Published Monday, Sept. 28.
BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
On Oct. 5, a week from today, ballots for the November election will hit the mail. The city has put Measure J on the ballot, which asks people to raise the sales tax by a half cent to pay for improvements to Cubberley.
City Council has agreed to use $65 million of the money to buy seven acres of the Cubberley Community Center campus from the Palo Alto Unified School District.
A bank wouldn’t loan anyone $65 million to buy a piece of property without an appraisal.
For months, this newspaper has been asking for the appraisal so the public can judge whether $65 million is a fair price.
City Council has stubbornly refused to release the appraisal. And it doesn’t look like they’re going to release it before the election. There’s nothing about it on the agendas for the meetings tonight or on Oct. 5.
Without the appraisal, it’s difficult for voters to make an intelligent choice on Measure J.
Measure J has other flaws — such as no sunset date on the tax and deceptive wording on the ballot statement. But denying the public basic information like the appraisal is enough of a reason to vote “no.”
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
The whole idea that the city should pay PAUSD for the Cubberley site is ridiculous on the face of it. The same taxpayers finance the city and the school district so paying for Cubberley is just transferring money from one pot to another paid for by the same people and of course the extra money from the city will be wasted by the school district giving out raises that are far in excess of inflation, paying for losing lawsuits, buying out failed administrators and sponsoring field trips to listen to advocates for terrorism.
The main purpose of the tax is to buy the land. They don’t put it in the ballot description (because it polled so low) and they won’t tell you what it appraised for. Why would anyone let them get away with this? Especially when they insist we need to trust them on how the money will be used? Unfortunately the City has made it impossible to vote yes.
Thanks once again to Dace Price and the Daily Post!
There is no option but to release the appraisals. Nothing to lose by doing so plenty of suspicion created by not doing so!
Both Dave Price and Linda Kou know the difference between a valuation in a MOU on a proposed sale and an appraisal on agreed purchase. That is why the City has not released an appraisal. There is no agreed contract. They are only “stirring up the pot” on their advocacy for NO on Measure J. If there is a legal issue with Measure J, they would have file an election complaint lawsuit. Measure J is very transparent in its intentions. It is a sales tax with intentions to rebuild Cubberley. Palo Altans vote YES on Measure J. Let’s make Palo Alto even better with a new community center. Community first!
So Ken your view is that the price isn’t set, and could be even higher? Or maybe there won’t even be a purchase, if they haven’t actually agreed. In that case, a forever tax with no restrictions seems like a terrible idea, and we shoukd all vote against it!
Sorry but it’s hardly transparent. Go back and reread the language and you’ll see references to revitalizing PA’s “downtown/commercial core” to cite just one example of how this deceptive this measure is since Cubberley is their downtown nor a “commercial core.”
It’s just another forever tax with no accountability from our “leaders” who’ve shown repeatedly how they treat us like cash cows for their pet projects while they ignore real safety issues like 7+ years of inadequate fire protection in South Palo Alto and inaction on OSVs AND why Palo Alto’s sales tax revenue decline continues to be the most severe decline of all surrounding cities.
Enough. No on J.
Ken, can you show me where in the ballot title it says the money will be used to buy a portion of Cubberly?
You can’t find it in the ballot title? Yet you said this measure is “very transparent.”
And if they’re so transparent, where’s the appraisal? Aren’t we, the people who will have to pay for this thing, entitled to see it?
I think the proponents of Measure J have failed at transparency. Our only recourse is to vote “no.”
To John and PA residents
What I am saying is that there is no formal, unconditional, and signed purchase and sales agreement between the City and PAUSD so the exemption to release an appraisal by the City is covered by the California Public Record Act under real property negotiations. Measure J is also very transparent because it is a sales tax to the general fund and the City Council’s intention is to use the funds to rebuild Cubberley. You can read the City Attorney’s impartial analysis in the ballot information on this matter. Palo Altans should vote YES
on Measure J. We have waited too, too long to miss this opportunity to have a community center. Community First!
Ken, they can release the appraisal any time they want. You’re describing the condition where they MUST release it. The lame excuses make it worse – it’s clear they are hiding it because they don’t like what it says. I actually like the Cubberley project, but there’s no excuse for hiding important info from voters.
Here is The ballot title for Measure J is as follows:
“City of Palo Alto Community Safety/Services Measure. To provide general city services including repairing Cubberley Community Center for current safety, earthquake, accessibility standards; upgrading deteriorating electrical systems, wiring, plumbing; acquiring outdoor space/sites; maintaining streets, safe, clean downtown/commercial cores; preparing for natural disasters; repairing deteriorating community spaces, libraries, shall City of Palo Alto’s measure enacting a 0.5% (1/2¢) sales tax, providing approximately $15,600,000 annually until ended by voters, with published financial audits, all funds used locally, be adopted?”
It is entirely deceptive and disrespectful to put this never-ending increase in sale tax on the ballot using the “general fund” to fund the polling, writing the ballot language, paying for the inclusion onto the ballot, none of that funding used came out of the City Council members’ pockets. Then, the language says this never-ending sales tax can be ended by voters. Voters: that involves voters hiring an attorney to write the language which would need to qualify for a signature collecting petition. Then, there may be a cost to voters to pay to place it on the ballot if enough signatures are collected. And if the City Council decides to run a measure to counter the citizen initiative, more money will be needed to mount a campaign.
This is NOT community first, this is a few folks who is deciding how they spend your hard earn money to fund a General Fund which is not dedicated to renovations or land purchase for Cubberley.
You got to ask — Why did the proponents who has campaign monies of over $70,000 not put all that money toward the dedicated renovations of Cubberley? Why waste it on a bait and switch campaign to tax others? Say NO to Measure J.
” . . . the City Attorney’s impartial analysis . . . is a curious choice of words. The City is the single beneficiary of revenue from Measure J should it pass. By definition, any analysis by the City Attorney cannot possibly be impartial. It is interesting that the original posting of City Ordinance 5699 included a 13th page that showed a private message between Mayor Veenker and Assistant City Attorney Tim Shimuzi in which he clarifies for the mayor that “Purchasing the Cubberley site did not poll especially well so it was left out.” That page has been removed; I suspect its inclusion was a mistake. However, it makes clear that the ballot language is deliberately deceptive.
And to add to what hehimtheythemwhatever posted, Palo Alto taxpayers purchased Cubberley land decades ago. Following a legal condemnation ruling in 1952, a bond measure was passed and PAUSD bought the land.
Measure J references funding the purchase of Cubberley land. Then, AFTER we purchase it, will we have to raise money to pay for a new build there? A theater, gymnasiums, etc? How many more millions are undedicated for the tear down and rebuild? Where will that money come from?! The proponents of Measure J from the PAUSD would do well to consider that the children of the 12 schools within a half mile surrounding Fire Station 4, are vulnerable to a fire at said schools. Fire Engine 64 is not staffed to answer a fire at their school sites. Instead, the engine which answers will come from miles away. Perhaps the safety of the children of south Palo Alto should be front and center for the PAUSD reps. I would love to see Theatreworks at Cubberley, but the negligence of our City Manager, who ignores the fire threat to south Palo Alto, trumps a land purchase.
Connie Brennan brings up a key point about how PA has left South Palo Alto without adequate fire protection since the pre-Pandemic days. Note that PA city manager and PA finance officer plead poverty when asked to rectify the situation and when really pushed on their out-of-control spending, the best they can come up with is to cut a few crossing guards and some library hours!
Given this type of irresponsibility, it takes real nerve to ask us for another $15,600,000 for the Measure J blank check in perpetuity (no sunset) along with the $25,000,000++ we’re paying in utility OVERcharges in perpetuity.
Is there any wonder that PA’s 41% decline in sales tax revenue already exceeds that of all surrounding communities, something Measure J will make even worse.
$65 million is a ridiculously high price. I’d like to see if the appraisal justifies that price.
Just speculating here … but what if the school board conned the council into this high price by saying they could get more for the 7 acres than 65 million?
The school board or Don Austin, who was still here when they reached this deal, could of put it like this.
The 7 acres could be turned into 35 home sites that a developer or buyers would pay 1.9 million a piece. That would get the school district 66 million.
That would be a bluff on Austin’s part because the city decides how the land is rezoned.
But in a closed-door negotiation, the public wouldn’t have a chance to comment on this deal. And our council persons, who are somewhat naive and easily fooled, might have agreed to this outrageous amount. They knew it was a bad deal, but figured that people would never find out if they kept the appraisal secret.
Council and staff don’t care if they overpay because it’s other people’s money. We see that attitude on display at virtually every council meeting.
This is all speculation. But I’m voting NO on J, and I won’t give them a cent until they’re forthcoming about the appraisal and why they agreed to such a high price.