BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The city of Palo Alto is refusing to release an appraisal for the Cubberley Community Center before voters consider approving a sales tax to buy the land.
The city said appraisals ahead of buying a property are exempt from the California Public Records Act, so the city isn’t required to release the appraisal.
City Manager Ed Shikada said it’s not his decision alone to release the appraisal at this point. He said council and the school board would need to be involved, and both are on summer break.
“That said, please remember that our agencies agreed to this price to benefit the schools as well as improve Cubberley,” Shikada said in an email.
Council is asking voters to buy seven acres for $65.5 million from the Palo Alto Unified School District.
The deal was approved in October 2024 by council and the school board, contingent on the city raising the money with a tax.
Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims and former school board member Jennifer DiBrienza led the committees that confidentially negotiated the price.
Former school board member Todd Collins has suggested that the city could ask for a lower price or better terms, like a payment plan rather than paying cash upfront.
“There are lots of ways that the district and the city could work together,” Collins said in a June interview.
Residents have questioned council’s decision not to mention the land purchase on the ballot for the half-cent sales tax.
Instead, the question asks if the city should make Cubberley’s buildings safer, upgrade deteriorating wiring and plumbing, acquire outdoor space, maintain safe and clean streets and prepare for natural disasters.
“It just seems off to me — I mean we can’t really do it without the purchase of the land,” resident Phyllis Brown told council members during the June 8 meeting.
In a letter to council, resident Penny Ellson asked if the city mistakenly left out the land purchase in the ballot question.
“This seems to be a significant omission. Shouldn’t this be included?” Ellson wrote.
Brown and Ellson both support the city’s Cubberley plans, which include renovating the classrooms for nonprofits and building a city-owned gym.
Councilman Pat Burt told the Post that the ballot question has a word limit and followed “legalistic guidance” from City Attorney Chris Jensen. But an accompanying argument in favor of the measure will “clearly state one of the key purposes is the actual land purchase,” Burt said in a June 28 interview
During council’s June 8 meeting, Lythcott-Haims asked about omitting the land purchase from the ballot question. Assistant Director of Administrative Services Christine Paras said the city included language that had the most voter support.
Only 34% of Palo Alto voters surveyed in January said buying the Cubberley land was very or extremely important, and the measure needs 50% to pass.
“Electrical, plumbing — those kinds of basics really resounded with the voters,” Paras told council.
The half-cent sales tax is expected to bring in $15.6 million per year.
Collins said people will feel like they’d be asked to pay for property that they already own.
He said that rather than “hide” the land purchase by keeping it out of the ballot question, the city and school district should go back to the negotiating table.
“If that’s an important thing standing in the way of the community approving additional funding for Cubberley, then both the school district and the city should take a beat and try to incorporate that into their thinking and into their deal,” he said.
If there was an appraisal, it should be released for transparency sake. If there wasn’t an appraisal performed, then the question WHY? needs to be asked. Most people don’t like overpaying and it should be no different in this case, especially when council and the city are stewards of taxpayer monies. This city has a population of 67,000 yet its budget is over $1.4 Billion.
The land is zoned so it can’t be anything but a community center. At most it’s worth 1/10 of the negotiated price. There’s a pattern emerging of hiding critical information from the public. Is it the City Manager, the new City Attorney or the Mayor?
Lydia Kou is exactly right. Ditto Savannah. Her comment about the pattern of hiding critical information and her question about who is behind this approach are issues that should concern each of us. My guess is that Shikada has a tight rein on the city attorney. It is highly unlikely anyone on Shikada’s senior staff will do anything contrary to his dictates. More and more, Palo Alto is reflecting Washington. Where is the protection of the public good?
I totally agree. Just like Washington: all talk and no action. And when they do talk it is out of both sides of the mouth.
“Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims and former school board member Jennifer DiBrienza led the committees that confidentially negotiated the price.”
1) Who appointed them to lead the “confidential negotiations” given all the questions about them and what their “mean girls” tweets revealed about their character, honesty and bias?
2) Why were / are the negotiations confidential?
3) Does this tax “sunset” — aka end — or are we supposed to keep paying forever?
Former mayors have repeatedly questioned recent shoddy moves by Council and called for the need to restore public trust and have been met with only deafening silence from the City Manager, the new City Attorney and the Mayor.
When does this end? It’s one thing for taxpayers to be treated as cash cows to be constantly milked but now they also expect us to be deaf and blind, too.
Just vote NO.
PS: Why does PA keep asking us to fund services like the gym and fiber to the home that compete with existing private businesses when sales tax revenues are tanking? Who’s benefiting?
$214 per square foot in Palo Alto is a bargain. But yes, they should release the appraisal. No point in subterfuge.
As someone mentioned, the parcel is zoned for Public Use, which means it can’t be sold for housing, offices, etc. It can only be a school, park, community center, or some other of public facility. There aren’t a lot of comps, but it’s going to have a big impact on the valuation. Typical housing and commercial valuations don’t apply here.
Just because the land is currently zoned “public use”, doesn’t mean it has to stay zoned “public use”. The north corner of Oregon Expressway and El Camino used to be zoned for “public use”. The developer that purchased that property from Caltrans applied to have it rezoned for multi-family and Palo Alto City Council approved the rezoning, which instantly bumped up the valuation by $10M-$12M. Don’t expect the whole Cubberly property to remain zoned for “public use” when there is so much easy money to be made by rezoning all or part of the property.
Land is priced into its highest and best use. Cubberley is zoned for Public Facilities. If a developer could build a hotel or office building it might be worth $500/ft. If all anyone can build is a park or a community center then it’s worth 1/10th at best.
What other bidder are you thinking would offer the same price?
The fact that the all-important ballot question doesn’t state the nature of the measure (which is a general tax intended as a primary purpose to purchase land) seems to be a violation of Election Code 13119. When I questioned Pat Burt about this, his answer was that their “competent legal counsel has explained publicly that the ballot question is a general tax that can be used for any purpose and the language regarding Cubberly is non-binding”. But if they know it will be used to purchase land and just not saying that it will be used for that because it didn’t poll well, it is definitely not transparent and straightforward if not illegal. They think it is ok to just list what polls well. Why not say they will rescue puppies and kittens?
I’ve gotten and filled out those polls. I always assumed they would change the underlying substance of the they were accomplish based on what people want from the poll language, but I guess not. The language is misleading at best. I’m voting no until there is transparency.
That’s right. The city council and the school board are in cahoots to raise taxes and their technique is to withhold information from voters. Duh.
So Julie Lythcott-Haimes negotiated this deal on behalf of the City. Given what she said about Palo Alto being on stolen land, it’s a good thing she didn’t turn Cubberley to some tribe.
The law says the city must release the appraisal. Why would the city violate the law and risk a lawsuit? Because council knows this is a bad deal, and they don’t want voters to know about it.
The taxpayers of Palo Alto Unified School District already own Cubberley; the City of Palo Alto buying Cubberley, means that the taxpayers of Palo Alto are taxing themselves to pay for something most of them already own.
The $65 million the School District receives from the “sale” is suppose to go to school improvements and Capital projects; the School District already has $100 million in reserves; and recently the School District approved pay raises for staff making PAUSD the top paying school district in the bay area, eating up the $100 million reserves, and according to former school board members, the school district will need to lay off staff in a few years.
Can the taxpayers trust the school district board with spending the money from the sale wisely? recent events say no.
Can the taxpayers trust the City with spending the money generated from the sale tax wisely? recent events say no.
Cab the taxpayers trust the City Council to provide much-needed oversight of city wisely using the money generated from us, the taxpayers, with their constant utility rate hikes, spending on consultants with no local knowledge? Recent events say no.