We’d like to see the dilapidated Cubberley Community Center renovated and turned into a source of pride for Palo Alto. But Measure J is a fundamentally flawed, fiscally irresponsible and non-transparent mechanism to achieve it. We strongly recommend a “no” vote on this permanent half-cent sales tax increase.
City officials pitch Measure J as a way to raise approximately $15.6 million annually, primarily to fund the $65.5 million purchase of seven acres of Cubberley from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
We already own this land
First and foremost, the entire premise of this transaction begs a glaring question: Why are Palo Alto taxpayers being asked to hand over $65.5 million to a school district that serves the exact same taxpayers? This is a redundant shell game moving public funds from one local pocket to another.
Instead of forcing a massive cash transfer, PAUSD should contribute this surplus land to the city for free, or enter into a long-term lease agreement — such as $1 a year for 50 years. Local families shouldn’t have to tax themselves indefinitely just to buy land they already support through their property taxes.
Compounding this absurdity is the alarming lack of transparency surrounding the real estate deal. The price negotiations between the city council and the school district were held entirely behind closed doors. Just yesterday, the public finally learned that PAUSD originally demanded an outrageous $90 million for the seven-acre plot.
Appraisal kept secret
The city hired a professional appraiser to generate a formal valuation report. Yet, the city is keeping that full report completely secret from the public ahead of the election. The public is being asked to pay the bill but isn’t allowed to see the appraisal. Just on principle, voters should reject Measure J until they get the full story.
Also yesterday, the city reluctantly revealed a tiny glimpse of that appraisal, disclosing that the evaluator placed the land’s value somewhere between $43.6 million and $60.2 million in 2024 dollars. A massive $16.6 million spread tells us the appraisal is wildly imprecise and practically worthless. This volatility is a natural byproduct of a broken process — there simply aren’t any comparable, recently sold properties zoned exclusively for public facilities in Palo Alto to serve as a benchmark.
Despite this, the city forged ahead and agreed to pay $65.5 million — an amount that exceeds even the absolute highest end of their own vague appraisal. To manipulate public perception and make it look like a victory, officials claim the land’s value will magically catch up via inflation by the time the sale officially closes in 2027. This is creative accounting at its worst. Voters deserve to see the actual appraisal report to understand exactly what risks and structural concerns the appraiser flagged regarding this bloated price tag.
Even if you support the real estate transaction, Measure J itself is a dangerous blank check. Unlike typical school bonds or parcel taxes that come with a definitive sunset date, Measure J has no end date — the tax would last forever. Furthermore, because it is structured as a general tax, the text of the measure contains absolutely no legal guarantee that the money will actually go toward purchasing or fixing Cubberley.
Palo Alto’s current sales tax rate of 9.75% will jump to 10.25% if voters on Nov. 3 approve Measure J. If voters also approve the multi-county mass transit tax RMT, the sales tax rate will go to 10.75%.
In a blatant attempt to deceive voters, the city called Measure J a “Community Safety/Services Measure” on the ballot to trick uninformed voters into believing the tax had something to do with police or firefighting.
The ballot question completely omitted the land purchase because internal polling showed low voter support for buying the land. Once approved, these millions will flood into the city’s General Fund, legally free to be spent on whatever City Hall pleases — whether that means hiring more expensive consultants, buying take-home cars for employees or paying for more out-of-town trips for city administrators.
Palo Alto can, and must, negotiate a better deal for Cubberley. Reject this unaccountable, permanent tax hike. Vote “no” on Measure J.
Sums it up. I’ve been saying this for months now. And if the school district gets a big windfall and Linda Henigin is elected, there’s one big vote to turn it over to the teachers’ union that represents people who can’t be fired.
It’s hard to respond to such an ill-informed comment. For starters, the district can’t use this money for any recurring expenses—so no salaries. It can be used to help improve buildings and infrastructure; I’d personally love for my child’s school to get some much-needed upgrades that weren’t included in the past allocation of bond money.
[Portion removed — Terms of Use violation. Don’t claim people said things they didn’t say.]
And third, your name shows a lack of empathy and understanding.
Simple. They’ll use the money from the city for maintenance and building upgrades and then put another parcel tax on the ballot for more raises. It’s a big shell game between the city and the district.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts”. The editorial bases its silly assertion that PAUSD can and should provide their Cubberley land for $1 per year because “the school district serves the exact same taxpayers”. Aside from the fact that the district is a separate government entity with its own fiduciary responsibilities, it is shocking that the Post is unaware that PAUSD serves a large portion of Los Altos Hills and all of Stanford University residents, not to mention that portions of far south Palo Alto are not part of PAUSD. In fact, two of the five school board members are not Palo Alto residents.
The bottom line is that almost everyone can find a part of the whole agreement that they would prefer was different. But, this is our chance to finally make Cubberley the community center that we want and need. Pursuit of the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
As Lydia Kou said when she voted unanimously with her colleagues in favor of the Cubberley agreement, “Naturally the purchase price was something that we did have to negotiate. And we did it with fiscal responsibility and with fiscal diligence.”
PAUSD has fiduciary responsibilities? If it does it’s not paying a whole lot of attention to them.
The Census Reporter says PAUSD covers 27.6 miles and the city of Palo Alto is 25.96 miles. So, yes, Pat, that is highly significant. (Everyone applaud).
Technicalities aside, address the big issues raised here.
1. Why is the city keeping the appraisal from the public?
2. Why does the sales tax have no expiration date? Shouldn’t it end when the work at Cubberley is done?
3. Will the city agree to drop the tax once the Cubberley work is done?
4. Why did council decide to call this a “Community Safety/Services Measure” when it doesn’t involve police or fire services?
The school board has fiduciary responsibilities? Do you think s fiduciary would hide from their clients an appraisal? Pat, you’re a slick politician but you couldn’t pass a first-year accounting class.
Good advice. Thank you. I will be voting no on J.
I was not surprised to read that PAUSD wanted $90M – it needs to keep its coffers full to cover all the legal settlements that come up with alarming frequency. And the payouts to departing superintendents. 25 Churchill needs to get is act together.
Two comments here – First, sounds like PAUSD wanted $90M because they are fiscal stewards of a valuable piece of property that is in demand by other groups. If we don’t want to lose the seven acres, we should be a strong Yes on J. Second, the proceeds from the sale cannot be spent on the general budget, legal expenses, or salaries. The board has already passed a resolution designating it for facilities and maintenance, as required by law.
A school board resolution can be reversed with just three votes, right? If so, what’s your point?
as stated above, it is required by law that proceeds from a property sale go to facilities and maintenance. So that’s where it’s going, no matter who is on the board.
In other words, PAUSD used the money for other things besides building upgrades so the city needs to pay for those upgrades? The city already wastes a lot of money and now we need a new city sales tax to help pay for the school district’s waste?
If PAUSD wanted to sell the Cubberley property to someone else, if I were the mayor I would have three words for the district: “Don’t you dare.”
so, my prediction is the district has no interest in selling the property to someone else, but I’d also bet the mayor will not say “don’t you dare” if on November 3rd the voters vote No on J. That is essentially telling the city the voters have no interest in investing in Cubberley. Why would the mayor say don’t dare sell it when the voters said they have no interest in purchasing it and others have an interest?
Thank you for these clarifications of fact by Council member Burt and
J. Di Brienza. I’ve never seen so much misinformeation being emailed around.
There have been at least 2 previous Palo Alto Measures that were passed as a general rather than a specific tax. The 2 I remember are The Transit Occupancy Tax and the Business Tax. Council passed Advisory Resolutions for both, pledging to spend the revenue only as stated in the Measures. While not legally binding, the City has assiduoulsy abided by the Resolutions with millions raised and spent in conformance to the Measures. There is no basis to think that the City will breech the Advisory Resolution passed for Measure J.
Of course polling costs were taken from the general fund as is taken for the numerouos polls and surveys the City conducts on a wide range of matters.
As I remember, not only did Council member Kou vote to approve the Cubberley agreement, she was 1 of 3 Council members who negotiated it with PAUSD! She doesn’t mention her role when she criticizes Measure J.
You seem to have a lot of faith in the city. The city collects over $1B and still projected to run a deficit of $17 million in the latest year. The deficit is startling for two reasons 1) Currently economically the best times 2) Deficits are projected to rise to $80 million in next 10 years
So basically, you want us to trust in a city that is currently unable to manage to live within its means
The hypocrisy by Lydia Kou in opposing Measure J is unacceptable. See for yourself in the 10/7/24 youtube (link below) of the City Council meeting when members, including an enthusiastic Lydia Kou, approved the MOU for purchase and lease of land at Cubberley (Kou was one of the City negotiators).
Among other things, she enthusiatically states:
“Naturally the purchase price was something we did have to negotiate, and we did it with fiscal responsibility and fiscal diigience.”
“This is a project that does need to happen for the gym, wellness, play space and for non-profits that benefit the community”.
She ends with, “I want to emphasize we did it with fiscal diligence to come to this price.”
[Portion deleted — Terms of Use violation. No links.]
Voting NO on Measure J does not in itself produce a better purchase price. It does not automatically renegotiate the property price, produce a lower appraisal, or create an alternative funding source. Many of the points in the editorial are opinions, inferences, and misleading rather than established facts. After years of planning and negotiations, the City has an agreement with PAUSD to consolidate the land to rebuild a special community center. Let’s make this opportunity happen for Palo Altans to enjoy the benefits of recreation, culture, education, arts, and community services. Vote YES on Measure J.
If we reject Measure J, it will result in a better proposal. The council members and school board members will learn from this campaign and put forward a less expensive and more thought-out plan that will get the community’s backing. This proposal is going down in flames. Try again.
Help me understand what you say, and what so many say! Measure J does NOT dedicate money to a Cubberley build! It dumps the money into the general fund! It does NOT go to Cubberly! Have you read it?
Let’s face it – Measure J was a long shot from the start, and the city’s shenanigans with the appraisal has probably made it a sure loss. There’s tax fatigue everywhere, and a load of taxes on the ballot, plus another run at a parcel tax by the flailing school board in the spring. Measure J needed some lucky breaks to win – it’s gone the other way. Hopefully the supporters have a Plan B for Cubberley.
I don’t believe the school board got a $90 million offer from anybody for a piece of Cubberley. That’s ridiculous. I think that was a negotiation tactic of Don Austin to get the city to pay more. If somebody offered $90 million, then reveal their name. If you don’t, I’m going to believe the city council was suckered into raising their bid. (I’ll bet the council never even asked Austin for the 90-million- dollar-bidder’s name, they’re that stupid.)
Dharap and DiBrienza let the negotiation for PAUSD according to the 2024 announcement.
I would vote for Measure J if the money were used to renovate Cubberley. If it’s used to pay PAUD for the property, no way.
That Ms Kou is advising a NO vote is meaningful to me. As has been noted, she has history with the issue. I doubt she would expend political capital by opposing this unless she sincerely thinks the ballot version is deeply flawed. The language is deliberately deceptive, the appraisal is deliberately not being released, and proponents deliberately chose to not include a sunset clause. Why approach voters that way? Also, guidelines are nice but not binding.
Jennifer DiBrienza and Pat Burt should be ashamed of themselves. They know what they are doing. The funds from Measure J are a GENERAL tax that CAN be used for anything as Dave Price points out. There is no requirement the funds be used for Cubberly. It can be used for ANY legal purpose …another raise for Ed Shikada (or upgrade his $5 million house subsidized by taxpayers) or trips or consultants. Anything.
Why would we be ashamed? We have an old, run-down gem of a property that is partially owned by the city and partially owned by the school district. It needs investment. This city has a long history of investing in great amenities – for our children, families, and seniors to enjoy and to keep our property values high. For 37 years many people have hemmed and hawed about what to do. This city council has finally made a deal and gotten it on the ballot. There is absolutely nowhere that we hide it’s a general tax. But the city has a long history of putting up general taxes and committing to use them in a particular way. It happened with the hotel tax, it happened with Measure K. Every year there is a budgeting process and an audit and the city can show it has always spend the revenue in the way it committed. Same for Measure J. If someone doesn’t want us to invest in Cubberley, I understand a no vote. But if you agree that Cubberley needs investment and that we all benefit from a safe and supported community center, then now is the chance! It’s time!
Indeed. Reading the Measure J language shows it’s a GENERAL tax to be used for — among other things revitalizing “downtown and commercial areas — neither of which applies to Cubberley — and which means Measure J funds go into the GENERAL FUND giving PA another blank check to waste as they see fit in perpetuity — just like the millions in utilities OVERCHARGES collected from us for the last decade.
Have these additional funds led PA to cut or even moderate its huge annual utilities rate hikes?? Of course not; we’re just cash cows to be milked without even the semblance of accountability.
Meanwhile Palo Alto’s sales tax revenue has tanked more than surrounding cities while it wastes millions of OUR tax dollars on retail consultants who think that Stanford Shopping Center is downtown, that their Cal Ave Streetscape Survey is meaningful and that PA’s retail salvation lies in open container laws to facilitate more alcohol consumption at a time when NATIONAL alcohol consumption continues its rapid decline.
Will raising PA’s sales tax rate hike help stem the sales tax revenue decline? Of course not. People can still find their ways to Menlo Park and Los Altos! The City Manager will continue to grow his staff. CPAU will continue to hike rates so they drastically outpace inflation. The Mayor will continue to claim it’s “too soon” to act on the OSVs while she travels to Brazil to preach sustainability and hobnob with data center providers.
Until PA shows some common sense re fiscal responsibility, changes its spending priorities to provide FIRE protection to South Palo Alto instead of consultants with no local knowledge, accountability on OSVs etc etc etc, I see no reason to give them another blank check in perpetuity.
Just say no.
For years, nay decades, the Palo Alto community has demanded that we “do something with Cubberley.” That demand has resulted in Measure J. We got this far – farther than any city/school district effort had gotten to date – because we had the right council members in place and the right school board members in place to do a deal. The city has worked tirelessly on this deal with the school district on procuring the land, and then on how to fund the overall project budget, for years. One of the most exciting pieces are the public private partnerships, which means that in addition to the sales tax, nonprofits are helping fund the capital expenses associated with the project. Development Impact fees from all of the Housing going in on San Antonio Antonio Road will also go toward this project.
I fear that if Measure J fails, neither city staff, nor the council will have any appetite to do this for years. Because the entire team will feel demoralized by such an intense effort, only to resolve in failure.
The buildings are nearing the end of their useful life. We are in danger of losing the viability of Cubberley entirely.
The Palo Alto community deserves a revitalized Cubberley that will serve children through seniors for decades to come. Has this process been perfect? No. Is it good enough? Heck yes. More than good enough. Let’s not lose the forest for the tree trees, folks.
You sound like somebody who judges an outcome based on how hard people tried rather than the results they got. If this is a bad deal, why does it matter how hard people worked on it? If they got it wrong, they got it wrong, Period.
Julie, your philosophy sounds like those parents who insist that every kid on the baseball team get a participation trophy even if they had a batting average of .010.
All Measure J does is guarantee a never-ending tax increase, but doesn’t commit the city to any improvements at Cubberley. Read the Cubberley, uh, Safety/Services Measure J ballot language if you don’t believe me.
And while you’re on this forum, please explain why we, the people who are going to pay this tax, can’t read the appraisal? What’s in it that must be kept secret? Or are you keeping it secret because it would embarrass the negotiating team, which you headed?
Yes Julie, it is a shame how you guys fumbled the ball after getting so far. You’ve snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by overpaying PAUSD, then hiding it from the voters, plus doing a forever general tax instead of one that is time limited. It could have been different. It’s funny how you seem to want to blame the voters if it fails (not surprising, you never did seem to think much of Palo Alto voters), when the fault is really with you and your colleagues.
A $1-a-year lease would avoid the upfront land payment. What incentive would PAUSD have to accept that arrangement instead of a sale?
For Julie to accuse Lydia Kou of “chutzpah” for changing her mind about Cubberley on the basis of the new information and how the NEW proposal gave PA a blank check instead of committing funds exclusively to Cubberley is incredibly ironic from someone who ignores facts not to her liking.
Did Lythcott-Haims forget that support for Measure J kept polling lower and lower each time which led her and Council to move the goal posts and lower the Measure’s approval threshold to 50% majority which meant giving PA a blank check instead of committing the funds EXCLUSIVELY to Cubberley improvements??
Or does she just want voters to ignore the facts?
For her to claim that any solution is better than none regardless of the costs or new realities is simplistic at best and shows blatant disregard for the community she’s supposed to serve. For someone who’s always beating the equity drum, she conveniently ignores the fact that the sales tax hike is a regressive tax
Or were those facts too inconvenient for her to mention? Or just part of her usual m/o to distract and attack anyone and everyone who dares to disagree with her?
The big focus of the PAUSD board is to make it’s unaffordable labor contracts even more unaffordable, so naturally they want the city to buy the Cubberly land from them outright at an unaffordable price.
“In a blatant attempt to deceive voters, the city called Measure J a “Community Safety/Services Measure” on the ballot to trick uninformed voters into believing the tax had something to do with police or firefighting.”
Well said, Dave! Deja Vu!
Measure K was also deceitfully promoted! Measure K was promoted using the smiling faces of our brave firefighters, standing in front of the fire engine/fire house. Every promotion for K used their images.
Residents voted that tax on themselves believing it was to protect their homes and their children’s schools from fire. NO ONE votes a tax on themselves for “grade separation,” or “housing,” included in K. We residents, in good faith, approved K to protect our safety but…shocker!…we were duped. The PAFD received NO money the first year after K passed. They received a small portion the next two years.
(Is Ed Shikada so incompetent, he cannot find the funds in our 1.4 billion dollar budget to fund fire protection?! He has to put forth a wildly deceptive Measure K tax? Oh, that’s right! He hugely shorted funding for the PAFD, thereby necessitating the closure of a fire station in 2000, (of course, he closed SOUTH Palo Alto’s fire station.) THEN he asked the voters for money for the fire department via K, ….but now spends most of the money elsewhere! HAHAHA! We voters were duped! Fire Engine 64 is still not staffed!)………. The same money drain will happen when voters approve Measure J; the totality of the funds will dump into the general fund; a partial portion may be dedicated to Cubberley.
Future councils may feel little compulsion to honor non-binding promises made today by this council, to spend future funds on Cubberley. I would love, love, love a theater for THEATREWORKS at Cubberley, but it will never be built by J. Put forth a bond measure whereby we are assured the money will go to Cubberley. Restore faith in our government.
I applaud Lydia Kou! Early on she supported the goal of purchasing the land and building a community center for all. However, she subsequently recognized that the devil was in the ensuing details.
After seeing Measure J morph into a flawed tax vehicle, she put herself forward against the Measure.
She is brave! In presenting her frank truth, she risks the ridicule of spineless trolls. She posts under her name; they hide.