BY ELAINE GOODMAN
Daily Post Correspondent
The Yes on Measure J campaign received permission from the city of Palo Alto to hang a banner over Embarcadero Road for three weeks, a decision seemingly in conflict with the city’s ban on political signs on public property.
The head of the Measure J committee said the campaign paid a fee and received a city permit to hang the banner over the Embarcadero Road underpass at Alma Street.
“This is city property that rents out space for banners,” said Jennifer DiBrienza, Measure J committee chair. “And we went through the proper channels to rent it out.”
But a city webpage on municipal elections, including political signs, notes that under Palo Alto municipal code, “No sign shall be placed on any public property.”
Council members contacted over the weekend didn’t have a definitive answer on the conflicting information.
Council member Pat Burt noted the city routinely rents the Embarcadero Road overpass for banners. “I don’t know what are the rules for the types of permitted advertisements there, but I assume this use is allowed,” Burt said about the “Yes on J” banner.
When asked about the seeming conflict, council member Julie Lythcott-Haims said: “I would direct that question to city staff.”
Mayor Vicki Veenker couldn’t immediately be reached for comment yesterday.
Measure J is a half-cent sales tax to pay for renovating Cubberley Community Center. The city’s plan includes buying 7 acres of Cubberley property from the Palo Alto Unified School District for $65.5 million.
Proponents say investments are needed for a functional and safe Cubberley, which they called a “critical community hub.” Measure J is “the most realistic path” to reaching that goal, they said.
Opponents worry that money raised by Measure J, which will go into the city’s general fund, won’t necessarily be spent on the community center. They also object to the lack of a sales tax expiration date.
Some opponents were shocked to see the “Yes on J” banner above Embarcadero Road.
“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.”
The city rents out space for banners on the Alma Street bridge over Embarcadero Road and on the University Avenue overpass. The banner spaces are for city events, city-sponsored events, non-profit groups, and community events, in that order of priority, the city said on its website.
DiBrienza said the city asked for the Measure J campaign’s committee name and Fair Political Practices Commission number when it applied to rent the banner space.
The campaign rented space for three weeks in October: two weeks on one side of the bridge and one week on the other side. The banner’s final day over Embarcadero Road is just before election day.
“Measure J has been very careful to only put signs in places where we’re allowed to put signs,” DiBrienza said.
That’s in contrast to other campaigns that “continually put signs in places they’re not supposed to be, and just hope no one will pick them up,” she added.
Thank you, Jeanne Fleming, for telling it like it’s been about J. The Yes on J folks have raised obscene amounts of money for banners, tv ads, yard signs and mailers including from the folks who’ve “negotiated” this flawed deal giving the city a blank FOREVER check to spend our money to hurt struggling PA retailers and the middle class.
Maybe instead of their endless attack ads and their inane arguments that this forever regressive tax will also hit non-residents, they could have — and should have — worked on revising this to add a sunset clause.
Why give the city another forever blank check when there’s no City Council fiscal oversight, where it takes them 15 months to give an administrative citation to the known “Vanlord for the Lord’ while ignoring the OSV problem taxpayers and businesses keep complaining about, when their response to wasting $27,000,000 on consultants with no local knowledge is to hire another consultant to spend 2 years writing up a “Best Practices” memo and when called out for their long failure to provide fire protection to South Palo Alto is to plead poverty and when really really pushed to threaten to cut crossing guards!??
Have the Yes on J folks mentioned that fast-growing South Palo Alto has lacked fire protection since before the pandemic? Of course not.
PA already has another blank check in perpetuity: the right to keep OVERcharging us for utilities to funnel $25,000.000+ each year into the General Fund and we don’t need another one.
What a cheap shot by that group to violate the cits campaign sign laws! I wonder who made such a bad decision. I certainly hope it was not our electeds!?
The campaign had so so much money they didn’t need to stoop so low as to cheat !
This has been an ugly election. We’ve seen deceptive ballot language, misinformation, withholding of information, money flowing in from outside sources, contributions from political war chests, racism accusations, and now using the Embarcadero overpass in a way that is arguably in conflict with the City’s municipal code. Perhaps the permit was granted b/c the applicant described the sign as one that is for a city-sponsored event? That would fit with the deception tactics that have defined the Yes on J teams’s approach – starting with the group’s chosen name. Whoever is running the show clearly subscribes to the “win at all cost” campaign strategy. Sadly, one cost is the community dynamic that was once very healthy in this city.
Council should commission an investigation by an independent, neutral law firm or private eye company to find out who authorized this. The findings should be open to the public, and those responsible for this banner should be fired. The city shouldn’t be allowed to cheat without any consequences.
It’s unethical for the City to approve an illegal political banner, esp. for a measure that City leadership has really pushed. Period. It’s also very upsetting that former elected official and Measure J Chairperson Jennifer diBrienza doesn’t take responsibility for her part in this, and instead starts pointing fingers at other campaigns that have done absolutely nothing wrong. No surprise that she is also supporting Linda Henigan for school board, whose campaign has also engaged in illegal activity by promoting themselves using school resources. Shame.