So long as we spend $$$ on salaries and pensions, all is well.

If there's anything remaing, we can always support additional artworks.

Whatever else, let's not even begin to consider that the good times will ever end.

Great. So that means with PA Utilities again running an almost $20,000,000 "surplus" for yet another year that we'll be getting a rate cut, right? Or that PA's going to channel that money into reducing its unfunded pension liabilities?

Burgeoning tax revenues will allow/permit the city of Palo Alto to continue it's high-falutin' ways...more outside consultants, overpaid administrators, increases in CALPERS expenditures, department fiscal surpluses that serve no benefit to residents...need we go on?

The elevated property taxes on overvalued/overpriced PA homes will also provide a nice cushion for these civic endeavors.

So let's welcome all of the newcomers to PA who are willing to pay CASH for a $7-25M home along with the corresponding tax revenues.

We need them!

Stanford reopened the Frost amphitheater and has done maybe $10 million worth of business there with names like Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson.
I guess for that matter come to think of it the football and basketball teams do a fair amount of business.
Can we tax that the way we tax the shopping center?

Or I’d like to see a breakdown of that $51 million you say is sales tax here

Perhaps any surplus should be put into a rainy day fund. Or used for improving traffic flow at some of our busy intersections (Middlefield/LomaVerde anybody?).

Saying that, it will probably disappear and provide us, the taxpayers, nothing other than more tax bills in the future.

Budget-wise, these are boom times. Please, put surplus money towards fully funding future retiree costs.
.

A bond issue is needed to rebuild Cubberley.

Palo Alto has no jurisdiction over Frost. Stanford Shopping Center and Research Park were annexed to Palo Alto.

aha: maybe Stanford Live or AEG would put a ticket surcharge on their shows at Frost to pay for our Music in The Parks here....part of the mix of negotiating their CUP.

True or false: the land under Castilleja is zoned R-1 and if we build 50 single family homes there, it would generate $3.5m in property taxes each year. ???

One: 50 single family homes won't fit.
Two: If that tiny, they would not sell for $6M each.
Three: A tax-exempt entity would buy them anyway.

@Mark, if you look at the original plans of Palo Alto, you will see the 51 lots where Castilleja sits.

Here is how it stands now. When comparing to Emerson and Melville homes, you see that we could fit far more than 51 homes in this space. Recall, Melville was a cul de sac.

Web Link

Also, it is important to remember that the Castilleja parcel actually includes at least 6 parcels:

220 EMBARCADERO RD PALO ALTO 94301-3526

211 MELVILLE AV PALO ALTO 94301-3526

234 EMBARCADERO RD PALO ALTO 94301-3526

235 MELVILLE AV PALO ALTO 94301-3526

240 EMBARCADERO RD PALO ALTO 94301-3526

1310 BRYANT ST PALO ALTO 94301-3507

It all adds up to well over 6 acres. Yet look (at the Santa Clara Assessor's Office Website) - their taxable value is ZERO. ZERO. (BTW, Castilleja paid less than $20M to buy this property in 1973.)

You can find all the details by doing a search here: Web Link

As to how many lots can fit in the area, it is extremely hard to find a historical zoning map, but I believe that someone posted one to NextDoor (I'll look). In the meantime, here is some quick math:

According to the best records I could locate, Castilleja's total ownership is approximately 375,000 square feet (this may be wrong -- again, it's VERY hard to find these numbers). This translates to approximately 51 RH-1 lots of 7500 square feet. Poking around on Zillow, 7500 square feet is a very standard size for that part of Old Palo Alto.

Personally, I don't think that 7500 square feet is anything close to "tiny," even in tony (pun!) Old Palo Alto, where land sells for anywhere between $500 and $1000 a square foot (with or without a house on it). Figuring a number on the lower end of that scale -- $600/square foot -- each 7500 lot would sell for approximately $4.5 million, which seems believable given the location.

51 lots @ $4.5 M totals $229,500,000 in taxable property tax sales. Figuring an effective 1.3% property tax, that brings in $2,983,500/year (to begin) in property tax, which would grow to bigger than $3 million by the second year.

As to the comment that a tax-exempt property would buy these parcels - NO WAY. They were originally zoned RH-1, and any buyer who wanted to use these lots for anything other than RH-1 would have to go back to the city for another conditional use permit. Hopefully by then our city government will have learned that these permits are NOT in our community's best interest! Plus, it would be very hard to convince the residents near Castilleja that anything other than residential housing belongs there, as it was, and still is, zoned.

Re Frost: unfortunately, Stanford, like Castilleja, is a tax-exempt organization even though it is not charitable. At least Stanford opens up many of its events to the public ... unlike Castilleja.

The tax exempt status of private schools that serve wealthy populations is a matter of controversy, with many economists and most supporters of public school and affordable housing falling strongly in the camp that private prep schools should be taxed (with some going farther, to say they should be banned altogether). A lot of the best research comes from the abundance of reports of ways in which private school vouchers destroy public school systems:

Web Link

Web Link

Banning private schools:

Web Link

this one is from the UK:

Web Link

this one is from the POV of morality:

Web Link

Public schools benefit everyone, including families who opt to send their kids to private schools. The same cannot be said for private schools, however. That said, in the context of the ever-growing negative consequences of Prop 13, it's easy to see why those who can afford private schools often opt for them. In school districts where the public schools are the best funded and supported, fewer families seek private schools.

I grew up in one of those districts -- Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, where 4 of us out of our 1986 high school graduating class of 220 students headed to Stanford my year! This is largely attributed to the property tax rate of 2.5% -- which seems really high, but isn't in the context of community where $400,000 buys you a 4-bedroom house in an extremely safe, lovely neighborhood (my parents bought the home they still live in for $30K in 1969). I have been told that quality of life -- and cost of living -- in Palo Alto in the 60's and 70's was not that different. How nice that would be!

It's nice to see new development and densification in PA. I'm really tired of hearing complaints from long time residents that pay almost no taxes due to prop 13. The sooner they leave the more money we will have to support our schools and community.

Posted by Newcomer, a resident of Mayfield

>> It's nice to see new development and densification in PA. I'm really tired of hearing complaints from long time residents that pay almost no taxes due to prop 13. The sooner they leave the more money we will have to support our schools and community.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell if someone is serious, or, if misdirection is at work. Web Link

Assuming that you are serious, I suggest that, as a newcomer, you read up on the history of the Fry's site. Perhaps Sobrato would like to chime in at some point explaining why that site hasn't been redeveloped with RM-30 housing. BTW, the Fry's site is useful because the situation is so glaringly obvious. I don't think Sobrato folks are any different from anybody else in their business.