BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto’s younger, pro-housing development candidates have taken a strong fundraising lead in the race for council, while a relative outsider is leading the way in her campaign for school board.
Planning Commissioner George Lu, 32, has raised $49,958, followed by Human Relations Commissioner Katie Causey, 30, with $36,930, campaign finance forms show.
Lu and Causey are followed by Parks Commissioner Anne Cribbs, 79, with $23,024 and Planning Commissioner Doria Summa, 66, with $22,855, campaign finance forms show.
Incumbent Councilman Pat Burt, 72, has raised $19,296.
Planning Commissioner Cari Templeton, 49, raised $18,487 and gave her campaign a $20,000 loan, campaign finance forms show.
“This isn’t just about the dollars raised — it’s about the people behind each contribution and our shared vision of a vibrant and thriving Palo Alto,” Templeton said in a statement yesterday.
Incumbent Mayor Greer Stone, 35, has raised $14,774, and Planning Commissioner Keith Reckdahl, 59, has raised $13,473.
Senior advocate Henry Etzkowitz, 84, hasn’t reported any fundraising.
In the school board race, activist Rowena Chiu has raised $32,120 — nearly $7,000 more than the next candidate.
Three candidates — Nicole Chiu-Wang, Josh Salcman and Alison Kamhi — have raised between $24,000 and $26,000.
They’re followed by Chris Colohan with $18,201.
Three seats are open on the school board, and four seats are open on council.
Fundraising totals are through Sept. 21. Ballots will go out on Oct. 7. The next deadline to report fundraising is on Oct. 24.
They are ALL pro-housing. That old tired labeling is sooo yesterday given state housing mandates.
And Yimby Cari Templeton is next to last in fundraising once you subtract her $20,000 loan to herself. So this headline is wrong.
No, they’re definitely not all pro-housing. Yes, they say they’re for housing because that’s the popular thing to say. But when council gets a housing plan before it, they kill it. That’s why the city has so little new affordable housing. Critical thinker, judge candidates by their actions, not their campaign slogans.
There are different types of housing, some more affordable than others so it’s inaccurate to describe some as “pro-housing” when they’re simply rushing through every proposal to get their “pro-ho0using” gold star without bothering to dig into to the details and/or trying to improve the projects.
We’ve already seen some of the, uh, innaccurate claims being made about how their opponents voted and even when shown the official voting records, they never apologize for their’inaccuracies” or make any effort to correct their misstatements.
Facts matter, as does digging into the details.
They’re “they’re simply rushing through every proposal”? What planet do you live on? Can you name one application for housing they’ve rushed through?