Town Square

Weekly protecting Holman

Original post made by Rupert of henzau, Midtown, on Jun 6, 2014

Web Link

The above thread was completely removed and the following comment was posted:
"[Post removed due to potentially false and defamatory statements.]"

I read the post before it was removed. The comments posted were from a couple of Daily Post articles in yesterday's and today's paper regarding ms Holman.
The articles contain comments from Ms Holman and a developer. Not sure why the thread was removed.
Will the weekly be looking into the matter. Does the weekly have evidence that the claims made by the Post are false? Seems that ms Holman was quite open about the matter and reported the matter on her disclosure forms. What is the weekly claiming it is false and defamatory?
I, for one, am not surprised by the actions of the weekly .


Like this comment
Posted by or not letting you campaing
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2014 at 7:12 pm


I noticed your posts on Claude Ezran's thread. Your fervent support of one candidate may discount your innocent question here.

Either way, if your comments are intended to malign someone, they are removed for your own good, but feel free to post under a real name.

Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 6, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Or not-- you had better go back and read my postings on the thread you refer to, jan. I did not express any support at all for mr ezran. Either way, what does supporting one candidate have to do with questioning another? We will be voting for 5 candidates this November. You have read my comments above-- who am I maligning in them? [Portion removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 6, 2014 at 7:47 pm

Protection is probably too strong a term. The Weekly is being legally prudent. If the story in the Daily Post is correct, her chances of getting another council term are now greatly diminished. The story in the Post has certainly tarnished her brand in this part of town. She may be better off making alternate plans for public service.

If anything, Ms Holman's actions illustrate the pervasive connection between developers and the City. Not surprising since there obviously so much money at stake. I can't help but wonder if she was "outed" by some of the incumbents now that the candidate field is growing. Last week, she would have been a safe bet for reelection. We'll, that's politics as they say.

Like this comment
Posted by Rupert of henzau
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 6, 2014 at 7:55 pm

Bill-- good point about the connection between the council and developers. That has been a major issue in the city this past year. The weekly should , at least, look into this story. If I remember correctly, ms Holman admits taking money from him in 2012.

Like this comment
Posted by Jerry Underdal
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 6, 2014 at 10:22 pm

Jerry Underdal is a registered user.

The fewer incumbents run, the better chance PASZ (Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning) have to see more than one "property rights" advocate gain a seat on the city council.

Of the five seats to be filled, only Nancy Shepherd has so far announced her intention to run. Larry Price is termed out, Gail Price decided not to run. If Karen Holman, who up till now has been cited by "No on D" forces as someone who fights to restrain developers--despite her vote to approve the affordable housing project at Maybell--can be dissuaded from running it improves chances of getting a "true believer" onto the council.

I'm concerned that Palo Altans who favor mass transit, affordable housing, Open Space restrictions on development, and "green" policies generally may be complacent about what this election represents. They shouldn't be.