BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto City Council and school board members are continuing to negotiate their land deal at the Cubberley Community Center ahead of a sales tax measure to fund the city’s purchase.
The school board discussed negotiations privately at a special meeting on Tuesday (Sept. 8), and council will discuss the deal again on Monday (Sept. 14).
“A deal is never done. We could always discuss a better deal,” Mayor Vicki Veenker said in an interview on Tuesday.
Veenker said something could happen before or after the Nov. 3 election, when voters will consider a half-cent sales tax to fund the $65.5 million purchase.
Other options remain
Councilman Ed Lauing said the city hasn’t released its appraisal at Cubberley because council is still looking at ways to acquire the land if the sales tax fails.
“The deal is not done until we have the money to pay them,” he said.
Lauing said the district could lease Cubberley to private schools and let the property value appreciate for a decade, and the city doesn’t have another location for a community center. Still, negotiations have been friendly.
“All of the minds that are dealing with this want what’s best for the city,” Lauing said. “The benefits of the community center to the kids, and the parents of the kids in the school district, is clear. And (the district) doesn’t need the space.”
Cubberley was a high school that closed in 1979 due to declining enrollment. Since then, the city has leased buildings from the district and rented them to nonprofits, artists and youth programs.
But the buildings are rundown, and the city is planning to add more housing in the area. Lauing called the land deal a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
After 18 months of negotiations, council agreed in October 2024 to buy seven of 35 acres.
The city already owns eight acres there. The city has partnerships with five nonprofits that want to raise money and get space: Avenidas Senior Center, Palo Alto Community Childcare, Maker Nexus, TheatreWorks and a group raising money for a gym.
Voters appear skeptical
Only 34% of Palo Alto voters surveyed in January said buying the Cubberley land was very or extremely im-portant, so the city focused the ballot question on areas that had more voter support.
“Electrical, plumbing — those kinds of basics really resounded with the voters,” Assistant Director of Administrative Services Christine Paras told council on June 8.
The half-cent sales tax is expected to bring in $15.6 million per year, with no expiration.
If the city needs to buy Cubberly to support the population influx from all the planned development near the San Antonio corridor, shouldn’t the developers have to foot the bill?
If you can afford a 10% tax increase living here in palo alto, please let me know where you are buying gas and eggs.
We get our eggs at Walmart. Today its $1.67 for a dozen Great Value Cage-Free Large White Eggs. Seems like a good price.
You’d think they would have had reached a deal before putting this on the ballot. Wonder if they’ll ever tell us about the deal?
How do you know how much money you’re going to need if you don’t know the price? Also, the school board and the City Council represent the same people so why does money need to change hands? The way it’s going to work apparently is the new sales tax is going to compensate the school district for the loss of the parcel tax measure, but Linda Henigin wants to put the parcel tax back on the ballot so wouldn’t that result in a double parcel tax? Makes sense to me. And then after all that happens the school board is going to have to come up with a way to spend the money. We can always use a couple more sushi machines.
Another move by Veenker to sneakily push something though BEFORE a vote is taken while ignoring the FACT that only 34% consider this a priority:
“The school board discussed negotiations privately at a special meeting on Tuesday (Sept. 8), and council will discuss the deal again on Monday (Sept. 14).
“A deal is never done. We could always discuss a better deal,” Mayor Vicki Veenker said in an interview on Tuesday.
Veenker said something could happen before or after the Nov. 3 election, when voters will consider a half-cent sales tax to fund the $65.5 million purchase.”
Remind me again why we bother to vote when our “leaders” act so unilaterally. I’ve yet to hear anyone even mention how PA having a higher sales tax than our neighbors or analyze what having a higher sales will do to our dramatically declining sales tax revenue.
The city is being arrogantly disingenuous about this tax measure. If there was serious intent that the revenue would be for the land purchase and renovations, this tax measure would be for a specific tax, not a general tax. The ballot language is deceptive, but the city’s own words in the ordinance on this make clear that the revenue can be spent on “general government services”. Also, this isn’t a once-in a-lifetime opportunity. Per a Google search, Palo Alto taxpayers approved a bond for the purchase of Cubberley in 1952. So this is Cubberley, Round 2.
‘The City’s own words in the ordinance on this make clear that the revenue can be spent on “general government services”.’ Indeed it will be! Measure K is a good example of a deceptive campaign to raise tax money with little intent to spend it as advertised to the voters. The wording of Measure K specifies the funds to go roughly equally towards public safety, housing and grade separation. However, it was promoted widely to the voters with an image of the Palo Alto Fire Department. Voters thought the fire department would receive funding! Few vote a tax on themselves for housing; few vote a tax on themselves for grade separation. The voters approved Measure K because THEY BELIEVED IT WOULD GO TOWARDS FIRE PROTECTION. Guess how much money went to the fire department in fiscal 2024?! It is a nice round number! In fiscal 2025, 1.9 million went to “public safety” but little of it went to the fire department; the PAPD was favored for those funds. Far more was raised by the tax but was spent elsewhere. Similarly, much of Measure J money will be diverted for purposes other than paying for Cubberley. (Oh! The fire engine at Fire Station 4 STILL has no dedicated staff to man it. It appears we are a stressed community with few resources, so …ask the brave fire fighters to tighten their belts! Measure K did nothing to improve the sad response times of the PAFD in south Palo Alto.) Yes, Measure J funding will be diverted. Future councils will find “more urgent” needs for the tax money raised by Measure J. There is little institutional memory or loyalty in this city to promises made.