Frontrunners emerge as City Council slate is finalized at 12 | August 17, 2007 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - August 17, 2007

Frontrunners emerge as City Council slate is finalized at 12

Four seats are open Nov. 6

by Becky Trout

With no incumbents, the race for four seats on the Palo Alto City Council will pit connected political newcomers against those with less name recognition in a field of 12 candidates.

This story contains 794 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Staff Writer Becky Trout can be e-mailed at [email protected]

Comments

Posted by Timothy Gray
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 5, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Hi, this is Tim Gray, candidate for City Council. I just wanted to mention that at the time this story was written, I had just filed my papers of intent with the City Clerk's office. My campaign of ideas has come a long way. I was not available for comment at the time this story was written, but now I have a lot of information at: www.Vote4gray.com. Please visit me, and help me keep learning.

Tim Gray


Posted by question for Gray
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 8, 2007 at 11:23 am

What are you going to do about the huge developments that the council keeps approving? Will you go along with that trend?
I'd appreciate a straight answer, not on the one hand and on the other hand.


Posted by Timothy Gray
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Thank you for the question. Please check out my www.vote4gray

As a late entrant, I am still learning about the City of Palo Comprehensive Plan. One thing we know is that it involved great citizen participation and really is the "constitution" we have agreed to follow as new issues are presented.

I view it as a “constitution” of sorts. We have made a collective decision as a community, and we need to honor it... continue reading the text at Web Link .

I would welcome additional perspectives. It is widely believed that our City has participated in "spot zoning" and those actions must stop. The idea is that we have made an agreement as a community about what kind of growth will be acceptable in our future. I am a big advocate for keeping agreements, or... if those agreements are not working out, then let's go back to the table and make some new one's in the full light of day.

I will take a stand for creating a level playing field. Fairness is not a naive and idealistic concept. From my corporate advisory work, I have seen power politics used to manipulate changes one little exception at a time. It's called incrementalism, and it is wrong. I don't want to wake up in the future and say, "How in the h... did we get here?" Our best line of defense for avoiding the outcomes you are talking about is to unite around principals that have a foundation in fairness and balance. Then, on an ongoing basis being defenders of the principals.

And then on the other hand... just kidding. I offer this with respect and welcome your suggestions. In the areas of the past where the Comprehensive plan's intent seems to be ignored, I would have voted no. But a minority vote is only symbolic. The bigger picture solution is the one I have previously described.

And then on the other hand... (just kidding.) Please go to www.vote4gray.com and click on the Comprehensive Plan tab.

Tim


Posted by Timothy Gray
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Thank you for the question. Please check out my www.vote4gray

As a late entrant, I am still learning about the City of Palo Comprehensive Plan. One thing we know is that it involved great citizen participation and really is the "constitution" we have agreed to follow as new issues are presented.

I view it as a “constitution” of sorts. We have made a collective decision as a community, and we need to honor it... continue reading the text at Web Link .

I would welcome additional perspectives. It is widely believed that our City has participated in "spot zoning" and those actions must stop. The idea is that we have made an agreement as a community about what kind of growth will be acceptable in our future. I am a big advocate for keeping agreements, or... if those agreements are not working out, then let's go back to the table and make some new one's in the full light of day.

I will take a stand for creating a level playing field. Fairness is not a naive and idealistic concept. From my corporate advisory work, I have seen power politics used to manipulate changes one little exception at a time. It's called incrementalism, and it is wrong. I don't want to wake up in the future and say, "How in the h... did we get here?" Our best line of defense for avoiding the outcomes you are talking about is to unite around principals that have a foundation in fairness and balance. Then, on an ongoing basis being defenders of the principals.

And then on the other hand... just kidding. I offer this with respect and welcome your suggestions. In the areas of the past where the Comprehensive plan's intent seems to be ignored, I would have voted no. But a minority vote is only symbolic. The bigger picture solution is the one I have previously described.

And then on the other hand... (just kidding.) Please go to www.vote4gray.com and click on the Comprehensive Plan tab.

Tim


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.