BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
Palo Alto City Council’s refusal to release the Cubberley appraisal isn’t the first time the city has withheld crucial information before a tax vote.
In November 2022, the city hid an audit showing it had banked a $40 million surplus before the community voted on Measure K, a tax on businesses.
The tax was approved by 67% of voters on Nov. 8, 2022.
The audit of the city’s 2021-22 fiscal year was released a week later, on Nov. 16, 2022.
The late Ze’ev Wurman, a Palo Alto resident, told the Post in 2023 that Palo Alto obviously had enough money, but the city hid this fact to get the tax through.
“Palo Alto is greedy,” said Wurman.
At a Feb. 13, 2023 City Council meeting, then-councilman Greg Tanaka said the city should have disclosed the surplus before the election.
“Why was this a surprise?” Tanaka asked.
This year, the withheld document is the audit the city obtained to help it negotiate a $65.5 million purchase price with the Palo Alto school district for seven acres of the Cubberley Community Center.
The Post has been asking the city for the appraisal since July. A California Public Record Act request was denied by City Manager Ed Shikada, saying the council and school board needed to approve its release.
Usually, the city attorney decides whether to release documents requested through the CPRA. The Post was unable to find an example in recent years where city council decided what CPRAs would be released.
The $65.5 million would be paid using the proceeds of a proposed sales tax on the Nov. 3 ballot known as Measure J.
With the election approaching, City Council will meet tomorrow (Oct. 13) to decide whether to release the appraisal or appraisals, since one councilman has suggested the city obtained more than one appraisal.
Palo Alto’s current sales tax rate of 9.75% will jump to 10.25% if voters on Nov. 3 approve Measure J, a new tax to fund the $65.5 million purchase part of the Cubberley Community Center. If voters approve the multi-county mass transit tax RMT, the sales tax rate will go to 10.75%.
The only way to pay them back is to vote against all taxes, sales and otherwise, that the council and PAUSD put on the ballot in the future. No more slush funds with no accountability. They’re like “That was before I was on the council” or they change the subject if they were.
If the Council and staff think releasing the report will help pass the vote, they’ll release it. If they don’t it won’t be released.
Dis is no furst teem. (This is no first time)
GREAT job uncovering this, Dave Price. Thank you.
Shame on Shikado for withholding this! Shame on the Mayor. Shame on Lythcott-Haims for saying J should pass because they “worked so hard” on this fraudulent piece of, er, legislation.
And shame on the candidates who think Shikada’s doing such a great job!
Let’s also make sure taxpayers and voters know that Measure J has no sunset date, it is in perpetuity. The measure states until ends by voters.
City Council members did not have to come out of pocket to pay for polling, pay staff for their time, nor pay city attorney for their analysis, nor pay to place this measure on the ballot, instead they used the General Fund.
For voters to end this sales tax increase, voters will have to come out of their own pockets to pay for an attorney to draft the language for an initiative, qualify it through the city’s attorney office (not sure if there is out of pocket money), take time to collect voters’ signatures, have the signatures qualified (not sure if there is out of pocket money, submit for the ballot. If at that time, the City Council does not wish to end the tax, then they may put forth their own measure to counter the citizen’s measure which means voters will have to come out of pocket to mount a campaign.
I am voting NO to a forever tax!
I am voting NO for a regressive tax that will disproportionately affect those with lower incomes by taking a larger share of their earnings. Essential necessities that are taxed: clothing, school supplies, sports equipment, electronic devices, over the counter medication, kitchen/bath products are essential, etc., these are just some..
I am voting NO to back room deals and not revealing the official appraisal.
I am voting NO to a measure that can potentially hurt mom-and-pop and midsized retail. Stanford Mall may do okay, but shoppers can also shop at Hillsdale or Westfield Valley Fair Mall with lower sales tax rates.
I am voting NO to a measure that transfers the revenues into the General Fund for use on general government services, not specifically Cubberley.
I am voting NO to a measure that does not provide the total cost to implement the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan.
If it is about Cubberley, make it a dedicated fund for Cubberley.
Remember the “Mean Girls” emails that came out in May in the Post?
They flippantly blackballed applicants for a city commission if they supported Israel or didn’t believe the PAUSD suicide narrative.
The two main “Mean Girls” are now leading Measure J — Julie Lythcott-Haims is chairwoman of the council committee that negotiated this deal and Jennifer DiBrienza is head of the Measure J campaign.
Measure J is badly flawed for the reasons Lydia Kou stated above. I’ll be voting no. I can’t imagine how the Mean Girls could have possibly put together a measure that would be beneficial to the community.
Julie said at a council meeting on March 13, 2023, that Palo Alto is built on stolen land. With thoughts like that rolling around in her brain, it’s unlikely she could have negotiated a clear-headed land deal.
I want to see Cubberley improved, but Measure J is too big of a risk. It’s a forever tax for a one-time purchase. Bad idea. I’m not going to risk $65 million on the negotiating skills of Julie Lythcott-Haims and Jennifer DiBrienza.
Thing about J L-H is that she has no perspective on being a member of this community, just says whatever she thinks is good for Julie’s public image and she never should have been on council. She is flawed as a human and a leader! She calls people that disagree with her bad names. This is a woman that went off to college with a credit card from her parents that she did not understand she had to pay up with real cash on items charged!? (Her own story) why oh why would we should we listen to her ?
This is America, anyone can run for office and we know anyone can win; by relying on chaos….and look at the chaos that can ensue!
The are other leaders that we may not always agree with but are proven leaders in this community. Please do not vote for change for changes sake and chaos as it is not an alternative to imperfection in government.
Thank you, Lydia Kou and Jon for exposing the numerous flaws in Measure J and the shoddy tactics consistently used by Lythcott-Haims and Jennifer DiBrienza. How did they get appointed to negotiate this when their objectivity has repeatedly been called into question.
Given the amount of money being spent by Measure J proponents, the stonewalling on the appraisal and the unreasonable attacks being waged against Ms Kou and others, one has to wonder what’s really at stake.
[Portion removed — Terms of Use violation. Inaccurate information. To repeat what the Post’s story said about Mayor Vicki Veenker’s trip to Turkey, the cost of her travel is estimated to be $15,000. She’s going as a member of the board of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is a separate organization from the City of Palo Alto. The $93,500 figure refers to the cost of the entire entourage from the air quality district. The money doesn’t come out of the city’s coffers. However, the district is funded in part by the nine counties it serves as well as by grants, fees and other regulatory costs imposed on industry. The air quality district has its own budget, which reached $312 million in fiscal year 2026. In FY27, its budget is projected to reach $480 million. The air district has a board of 24 members who are city and county officials from the nine counties in the district. Nobody is elected to serve on the air district’s board. Instead, each member is a local elected official who is appointed to serve on the air district’s board. The air district’s website shows that Veenker is the vice chair of the board. The chair is listed as Lynda Hopkins, a Sonoma County supervisor. In addition to Veenker, other Mid-Peninsula officials on the board include Mountain View Councilman Chris Clark, San Mateo County Supervisors Noelia Corzo and Ray Mueller and Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee.]
It’s not fair to lay the Council’s shoddy work on DiBrienza. She is just an advocate here; she didn’t choose the tax structure or hide the appraisal. While Measure J has serious problems, I don’t fault community members who advocate for it, especially when they put in real time and money for something they believe in.
They should have called for transparency rather than buying into the city’s secrecy cult.
Thank you for the above clarification.