Board seeks new school, more campus housing in Stanford growth plan | February 2, 2018 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - February 2, 2018

Board seeks new school, more campus housing in Stanford growth plan

Members ask university to consider impact of proposed expansion on district

by Elena Kadvany

The Palo Alto school board approved on Tuesday a set of requests for Stanford University to consider in its general use permit (GUP) application, including land for a new elementary school and more on-campus housing to accommodate the university's population growth.

This story contains 419 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 Elena Kadvany can be emailed at ekadvany@paweekly.com.

Comments

24 people like this
Posted by dtnorth
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 31, 2018 at 10:50 am

Many people don't live where they work and I don't think the city should be playing this game. I think it is okay for teachers not to live in the city they teach in. We have police and firefighters up against the same situation for that matter city workers. We can't be building housing for some and not others.


16 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2018 at 11:36 am

I'm disappointed that the board didn't just say, "This proposal hasn't been thought through clearly. Return to sender."

A perfect example of "The Abilene Paradox". (Google it.)

Web Link


5 people like this
Posted by Kind a like tenure?
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 31, 2018 at 5:55 pm

So if you have teacher housing, it's kind of like granting tenure and all the limitations that go along with it...


6 people like this
Posted by Manager
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 31, 2018 at 6:39 pm

The city should list all professions and score their value/worth to the community between 1 and 100. Then order them by their score and award housing in proportion to the valuation. City management might be ranked highest and should therefore get the most housing. Support staff and stay at home parents add the least value and would get the smallest proportion of the housing. Engineers and lawyers would probably get none. I’m not sure where teachers would fit in the priorities, maybe in the middle somewhere.


27 people like this
Posted by Political
a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 1, 2018 at 12:04 am

So the School Board voted to move forward with this plan for housing for Santa Clara County teachers in PA despite the well-founded concerns with this plan outlined in the Weekly's editorial last Friday. Most likely Board members are appealing for the make-or-break PAEA endorsement in the upcoming election.


13 people like this
Posted by Really?
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2018 at 7:38 am

Wow. Just . Wow.

Free land, and the per-unit cost is $500,000 - $600,000!

That’s what, like $300/sq foot ? $400?

Spendin-Joe has cooked up a real money-waster.


10 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2018 at 11:11 am

Posted by Political, a resident of Green Acres


>> Most likely Board members are appealing for the make-or-break PAEA endorsement in the upcoming election.

More likely is that Board members just haven't thought it through clearly, because, if they did, they would see a massive amount of administrative headaches for a minimal (if any) benefit to the district, or even the county. Somebody needs to start asking "Why?" "How would this actually work in practice?"


12 people like this
Posted by Less commute means what?
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Feb 1, 2018 at 2:03 pm

Maybe the teachers will start staying after school to help students instead of leaving at the ring of the bell to avoid rush hour traffic or catch the train.

Maybe the English teachers at Jordan and Paly will have enough time to start correcting papers with a red pen/font as this is the real way to teach writing skills, verses the current peer editing or no feedback at all.

Maybe the teachers will stay organized instead of postponing tests/due dates or cramming at the end of the semester.

Maybe more of the teachers will use Infinite Campus to report grades so the students know where they stand.

What will the teachers do with more time on their hands? Dedicate it to the students? Will they be improved teachers?


22 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2018 at 2:07 pm

Since the housing is for teachers from all over Santa Clara County, they will probably be getting into their cars and driving to Milpitas or Cupertino. Don't expect it to make much of a difference to the overall picture of where Palo Alto teachers live.


5 people like this
Posted by Wait a minute
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 1, 2018 at 6:37 pm

@political: when have we ever known Ken Dauber to court PAEA? Or Todd Collins for that matter? Aren't they ones up for re-election, or am I mistaken?


2 people like this
Posted by bemused
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2018 at 8:32 pm

@Less commute, as a side note, I completely agree about peer editing. What a crock! It's very frustrating to see this 'trend' take hold. Even middle school teachers have jumped on the bandwagon.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 1, 2018 at 10:24 pm

@wait a minute, it's Dauber and Godfrey this time. PAEA didn't endorse anyone in the last election. I can't remember before that. I would think their endorsement would be a pretty double-edged sword.


5 people like this
Posted by Northneighbor
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 2, 2018 at 12:05 am

PAUSD teachers are the highest paid in the bay area. Perhaps the city should give housing priority to service workers. The focus of affordable housimg should not be on school teachers. They commute here because of the pay and benefits. It's a personal choice.


Like this comment
Posted by Would they?
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 2, 2018 at 3:52 am

Would they then have time to get to know and teach all their students or just the pre-tutored ones still?


4 people like this
Posted by Wait a minute
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 2, 2018 at 5:28 am

@Northneighbor: highest paid based on salary schedule is Mt.View/Los Altos by about 10k. And that's without add-ons like extra degrees or certification.


2 people like this
Posted by Out of the bubble
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 4, 2018 at 6:48 pm

Most of the teachers in Palo Alto have no desire to live in the town, even if they could afford to which none of them can. They simply do not get paid enough to have to deal with and put up with all of the ridiculous expectations the parents in this town have of them and their children. You think they want to run into these people at the store, or downtown and have to deal with it there? Not a chance. Ask any teacher in this district in an honest moment and they will tell you it's the parents that are the problem,the students are great. Most of these teachers are struggling to find decent housing within 1hr of the district, even with above average salaries they simply cannot afford housing this close in unless they have a high earning spouse or partner. Pay them more, a lot more, they can afford San Jose maybe but not for long as a city of over a million people with an average home price of over a million dollars the window is closing. It's a big town, and contrary to popular belief there are some very nice areas that teachers might be able to get into still if their salaries were adequate. PAUSD is in danger of losing its greatest institution it's public schools if they do not go all in on salaries that actually show they want the best and brightest. Not just above average per local industry standards but salaries that show a true commitment to recruiting and retaining the best.


12 people like this
Posted by Show me the money
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 4, 2018 at 7:46 pm

@bubble, first, most teachers actually do live in and around Palo Alto. Second, they are among the most highly paid in the area. Third, how would you propose to pay them significantly more? The district is in deficit and gave raises the last two years it couldn't afford.

Do you think there a big cuts to make outside of teachers to fund raises? Do you think we should increase class sizes significantly so we reduce the number of teachers and pay the survivors more? Should we add another parcel tax to the existing one to fund raises (voter approval required, good luck)? Where should the money come from?


10 people like this
Posted by Money pit
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 5, 2018 at 7:50 am

@show me

Cut super Max’s pay to what the President of the US gets.
Stop buying houses and free $1.5 M loans for him.
Eliminate car allowances for the Admins
Fire the lawyers and asst admins.

Done. I just found you over $2.5 M. You can now put to teacher pay.


2 people like this
Posted by Show me the money
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2018 at 8:13 am

Sorry, @pit,that won't quite do it. The US president has been paid $400k plus free housing, etc., since 2001,which is more than McGee (who left last October, btw). The interest on 1.5 million is about $20k a year down at the county treasury. The car allowances I agree, but that's probably $30k a year across all of them.

Firing all lawyers and asst admins (not sure who those are) might help, though I think we need some of them. But even if that were 1.5 million in savings, it would produce a 1% raise for teachers - not exactly a game changer.


4 people like this
Posted by Money Pit
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 5, 2018 at 11:28 am

[Portion removed.]

u sed > "The interest on 1.5 million is about $20k a year"

On what planet ?
With those numbers we should borrow $100M and invest in the S&P500 at 25%.

u sed > "car allowances I agree, but that's probably $30k a year across all of them."
McGee alone was over $10k per year. So you're way low when you add them all. Even Cathy Mak got a car.

u sed "it would produce a 1% raise for teachers - not exactly a game changer."

Nice of you to turn down a 1% raise (that was your low ball estimate BTW from funds that I very easy to come up with) on behalf of the teachers. I'm guessing you must work for the school board.

Bottom line is you said where is the money. I spent 1 minute and found $2.5 M of waste in just a few places. The money is there.

We can spend all day telling each other who's math is right (and yours is clearly wrong and trivializing the numbers). You can also spend all day telling me that no matter how much money I come up with it isn't significant (in your opinion) to make a difference to a teacher (how would you know ?). But at the end of the day, everyone knows that the school board wastes our money on Admin and perks and lawyers to fight its own citizens against OCR cases brought by our own government.

Time for the School board to grow up and act like adults. The irrefutable point is that there is money being wasted on things that don't benefit our kids. There is money available.


5 people like this
Posted by Show me the month
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 5, 2018 at 5:40 pm

@money pit, the school district is required to keep its reserves in the county treasury, which for the last number of years has paid about 1% interest. So unfortunately your investment plan is not an option for them (and looking at today's market downturn, probably not a great idea).

McGee's car allowance was $750/month - that's $9K/year. Mak is $450/month - that's $5.4K. There are only a handful of other fixed car allowances. I actually think $30K might be a high estimate.

The question I was answering was from "out of the bubble," who said "pay them more, a lot more" and said the district needed to go "all in on salaries" - hence my view that 1% wouldn't do the trick. The average raise for the last 5 years is more than 3% a year, so 1% is not much - about $20 a week for the average teacher.

Unfortunately, your approach makes it easy for the board to ignore a valid suggestion, since it is error ridden and not thoughtful. Serious efforts to raise salaries would require some serious changes. It might be the right thing to do, but the proposals need to be thoughtfully made.


2 people like this
Posted by Comment
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2018 at 11:26 pm

I think the above poster meant to suggest cutting the superintendent salary to what the governor of California makes. Although you didn't quite compare them properly to the POTIS salary because I think superintendent and other employee pay is only 9 or 10 months, prorated annual is more.

Dauber is thoughtful in most respects but ideological about affordable housing and will probably never delve deeper.


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

All your news. All in one place. Every day.