Town Square

Post a New Topic

Connecting the dots...

Original post made by John, College Terrace, on Dec 2, 2007

Since Chop Keenan is in the news, I thought I would remind Palo Alto residents that he was willing to solve the police station issue (Web Link ). Of course, in typical PA fashion, he was rejected.

A few years ago, we hired a head librarian from Pacific Grove. She studied our library situation, and determined that the current branch system is obsolete. A major new and modern central library would be better. She was ignored. She quit.

Now, we are being asked to support BOTH a new (and very expesnive) police station, as well as a very expensive update of Mitchell Park branch library.

A very rough guess as to what these decisions will cost us is about $50M.

The new ABAG requirements will cost Palo Alto about $300M.

Perhaps I am naive, but I consider these things to be big ticket items.

Our city governance is, on occasion, dysfunctional. We can only blame ourselves. They reflect the majority will.

Chop Keenan should have been welcomed, with his offer, and the branch library system should have been phased out. ABAG should just be told, "NO!".

And we wonder why we are out of money...connect the dots.

Comments (7)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Blowing smoke
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Thanks for the link. It is amusing to read what a former council member said.
"I hear some people talking about Mr. Keenan's motivation," Councilman Vic Ojakian said. "I'll be one of those people who just thanks him. Because he happens to be a native son of Palo Alto, and I'll assume that his motivations are honorable."
Talk about a dumb (or dishonest?) way to evaluate a proposal or someone's motivation. Anyway, motivation isn't relevant. He's just blowing smoke.
And Keenan has lived most of his adult life in Woodside.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 3, 2007 at 8:44 am

I believe the Gilman Street location for the proposed Public Safety Building turned out to be too small for what both the City and Chop Keenan had in mind.

The proposed building would have far exceeded the 50 ft. height limit, and in that location was considered unacceptable. The cost of the land plus the building would have cost far more than the present proposal on the Park Boulevard site.

The building was going to include mainly commercial offices plus a Public Safety component. The lack of adequate parking facilities was also another huge problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 3, 2007 at 11:23 am

Resident,

Please provide your information sources for your claim that the proposed PSB would be too small (at 60,000 sq ft.). Also, please provide the information supporting the claim that it would violate the 50 ft. height limit (if so, by how much?).

A few neighbors objected, and the council backed away from it, as usual.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Forum reader
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 3, 2007 at 12:53 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 3, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Forum,

Entitled to your opinion, but I am requesting actual references. I looked, but could not find them. Maybe I missed them. We should be able to ask for reference material on a blog like this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by bob
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm

"...the proposed PSB would be too small at 60,000 sq. ft."

John. I don't see where Resident claimed the PSB would be 60,000 sq. ft. either under Mr. Keenan's proposal - only estimates were made - or the current proposal of 50,000 sq. ft.

Further I sorta remember that Mr. Keenan wanted to use 3 floors for the Public Safety Building and an additional number for his commercial rentals (plus maybe underground parking which is scarce in that area).
I think this would exceed a 50 foot height limit considerably.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 4, 2007 at 10:49 am

bob,

I just want to get a full understanding of why the Gilman proposal was rejected. There were high hopes, then nothing. Aside from your recollections, can you provide documentation that shows that it was becasue of height limitations and/or parking and/or size restrictions. For example, I am looking for newspaper articles or meeting minutes. That's all.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 2,346 views

One night only: ‘Occupy the Farm’ screening in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,200 views

First Interview
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,423 views

Death with Dignity
By Chandrama Anderson | 3 comments | 1,397 views

Guest Post #2 from HSSV: Labradoodle Back on His Feet
By Cathy Kirkman | 3 comments | 472 views