After a rough-and-tumble campaign, Measure J remains ahead in returns posted Friday, with 8,476 (51.43%) in favor and 8,006 (48.57%) against.
Measure J was City Council’s response to residents who said something needed to be done to the Cubberley Community Center, the former high school at 4000 Middlefield Road, which was showing signs of deterioration.
Behind closed doors, City Council negotiated to buy 7 acres of the 35-acre Cubberley campus for $65.5 million from the Palo Alto Unified School District. The deal was contingent on council passing a new tax to pay for the purchase. The city already owns 8 acres of the site.
Initial polling shows residents wouldn’t approve the tax by the customary two-thirds threshold necessary for a bond measure. So council decided to make it a sales tax that would not be committed for any particular use. As a general tax, only a simple majority was necessary to pass the tax.
When council decided to put Measure J on the ballot, residents questioned why council had agreed to pay $65.5 million. The answer was that the school district, then led by superintendent Don Austin, claimed it had been offered $90 million for the 7 acres.
The Post asked the school district for any documents verifying the $90 million offer. But the district said the discussion was entirely verbal and there were no documents available. The school district paid Austin $596,802 to resign in February.
City leaders said they decided to offer $65.5 million after receiving appraisals of the 7 acres in 2024.
When the Post asked to see the appraisal, council initially refused to provide the documents. Then in early October, when voting was beginning, the city issued a statement saying the appraised price was between $43.6 and $60.2 million, and that with inflation, the top price would have increased to the $65 million the city had agreed to pay the school district.
As pressure grew for full disclosure, council voted 7-0 on Oct. 13 to release the actual appraisals. The appraisals showed that the appraiser’s first estimate was $60.2 million. Then the city asked the appraiser to consider more comparable properties, and the second appraisal came in at $43.6 million.
Meanwhile, the school district was late in approving a plan for spending $65.5 million from selling seven acres at the Cubberley Community Center to the city of Palo Alto.
The school district was supposed to have a plan by March 30, according to an agreement with the city, but the work stalled during a leadership transition, Superintendent Jason Glass said in an email to the Post in August.
Oddly, the city’s ballot question for Measure J didn’t mention the land purchase. Instead, it was titled “City of Palo Alto Community Safety/Services Measure.”
Another thing that rankled voters was that Measure J has no expiration date. The tax would continue to be collected after the land was purchased and Cubberley was renovated. The lack of a sunset date was one of the reasons why former councilwoman Lydia Kou came out against Measure J. She was criticized by others currently on the council including Pat Burt and Julie Lythcott-Haims.
Controversy dogged Measure J right up until Election Day. The city put up a Yes-on-J banner on the Embarcadero Road overpass, which seemed to conflict with the city’s ban on political signs on city property.
“Allowing a massive political sign to hang by the week on public property is an outrage,” Measure J opponent Jeanne Fleming said. “But given the way the city has cheated at every turn with Measure J, I’m just glad there’s not a ‘Yes on J’ banner draped across City Hall.”
Dirty campaign from start to finish. Council should be ashamed.
Measure J was mislabeled as a public safety measure with no mention of the real intent to spend the hundreds of millions in bond moneys based on this new forever tax. I am sure that our school district office will be first in line for that needless 65.5 million dollar payment for lands already owned by our public. That was quite a deal for the PAUSD, but not much of one for our residents.
We will see how long it takes to replace and repair the old Cubberley buildings, but they might need to wait behind the long list of those nonprofits who were promised most anything they wanted in the way of new buildings in order to get their supporters behind this measure.
Keep measure J in mind when the school district is trying to push through a parcel tax early next year – the answer is no.
Nothing says, “I told you so,” like the facts. Thank you, Daily Post.
Joe Simitian is right as usual as to facts and necessity.
Yes on J!
Yep, Measure J was pretty sleazy. But what else is new? Forget it Jake, it’s Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto compromised its obligation to remain neutral by using its official position and public resources to promote Measure J rather than provide voters with impartial information. This raises serious concerns under California Government Code § 54964 and applicable election-neutrality requirements. Furthermore, the City’s authorization of a Yes-on-J banner on the Embarcadero Road overpass, despite municipal restrictions on political signage on public property, demonstrates questionable preferential treatment. The City Manager’s subsequent acknowledgment that the banner violated municipal code further underscores the need for an independent legal review and potential judicial challenge.
What a farce! Shikada just wants to keep the $$$$$$$$$$$ flowing so he can hire more useless consultants with no local knowledge. I guess he’ll need another “retail consultant” to study why sales tax revenue from Palo Alto’s struggling retailers and restaurants continues tanking way worse than surrounding cities.
Joe Smitian’s support for Measure J, coupled with his endorsement of buying out the Buenaventura Mobile Home Park, reflects a familiar pattern: spending other people’s money with little regard for the cost to taxpayers. A lifelong bureaucrat who has spent much of his career on the public payroll, he seems perfectly comfortable committing billions of dollars that aren’t his. Fortunately, voters stopped him from taking that spending mentality to Congress and doing even more damage.
Same with Mayor Veenker who keeps pushing for us to spend $3,500 on new electric hot water heaters as well as other appliances while she jets around the world touting sustainability AND networking with big-dollar donors.
Did you know? Investigations into public corruption and official malfeasance in Palo Alto are handled by the FBI San Francisco Field Office. If you ever spot anything suspicious involving local officials, you can safely and directly share your tips online at tips.fbi.gov or call them at (415) 553-7400 to help keep our neighborhood transparent and accountable.