf-blower ban," Berman said. "This is the same thing, but I don't think it being difficult is necessarily a reason not to do it."

The committee also discussed a proposal by staff to partner with Santa Clara County for a program to regulate tobacco sales. Members agreed that such a partnership should be pursued. Burt said he didn't think enforcement would be a problem and noted that only 20 to 30 local businesses currently sell cigarettes. It shouldn't be too onerous, he said, for staff to require these places to get licenses and to then collect annual fees.

"I wouldn't have a problem charging enough to fully cover whatever (the cost of administrating the program) is," Burt said. "It may mean we don't have little mom-and-pop gas stations selling cigarettes because they choose to not pay a several-hundred dollar fee, or whatever it might be. So be it, in my mind."

In addition to tobacco and e-cigarettes, the proposed prohibition would apply to medical marijuana. While the council will have the option of exempting marijuana use in its revised ordinance, the committee decided toward the end of Tuesday's long discussion not to delve into this topic just yet. DuBois was the only council member who spoke on the topic, saying he wouldn't favor the exemption.

"I think smoke is smoke," DuBois said.

Comments

81 people like this
Posted by Member Emeritus
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 11, 2015 at 5:30 am

Ban styrofoam, ban sales of cigarettes to young adults, compel participation in a zero-waste composting program...

Ban, ban; compel, compel.

The work of tending to streets, utilities, etc. of a small town of 64,000 is too mundane. Don't mind the shameful state of all that.



55 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 10:13 am

Slow Down is a registered user.

If you think you can justify raising it to 21, why not 31, or 91?

Be honest PA, propose banning tobacco entirely and allow a real debate to happen about whether the city council should be in the business of micro managing people's health.


36 people like this
Posted by Chip
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Nov 11, 2015 at 10:45 am

Chip is a registered user.

If an 18 year old can join the Army & go fight in the Middle East, he should be able to buy cigarettes. It isn't the business of Palo Alto to regulate age requirements. It would be better to simply ban all sales of cigarettes & e-cigs within the city limits.

Meanwhile, how about regulating gas powered leaf blowers? Or do too many council members rely on their gardeners' use of these to risk such a ban? Or maybe it's the very wealthy owners of large homes (voters, campaign donors) who "need" leaf blowers to keep the mini-mansions pristine? Besides noise pollution, the fumes & dust are hazardous to those residents with asthma & other bronchial problems. Oh, maybe this wouldn't be "fair" to people who make a living blowing debris?

I don't smoke & my gardener uses a rake.


19 people like this
Posted by Jerry
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Nov 11, 2015 at 10:45 am

Wow, I thought you were a "fully adult" at age 18. You can vote, but not wise enough to not smoke. Another waste of city council's time.


19 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 11:03 am

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Chip & @Jerry - The consistency argument isn't going to win - an 18 yr old can join the army, but can't buy a pistol, nor can an 18 yr old order a glass of wine with dinner. The slippery slope of modern infantilization.


52 people like this
Posted by wrong focus
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2015 at 12:03 pm

As usual the city's focus is wrong.It should not get involved in age for purchase. What the City should be doing is eliminating smoking on the sidewalks in commercial areas like Downtown which is a significant problem which the City can control.


30 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2015 at 12:07 pm

This sort of thing is a waste of time for a City council. It should be done at the State level or the Federal level. For one city to do this and the neighboring city does not, makes little sense, particularly when it should be dealing with city issues - and we certainly have enough of them to take up the time of our councilors.


54 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 11, 2015 at 12:11 pm

Don't ban their sale or ownership within the city limits, ban their use.


21 people like this
Posted by Annie
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 11, 2015 at 12:42 pm

From a public health standpoint, these proposals make sense. Tobacco bans are effective. When you limit where people can access and use tobacco, more people stop using. This is also why tobacco taxes work.

I agree that the state should do more, but until they do, I think this is a good way for Palo Alto to go.


48 people like this
Posted by smoke free
a resident of Green Acres
on Nov 11, 2015 at 12:58 pm

the age to smoke should be 105. it is not good for anyone near or far. it is the same as playing Russian Roulette not knowing whether the gun is loaded or not--eventually it is going to kill the smoker. there is no ifs ands or buts. it will kill the smoker. look at the lungs of anyone who smokes. listen to the cough of anyone who smokes. lungs are critical for everyone and very fragile. it also destroys the heart and tissue--another very critical organ to live. it also is very dangerous and annoying for anyone within drifting smoke in the air--which can drift a long ways--sometimes up to a block or so, across the street, inside of a building that the smoker is standing outside of--2nd hand smoke is almost as deadly to a non-smoker--and even more infuriating as that person isn't the one smoking but is being affected by someone else's smoke. smoking kills a lot more people than guns do or even car accidents. anyone and everyone who smokes is being killed on a daily basis. it also is a very filthy habit as the smoke filters into the air (climate change) and the butts lie on the ground for others to pick up or look at forever as they do not decompose. ever try walking down university aveune-- it is amazing how many people still have this filthy / deadly habit.

i vote for 105 age limit.


16 people like this
Posted by Ariel
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 2:04 pm

Smoking is a nasty habit, vaping isn't much better. If you must, do it at home and stink up your private space. Vapers might get as much 'pleasure' walking around with a rear view mirror air freshener dangling in front of their nose, and not look any more ridiculous than they already do walking around puffing their vaping contraptions.


83 people like this
Posted by Borodin
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2015 at 2:05 pm

Supposedly, according to psychologist and adolescence experts, kids today are so immature that adolescence now extends into the early 30s.

If this is so true, then maybe the age for drinking, driving, tobacco use, voting, and military service should all be raised to thirty.

Then again, I can't imagine that any sergeant or commanding officer could get anyone over the age of 18 to run into a line of fire. A 30-year-old surely wouldn't be that stupid.

However, I strongly suspect that anyone under 25 is not mature enough to avoid the overuse of alcohol, to decide not to smoke, to vote responsibly, to drive safely, hold down a full time job and be a responsible employee, be in a position of leadership, be an effective parent, or any other position or activity that requires mature thought and sound judgment.

I look at the Stanford students living 6-7 per house in one house next door, another across the street. Most are grad students, 22-26 years old, and their immaturity is scary: drink til you vomit, chain smoke, buy Ritalin off ADHD kids to stay up all night, trash the house they rent, trash their cars( and bikes ), frequently lose wallets, laptops, smartphones, text books, etc. If these are the cream of the crop, and they have been told they are, I am scared for the future.


20 people like this
Posted by Council watcher
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 11, 2015 at 3:01 pm

If you count votes on City Council of course they are going to raise the age to 21 for buying cigarettes. Look at past votes. Holman, Scharff and Kniss will clearly support Burt and DuBois. It's a done deal.


5 people like this
Posted by Stanford Student
a resident of Stanford
on Nov 11, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Borodin,

Please don't conflate enjoying a good party with a lack of intelligence. Alcohol has turned the wheels of civilization for thousands of years.

Cheers.


2 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 4:38 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Borodin - If the answer to infantilization is even more infantilization, then by all means, raise the drinking, smoking, voting, driving age to 35. But do consider that the problem is created by all the coddling, not solved by it.

@Annie - It's pretty clear vaping is much much better than smoking.


16 people like this
Posted by Emily
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 pm

Why must the City of Palo Alto take over the parenting of young adults. It's up to the Parents to decide whether their 18 year olds should smoke or not. If the parents smoke the children are far more likely to get the cigaret craze, however, if the parents set an example by simply not smoking very often the children won't either. Leave this decision to the parents.


45 people like this
Posted by Speed Up
a resident of another community
on Nov 11, 2015 at 5:16 pm

Slow Down -- "It's pretty clear vaping is much much better than smoking."

Only if you actually believe the spin put out by the tobacco industry.


32 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 5:51 pm

I want to KNOW!! How many Palo Alto city employees actually live IN Palo Alto? How many have to follow Palo Alto's rules? Many of the 'big shots' don't live here. How many pay taxes here? How many non-residents are making up Utilities rules and regulations which affect the everyday living of those who DO live here. And then there are those who will not 'mix' with their neighbors and want their children to only 'mix with their kind' - after school, weekends, anytime.
It's very sad, but it is happening. Now we have those who assert that it is their civic right to live in Palo Alto where they work.


4 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 5:55 pm

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by OK
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 11, 2015 at 6:24 pm

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 11, 2015 at 9:05 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

Ignorance and fear mongering about vaping is literally killing people - because it deters smokers from switching to a much safer alternative. Is Public Health England run by the tobacco companies? Because they say smoking is 30 times as bad as vaping.

Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 12, 2015 at 12:38 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

If you're old enough to die for your country, should you be old enough to smoke? I don't know. I hate second-hand smoke. However, if you want to kill yourself slowly in the confines of your own home or vehicle, then why should this bother me?

It just seems like elected local politicians shouldn't have this much power or authority.

I would suggest that smokers pay an insurance penalty for smoking -- so that the cost of treatment is not redistributed to the rest of us.


6 people like this
Posted by SteveU
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 12, 2015 at 12:55 pm

SteveU is a registered user.

Mountain View, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto merchants will thank you City Hall.

I was stationed in a 'Dry County'. The locals just smuggled it in from across the state line. (if you were caught, there was fines or jail time)

Micro ordinances do not work. The US learned, that unpopular Nationwide ones will fail.

Stick to running our CITY, not our LIVES.





1 person likes this
Posted by Joseph E. Davis
a resident of Woodside
on Nov 12, 2015 at 4:13 pm

Terrible idea! Instead, alcohol should be legal at 18.


4 people like this
Posted by @Joseph E. Davis
a resident of another community
on Nov 12, 2015 at 5:13 pm

Why should it be? Can't get it on your own?


35 people like this
Posted by Hate Lung Cancer
a resident of another community
on Nov 12, 2015 at 5:25 pm

In my 14 years as a smoking cessation facilitator for the American Cancer Society only twelve out of 1,000 addicts stated they started after the age of 21.


2 people like this
Posted by Wise Old Bird
a resident of another community
on Nov 12, 2015 at 6:11 pm

"Supposedly, according to psychologist and adolescence experts, kids today are so immature that adolescence now extends into the early 30s."

Exactly what the elders said of your generation, and what the prior elders said about those elders back when, and ... .

All of them were correct; yet the sky ain't fallen yet.


3 people like this
Posted by macbaldy
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 12, 2015 at 9:54 pm

When I moved to Palo Alto at beginning of the Seventies, PA was a blue town. Packaged alcohol couldn't be sold within the city limits. Restaurants, which weren't numerous like today, were where alcoholic drinks were available. If Palo Alto residents wanted to stock their home bars/pantries, they'd drive across the city limits to Menlo Park, Los Altos, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. Hardship is a variable concept.


1 person likes this
Posted by AlexDeLarge
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 13, 2015 at 12:09 am

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by smoke free
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Nov 13, 2015 at 12:56 pm

just curious--what is the drawing card to starting such a filthy habit as smoking? one has to wonder what creates the excitement in breathing in such toxic fumes.

one also has to wonder what the drawing card is for starting drugs--especially at such a young age. life is full of enjoyment and creativity and activity, if a young person wants to pursue these activities. why ruin it and your life by even being tempted by drugs-- it just makes no sense--


5 people like this
Posted by Johnny
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 13, 2015 at 3:56 pm

[Portion removed.]

I'd wager people smoke and do drugs to escape the tyranny of an ever-growing nanny government that dictates one can't drive in the fast lane unless he drives a Tesla, and must use a lousy tote bag to do their shopping.

We ain't seen nothing yet! Government grows like wildfire.


2 people like this
Posted by Speed Up
a resident of another community
on Nov 13, 2015 at 4:53 pm

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Bored to death teen
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Nov 14, 2015 at 8:02 am

@smoke free says, "what is the drawing card to starting such a filthy habit..."

Boredom.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2015 at 9:16 am

My father, a heavy smoker all his life, started smoking when he was 11. His first cigarette was given to him by an older boy who wanted my Dad to run an errand he was supposed to be doing and was given the cigarette in payment. My Dad and his friends got into the habit by continuing to run errands or do chores for the older boys and got a single cigarette as payment. My Dad and his friends would pool their cigarettes and smoke them together one at a time, passing each one around the group to each take a puff. He died several years ago from a non smoking cause. He tried several times to quit, at one time nearly a year passed between cigarettes.

I am sharing this story because I wonder if this is the way most kids start smoking nowadays. Is age 11 when they start? Is it because a single cigarette is given (or stolen from a pack) just to try it out? Because my Dad smoked so much I really hated the habit because he was a messy smoker. As a result, I was never even tempted to take a puff of one even though I had the opportunity many times. My own kids, as far as I know anyway, have never been attracted to the habit because seeing grandparents smoke heavily has always turned them off.

I wonder if now that less adults are smoking, the young are more attracted. They haven't seen the evils of smoking so much and just don't get why it is such a dreadful habit.


4 people like this
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 14, 2015 at 4:29 pm

What if we just get the local smoke shops to stop selling to kids UNDER 18?


2 people like this
Posted by SteveU
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 15, 2015 at 8:19 am

SteveU is a registered user.

@Smokefree

Besides boredom. Tedium, Hopelessness: Stuck in a low paid rut with no hope of escape.
Lately, the Low Paid part does not apply to Palo Altans. It is DEBT from trying to keep up with or out do, the Jonses that weighs one down.



16 people like this
Posted by Humble observer
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2015 at 11:11 am

Humble observer is a registered user.

Hard to believe that "Speed Up" (Nov. 11) and whoever clicked that post's "Like" button are so far out of touch with the e-cigs issue that they perceive its benefits to smokers as "spin put out by the tobacco industry."

Try "Stanford University School of Medicine." I heard one of the talks by Robert K. Jackler, Otolarynology chair and expert on tobacco-industry history and advertising Web Link -- whom no one (not even on Town Square) would accuse of sympathy for that industry. Jackler reminded everyone that while e-cigs deliver nicotine (an addictive stimulant), cigarette smoke also carries many more very toxic components, which account for most of the lung disease, cancers, etc.

Jackler suggested making e-cigs available for teens but without the nicotine (so they can continue to look cool, follow the latest fad, enjoy all those many flavors, and be diverted from tobacco, but without the drawback of nicotine addiction that could potentially lead them later to it), while reserving nicotine e-cigs as an adult smoking-cessation alternative. For which they're reasonably effective and, by any measure, vastly less dangerous to the smoker and even to passers-by than tobacco smoke. Mainstream medicine has long reported (in its standard reference books, which I take the trouble to read rather than consulting the absurdly spun or dumbed-down sources online and in mainstream media) that nicotine-replacement therapies are materially helpful in smoking cessation, but for various reasons only a minority of smokers even try them.


19 people like this
Posted by Hate Lung Cancer
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2015 at 11:50 am

Dear Humble Observer, Why suck anything into your lungs? Believe me, there is nothing "cool looking" about a 98 pound hairless body!


8 people like this
Posted by Humble observer
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm

Humble observer is a registered user.

The "why" is the eternal question, but the reality (also stressed by Stanford's Dr. Jackler) is that almost all smokers "start as teens, then spend decades trying to quit." Looking cool and following fads are teen motivations that experts observe. Jackler's suggestion is that some alternatives are far less dangerous than tobacco or even nicotine.


2 people like this
Posted by Speed Up
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2015 at 12:06 pm

@Humble observer -- If you think that academicians are not prone to making incredibly stupid statements, think again. They can, and they do.


12 people like this
Posted by Humble observer
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Humble observer is a registered user.

"academicians"?!?

I referred to the research group that knows more about this subject than anyone else in the US and is a principal public opponent of the tobacco industry, precisely because they know what they're talking about! First you asserted that the point of nicotine e-cigs being healthier for smokers than smoking tobacco (which isn't even in serious dispute within the medical world) was somehow a tobacco-industry spin. When that weird claim is discredited, you attack Stanford's Medical School and its anti-tobacco experts.

[Portion removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Speed Up
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 15, 2015 at 2:27 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


7 people like this
Posted by Speed Up
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2015 at 2:31 pm

Slow Down -- The safer alternative to smoking is NOT SMOKING.

Got it? Don't smoke. Your lungs -- and your body -- will thank you for it.


6 people like this
Posted by bored
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 15, 2015 at 9:18 pm

what does one have to be so Bored about? in this world with one's whole life ahead of you-- what is there to be bored about? try music, sports, literature, i hate to say computers-(that is another subject). there are so many opportunities. if you are bored, get off your butt and go explore your future. same thing with drugs-- there is no reason to get involved with drugs or cigarettes. they both are killers.


6 people like this
Posted by 2nd hand smoker
a resident of another community
on Nov 16, 2015 at 6:23 am

If most of us think back about many of the decisions we made in our teens, even early twenties, we often wish we had decided differently! Knowing this, the City Council should at the very least, require purchasers show id to prove they are 21 + . . . AND require Sting operations at the local smoke shops to better encourage compliance. Kids will often find other ways to obtain what they want but every barrier helps.

Tobacco smoking affects us ALL - physically AND financially when we all pay for the health of those affected. Why is Kaiser's first question always "Do you smoke?" COST - that is reflected in our health insurance prices. We also pay for its effects with Medicare and Medi-Cal.

The City Council is also considering banning/limiting smoking in multi-unit housing . . . apartments and condominiums, where most CC&R's don't regulate its use, but many neighbor arguments are based on drifting tobacco smoke that CANNOT be contained. With only 10% of Santa Clara County residents smoking, should their neighbors in multi unit housing be forced to breathe it? That 90% has rights too.

About 30 years ago, the Palo Alto City Council recognized the dangers of cigarette smoke and passed an ordinance to protect its residents. Encourage them to support Pat Burt's and Tom DuBois' proposal and keep up their reputation for caring about its residents.


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 | 71 comments | 4,005 views

Global Warming Diet
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,376 views

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,284 views

Preparing for kindergarten
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 728 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 383 views

 

Race is 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