Parks and Rec board member Yu “Yudy” Deng and City Council incumbent Vicki Veenker were the two Palo Alto candidates to win an endorsement for council from the Santa Clara County Democratic Party.
The party decided to endorse two of the candidates even though there are three vacancies.
Here are the other party endorsements for races in the Post’s circulation area:
• Palo Alto School District, 2 at large seats, Linda Henigin;
• Mountain View City Council, 3 at large seats, Silja Paymer, Erik Poicon and IdaRose Sylvester;
• Los Altos City Council, District 2, Anky van Deurson;
• Mountain View-Los Altos High School District, Area 3, Thida Cornes;
• Los Altos School District, 3 at large seats, Bryan Johnson, Vaishali “Shali” Sirkay and Brandon Stroy;
• Santa Clara County Water District, District 7, Pete Dailey;
• Mountain View Whisman School District, 2 at large seats, Devon Conley;
• Regional Measure RTM, half-cent sales tax to support BART, Caltrain and other transit agencies, Yes.
In other words, vote Ja! to staying the course. Also, why isn’t Palo Alto making more of an effort to support Menlo Park in their fight against this proposal for the Sunset property that for all practical purposes is also in Palo Alto. They’re going to have to let Rob Bonta sell out to a Russian oligarch in return for a measly 100 affordable units that probably won’t be very affordable anyway. As Gavin Newsom said: “You’re going to get it whether you like it or not.”
I’m perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I don’t need some party boss handing me a list and telling me who I’m supposed to support. I’ll judge candidates by their records, actions, and what they actually stand for—not by a party endorsement stamped on their forehead.
And when it comes to Veenker, I have plenty to consider on my own. As mayor and a councilmember, she bears responsibility for the decisions she participates in. On the OSV issue, I find her leadership and the city’s response disappointing. More importantly, Veenker voted to reappoint the former planning commissioner after reviewing the investigative report, saying she did not believe it established sufficient grounds for an abuse-of-position finding. The report has remained confidential. That raises legitimate questions about the city’s vetting process, the safeguards for removing commissioners when ethical concerns arise, and Veenker’s own judgment and accountability in that appointment.