Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto looks to narrow down its infrastructure priorities

Original post made on May 16, 2014

As Palo Alto marches toward placing a hotel-tax increase on the November ballot, city officials are still trying to figure out exactly what to buy with the revenues, should the measure prevail.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 16, 2014, 3:32 PM

Comments (10)

Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 16, 2014 at 4:25 pm

> that would replace the cramped and seismically
> unsound police headquarters at City Hall.

Since the Police Department is occupying a corner of City Hall—then City Hall must be seismically unsound. Wonder when the Keene Administration admit that—and just how much is it going to cost us to tear down and rebuild City Hall?

> The council had also considered in March
> raising the hotel-tax rate by 3 percent

We went thru this the last time. There is a huge difference between an increase of 3% and an increase of 3 percentage points. The council wanted to increase their take from 12% to 15%. Will the Weekly ever get it right?

Like this comment
Posted by Midtown
a resident of Midtown
on May 16, 2014 at 8:34 pm

"Just give us the money, we will figure out something to do with it." How long have they wanted a new police station, something like 20 years. If they have gotten along with the one they have now, why can't they continue to get along with it. And what happened to the $20 million golf course fiasco. And they are going to buy bonds with the money which means half of it will evaporate into interest payments. Slick. Just say no. Or better yet, how about some grade separations on the railroad.

Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm

Sorry, I'm not voting for any tax unless Shepherd and Scharff and the overdevelopment 5 don't have control over the funds. (And wow, you would think infrastructure was something they never heard of before in their lives.)

Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 19, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Is this why they allowed that 22,000 square foot hotel to be built at Arastradero and El Camino to replace a 3,500 square foot structure?

Like this comment
Posted by taxpayer
a resident of Community Center
on May 19, 2014 at 2:42 pm

I'll be voting NO on any request to increase the size of government revenue. The more you feed the monster, the larger it grows. Until the compensation for government union employees is reduced to below the level of the private sector (private sector employees generally work harder and have less secure employment), I can't support increasing government revenues. Re-negotiate the union salaries or outsource the services and use the savings to fund the infrastructure needs. Don't allow the unions to collaborate with the elected officials (the unions fund many of their campaigns), to take more from the taxpayers.

Price is not running again, thank good ness. Let's make sure Shepherd is not re-elected!

Like this comment
Posted by Vote out the council
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 19, 2014 at 5:15 pm

It will just be more revenue for the development happy, bungling PA city council to squander. [Portion removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on May 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm

Vote out-- why don't you run for council? You seem to know exactly what our city needs. My bet is that the incumbents that are running again will be reelecetd. The real,problem in the city is not necessarily the council, but the never satisfied public that think they live in a bubble. [Portion removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 19, 2014 at 8:29 pm

I'm sorry, but that hotel tax rate hike is so high it will make Hawaii hotel taxes look cheap by comparison. A 14% hotel tax rate is crazy. I got phone polled and they had a bunch of questions about how to structure this bond, and clearly the only reason they picked this one is that residents polled didn't want more home parcel taxes, or they would have done that. The problem is that once again they just want too big a bond that throws in the kitchen sink.

Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on May 19, 2014 at 10:37 pm

We're absolutely certain we need to raise taxes, but we're not sure what it's for. Huh?

sorry, I vote NO.

Like this comment
Posted by Sunshine
a resident of Barron Park
on May 20, 2014 at 7:08 pm

So CPA wants a new police station. Well, why haven't they retrofitted the one they have now for seismic safety? They did that with Channing House. If retrofitting is good enough for seniors it should be good enough for the city.
So, say NO unless they find something else to use it for.
They could use it to eliminate ALL on grade RR crossings. Separate all places where the rails cross a street.
They could also repair the formerly repaired streets and sidewalks that are now either dug up or covered with jagged steel plates.
Stop ALL over building and up zoning. Just say no to large developments.

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

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,687 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,119 views

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 9 comments | 705 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 585 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 483 views