This was printed in Thursday’s Daily Post.
BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
There’s a rift among three Palo Alto council members who negotiated a deal to buy seven acres at the Cubberley Community Center from the school district.
Councilman Pat Burt and Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims aren’t happy with former Mayor Lydia Kou because Kou has criticized the deal, even though she was on the negotiating committee with them.
“It takes a lots of chutzpah to be part of the deal and then turn against it, wouldn’t you say?” Lythcott-Haims said in a text message on Monday.
Burt said Kou’s criticism of the deal is “offensive.”
“There’s hardly any way to characterize it other than dishonest,” Burt said in an interview on Tuesday. Kou signed the ballot argument against Measure J, a half-cent sales tax on the Nov. 3 ballot to fund the land purchase and building renovations.
Burt pointed to Kou’s comments at a council meeting on Oct. 7, 2024, when council unanimously approved an agreement with the district to buy seven acres at the old high school for $65.5 million.
At the meeting, Kou said the committee negotiated the purchase price “with fiscal responsibility and fiscal diligence.
“I’m just glad that we are where we are … This is a project that does need to happen,” she said at the time.
In an interview on Tuesday, Kou said she raised issues with the sale price behind closed doors.
“It was a lot of back-door dealings. Obviously I came away unhappy with it. Just because I was in the room doesn’t mean I was agreeable,” she said.
Kou said she supports expanding and renovating Cubberley, but she wants a tax or bond that is specifically for the Cubberley project. The city can spend Measure J proceeds on any city project.
Council went with a general tax, not a specific tax because a general tax has a lower threshold for approval.
Kou has criticized the city for not releasing its appraisal of Cubberley. She said a bank wouldn’t give out a mortgage without an appraisal, so the people of Palo Alto shouldn’t be expected to spend their hard-earned cash without the supporting documentation either.
“It would be great if the people can see (the appraisal), and we can justify paying that money,” Kou said in an interview.
‘Never-ending rathole’
The city released a statement about the appraised price on Monday that said the seven acres were val-ied at $43.6 to $60.2 million in 2024. With inflation, the $60.2 million would be equal to approximately $65.5 million in 2027, the statement said.
Burt said he doesn’t support releasing the appraisal because critics of the Cubberley deal would’ve found disagreements with the appraiser’s assumptions.
“That would simply be a never-ending rathole that opponents would want to pursue,” Burt said.
Burt said the city obtained two appraisals. The first was at the higher number, and the second was at the lower number. The purpose of the second appraisal was to be more aggressive in negotiations, and that was the city’s starting offer, he said.
The school district originally asked for $90 million, reflecting the potential value of leasing the buildings to a private school, Monday’s statement said.
What can go there
The property is zoned for public facilities, which limits what can get built there and gives priority to government buyers.
Former school board member Todd Collins said council members should’ve released the appraisal months ago.
“They just keep making it a bigger issue … Unfortunately their view has been that too much information is not good for voters,” Collins said in an interview on Tuesday.
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 approve the multi-county mass transit tax RMT, the sales tax rate will go to 10.75%.
There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, particularly since the council refused to release important information to the public and tried to slip a deal in under the radar.
And a “least-bad deal” isn’t necessarily a good deal.
The councilmembers’ anger seems that Kou somehow betrayed them personally, not about her arguments and the community. What’s up with that? Are arrogant narcissistic people drawn to elected office? Or do they just get that way once they’re there?
Pat Burt and the Yes on J crowd are attacking Kou in order to distract the public on what a lousy deal they’ve made on Cubberley. Release the appraisal and let the voter decide who is right.
Yeah, changed her mind alright – into that of a hypocrite.
Watch the video of the 10-4-24 city council meeting (start at mark 5:10).
Her enthusiasm for the deal she helped negotiate was full throated enthusiasm, telling the public what a good and fiscally responsible agreement it was and how much we need an expanded and updated Cubberley.
She was right. Now she’s wrong. And for that our community may suffer.
Pass measure J. Kou was right – it’s the good and responsible thing to do.
Koo is write on most de things.
we now learn that there are two appraisals, not just one. each appraisal would show the rational.
After all this I went back to look at the video of the 10/4/24 council meeting (easy to find online) to see if Lydia ‘reluctantly voted under protest’ or what. Instead Lydia publicly, even proudly, notes that she helped negotiate the price, and twice declares how they came up with a price that was “fiscally responsible.” It sounds like the district had offers on the table worth $90 million from private schools, and was willing to take only $60k to keep Cubberley as a public community asset. I say we are not going to get another shot at a 15 acre site for a community center, and this is not an unreasonable price to pay for a 7 acre lot (just ask any tech billionaires). This squabbling over how the price was come upon, or why doesn’t some billionaire pay for it, is a diversion. Either you want a 15 acre community center that we all can enjoy, or you prefer to keep your 50 cents for every hundred dollars you spend on luxury goods, keep using the run-down Lucie Stern, and wonder why we can’t have nice things here.
The problem isn’t so much the price but the fact that Palo Alto taxpayers are paying twice for the same piece of land. Palo Alto taxpayers paid for the district to buy the land in the first place and we’re paying again for the city to purchase it from the district. If you bought a house in 1955 you shouldn’t have to buy it again at today’s inflated prices.
To be clear, there is no evidence, anywhere, that the PAUSD had a bona fide offer worth $90 million, or any other offer at all. I doubt it can be obtained through a CPRA request, but I’d be curious to see it. It sounds like a negotiating ploy that, sadly, worked. Why PAUSD, flush with bond funds, felt they needed to wring maximum value out of city taxpayers, is a mystery to me.
Well, she was wrong the first time and right the second time. So what?
I think the tone of the comments in this article, quotes from current council members are undignified.
Peopl me are divided on what’s best to do with this highly volatile situation that the council has created. A little respect for those one doesn’t agree with would be in order. kou has always served this community. And has never been afraid to adjust her opinion as new facts emerged. Meaning maybe she thought it was the best we could do
At one point but the general tax with no sunset and the coverup of the appraisal tipped her thinking!?
Dishonest? That’s a harsh and unfair criticism. Former Mayor Kou supported the deal in October 2024. TWO YEARS AGO and well before the deceptive ballot language was written. City Ordinance 5699 defining the measure was signed in June 2026.
When the ordinance was first posted on the city’s website it included a 13th page with the heading COMMENT HISTORY. I was surprised by what was in the history and downloaded a copy b/c I assumed (correctly, it turns out) that the page would be removed. On that page is a private message from the mayor to assistant city attorney Tim Shimizu. Mayor Veenker wrote, “Tim, I thought we wanted to acquire buildings. It looks like “outdoor” modifies both space and sites. Is that correct? If so, are we not stating an intent to acquire land with buildings?” The answer, quoted below, reveals one of the major problems with Measure J. In addition to not having a sunset clause, it is deceptive. And I think that those accusing Ms. Kou know that full well; they are too involved no to.
Mr. Shimizu replied, “This large list of items comes from the themes that polled best. Purchasing the Cubberley site did not poll especially well so it was left out. In addition, this list does not control what the revenue can be spent on; it simply gives examples of what “general city services” are. ”
And Kou is being called dishonest? Hardly. She is fulfilling the public trust.