Town Square

Post a New Topic

Editorial: After 25 years, time to phase out Cubberley lease

Original post made on Sep 27, 2013

The financial condition of the Palo Alto Unified School District, like most public agencies, is not very transparent to the average citizen. And that is especially the case when things are flush.

Read the full editorial here Web Link posted Friday, September 27, 2013, 9:31 AM

Comments (35)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by board watcher
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:11 am

well written editorial. The district has refused to be reasonable and has not been a good negotiating partner with the city. Dr. Skelly refused to consider a third high school, refused Foothill's extremely good offer, and now would like to continue to receive $7M per year in a flat-out subsidy. Time to end the deal.

However, I will take issue with one thing -- the Cubberley committee was a failure because it was populated by district apologists like Mandy Lowell, who refused to tell the school board that it had to change course. Lowell wanted to keep getting the money for the district and she was clearly on the committee to divert it from doing what had to be done to keep the money flowing longer, if possible. [Portion removed.]

Time to get the district off the City's teat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Diogenes
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:38 am

Amen to the Editorial!

This "lease" has been a bad deal for the City all along. It was originally negotiated by former School Board members who had gone on to the City Council, like Joe Simitian and Liz Kniss.

What most folks don't realize is that the City essentially pays the District THREE ways - rent, Capital improvements on District owned buildings, and the covenant not to develop. What private sector renter would ever agree to such a lease?

It was a bad deal at the time it was originated - albeit for good intentions - and is long past its original purpose.

The Editorial is exactly right - it's time to get rid of this Turkey, let the District be responsible for their own budget, and stop depending on subsidies from the City.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sally
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:47 am

There are some basic errors of facts in this editorial that really distort the conclusions a reasonable person would draw.

"The city has been leasing out space at Cubberley to a variety of nonprofits, private schools, artists and some for-profit businesses, but generates barely enough income to simply pay for the operating expenses, with nothing offsetting the lease payments to the school district. The anchor tenant, Foothill College, will soon be leaving after the school district shunned pursuing an innovative joint-use concept."

1) The City collects in excess of $10 million from the Utility User Tax which was passed by the voters when this deal was negotiated so that the city would receive offsetting revenue to cover the lease payments. There is no restriction that this tax money be used only for Cubberley, but it's simply not correct to say there's no offsetting revenue. In many staff presentations about Cubberley staff mentions only the expense, but never the revenue, so it's easy to see how this falsehood is promulgated.

2) Foothill College leased it's facilities on the City owned portion of Cubberley. It was the City that would not (and should not) sell to Foothill. The school district did not "shun the joint use concept". The school district had no authority over a city asset. The public overwhelmingly objected to the city plan to sell an irreplacable asset so the city could pay for current operating expenses. Yes, the school district does want the flexibility to get back the site when it needs it to accommodate a larger student population in 10 or 20 years, and that benefits all of our children. That's no reason to end the lease and lose invaluable community services. The lease can be renegotiated so that the school district assumes maintenance responsibilities on the portion of Cubberley that it owns. Then both the city and the school district could assume responsibility and obligation for proper maintenance. If the city lacks the will to maintain it's property, that's not the fault of the school district, and vise versa.

3) Why should Palo Alto taxpayers pay $7 million per year to lease the facility? Because it is the largest and most used community facility that delivers a vast array of services to the public through the best public-private partnerships that exist citywide. There are daycare centers, dance studios, senior cardio programs, art classes, music classes, FOPAL facilities, Chinese reading library, artists studios, food distribution closet for the homeless, math tutoring, social halls, city rec department classes, summer camps, tennis courts, playing fields, running track, afters school programs, and on and on. Cubberley possibly delivers the lowest cost service per capita of all community service sites city wide because of the wonderful public private partnerships that exist. You can't look at just the cost of the lease and not the immense value of the community services.

4) Statements that the "facility is in terrible condition... and probably needs to be razed" are self-serving exaggerations made by those who want to cancel the lease. If the city performed routine maintenance as any responsible property owner should, even on just the portions it owns, there would be no issue. Cubberley is of the same vintage as the majority of the school sites in Palo Alto which are accepted by the public as suitable sites to send our children. The school district has done routine maintenance of roof and other systems at the various school sites, but not that much. Most of the bond funds have gone into building new classrooms and renovating a few major operational facilities (pools, theaters, gyms, computer labs). The City spends tens of millions to maintain Lucie Stern, Rinconada Pool, the Art Center and City Hall, but not Cubberley. Maybe the City Staff and Council need to adjust their priorities and place value on delivering services and maintaining infrastructure south of Oregon!

The city has the responsibility to renegotiate the lease in a manner that better serves it's financial interests, but maintains the delivery of valuable community services to residents. It's probably time to stop the payments for the covenants (to not develop school sites) since it's unlikely the school would sell any existing sites.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by board watcher
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:57 am

Lowell and Munger are both public figures. Their libertarian politics are well known. Munger spent millions in the last election in an attack on public employees. His conservative causes are state-wide and he is no friend of government. Stating that it is consistent with the Mungers' political and public positions to take money from the City where it could be used for services and hand it to the district where it keeps property values high is legitimate public commentary about public figures.

[Portion removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by confusing
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:57 am

The editorial says nothing about the many community organizations that rent space at Cubberley. What is to happen to them? What is Palo Alto's plans for an alternative site for a community center of this size?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A better course.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2013 at 11:04 am

PA needs this community center in the core of the city on transportation routes--and so a deal must be struck. PAUSD probably will need some portion of the Cubberley campus in the future. (PAUSD presently owns 27 acres. The city own 8 acres. )

As our population has grown some in recent years, demand for community services has grown and PAUSD has reduced programs for kids. Recent example: Gunn just announced cutting girls gymnastics--even as they are GROWING the school. There are fewer and fewer extracurricular opportunities within the district for increasing numbers of kids at PAUSD so more families are turning outside the district for programs. Cubberley serves 800,000 visitors of all ages each year with all kinds of music, arts, education, health services and athletic programs.

The loss of this Cubberley Community Center would be devastating. I think the Weekly's assessment of the situation is simplistic and doesn't recognize opportunities that exist if political pressure can be put on PAUSD to behave more responsibly. On this one point, the Weekly has it right. They are using the city as a cash cow.

The lease payments should be significantly reduced and that money should be put toward replacing the aging roof, plumbing, heating and, electrical systems, sprucing up rental spaces so that they can bring in more revenue to the city's subletting tenants.

Some compromise is needed here. HOWEVER, the Weekly's position does not take into account the Utilities User Tax which voters approved to support Cubberley. The city will argue that this money is earmarked for the General Fund. TRUE. But that is a legal technicality, and they know it. The voters were told that a portion of the UUT would be used for Cubberley, and that's WHY they voted for it. The city should not turn their backs on the promises that were made publicly during the campaign by sitting elected representatives of the city at the time.--Though that might feel convenient right now, it would undermine public trust.

Both sides need to compromise here. The district, however, has been entirely unyielding and unreasonable. They need a political kick in the pants. And the PTA should give it to them.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deb Whitman
a resident of Ohlone School
on Sep 27, 2013 at 11:25 am

I'm intruigued to, read the info in this article about the PAUSD' financial situation. Our class sizes have been increasing (at least at the grade school level), and I understood this to be driven by budget shortages. I wonder if the data in the article is accurate. If we really are running a surplus each year, and have solid reserves, can we look at bringing classroom size back down? That would be a boon to our grade school students and teachers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Town Square Moderator
online staff of Palo Alto Online
on Sep 27, 2013 at 11:28 am

Town Square Moderator is a registered user.

Board Watcher,

Criticisms of Mandy Lowell or Charles Munger's political viewpoints and philosophy were removed because they detract from a discussion on the topic -- the Cubberley lease. Comments about Mandy Lowell's role on the Cubberley committee were not removed because they are relevant. Stick to the issue and there will be no need for editing or deletions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sydney B, Barrows
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 27, 2013 at 12:01 pm

better course wrote: That the school board "needs a political kick in the pants. And the PTA should give it to them."

The PTA often gives the district something in its pants but it's not a "kick." Kicks cost extra.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deep Throat
a resident of another community
on Sep 27, 2013 at 12:02 pm

When the City Council terminates the lease with the School Disrict, then the School Board can lease space directly to all the wonderful community organizations that use Cubberley.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm

I agree with the editorial. It's time for the city to get out of the welfare business of losing money on facility rentals. However there are more than two options - instead of getting out of the lease, the city can increase the rental fees to the organizations that are in-residence.

Tough pill to swallow, but the reality is that the rents are well below market rate and an increase is necessary. I don't know all of the details, but it is quite possible that a rent increase could still keep rents below market, but also eliminate the negative cash flow.

And the reality is that "community center" is used by more than just the residents of Palo Alto.

Sorry to hear Gunn is cutting gymnastics. How does that work out in terms of Title 9 measurements?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sally
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 1:36 pm

@ Crescent Park Dad. If market rate rent is the goal for public private partnerships that deliver community services, then that standard should be applied city wide to all facilities, not just at Cubberley. So, no more Boy Scouts at Lucie Stern. No more Girll Scout House. No more Theater Works. No more Children's Theater. No more Jr. Museum. No more Winter Lodge. No more PASA swim program at Rinconada Pool. No more Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) at Ventura. No more private sports programs on city owned fields. No more food kitchens or senior services run by private groups from city property. All of these activites benefit from below market rent which effectively subsidizes a private organization that serves a segment of the population.

Seriously, is this what you want? Why is there a different standard at Cubberley than for every other facility in town?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cur Mudgeon
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 1:45 pm

Get the city out of the lease? No problem, but then eliminate the UUT!
Cubberley has been poorly maintained, for sure. Allowing the unintended use as a homeless dwelling place didn't help. However, the playing fields are vital and needed for the growing population of children as well as other legitimate recreational use.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A long time resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm

I agree with your editorial. Times have changed as have the respective financial conditions of the City and PAUSD. As for comments about the need for a community center on Middlefield, isn't the Mitchell Library, whenever it opens, going to have additional space serving the community?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dan
a resident of Southgate
on Sep 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm

Thorough whitepaper on the Cubberley deal and Utility User Tax:
Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 3:25 pm

Good Laudy .. Miss Claudy .. I never thought that I would ever see an editorial from the Weekly that I would agree with, as much as this one.

> The City spends tens of millions to maintain Lucie Stern, Rinconada Pool,
> the Art Center and City Hall, but not Cubberley.

Other than the Art Center, it would be hard to find receipts totaling "millions" for maintenance of the listed facilities. Moreover, the poster fails to understand that the City owns these other facilities, while it does not own Cubberley. Spending millions on someone else's property is not really a very good idea—and may ever be illegal for City governments to spend tax money in this fashion.

> There is no restriction that this tax money be used
> only for Cubberley, but it's simply not correct to say
> there's no offsetting revenue.

This is correct—as far as it goes. The underlying problem is that the City Council has always directed staff to charge prices for rental space that are significantly less than market rate costs. There is little evidence that the City has ever tried to put the site on a Profit&Loss basis, so that they could at least tell themselves how much the City has been subsidizing the lease-holders.

The original concept for this arrangement was that Palo Altans would use these facilities. However, it's pretty clear than a lot of non-Palo Altans have come to become the dominant users, leaving Palo Alto Utility Rate Payers being the source of funds necessary to pay all of the bills—which includes a deferred maintenance tab of $40+M. If the site were to be razed, then the cost to rebuild would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Sadly, the current lease-holders are not likely to promise to pay their "fair share" of the rebuilding costs—leaving the Palo Alto property owner having to carry their load.

Using real, and projected data, the cost to the Palo Alto Utility Rate Payers will end up being somewhere in the 225M, if the City maintains the Cubberley lease until 2021--
30-Year Cost of Cubberley Center:
Web Link

Obviously, with the current transfer of about $7M a year to the PAUSD, terminating this arrangement could save the ratepayers upwards of $70M.

And then there is the cost of the various subsidies. The following is a look at what it costs us to subsidize the artists, some of whom have been non-residents in the past—

Subsidy Cost Of Cubberley Artists:
Web Link

All of the emotionalism expressed over the City's "obligation" to provide all of the current, and future, lease-holders with low/no cost rent need to be put aside for a while, and a complete, and accurate cost analysis performed. We can't continue to just throw good money after bad. It's hard to believe that given a proper accounting of the Cubberley site, most people would agree it's time to detach ourselves from this property, and do something else.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sally
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 3:57 pm

@Wayne Martin Fact is that the City owns 8 acres of Cubberley, mostly all the buildings at the northern end of the site. The school district owns the 27 acres at the southern end including some of the buildings, Greendell site and the fields. Used to be that the school district owned all of it, but there was a "land swap" so the school district could acquire Terman from the city to open a third middle school.

Fact is that if you examine the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the city has spent tens of millions over the last ten or so years on projects at other city sites that deliver community services. Every year in budget negotiations, the CIP projects for basic maintenance at the city owned portion of Cubberley are deferred. Yet there are millions spent to upgrade facilities at Lucie Stern (new bathrooms, kitchen), Rinconada Pool (locker rooms, pool equipment), Art Center ($2-3 million not counting Arts Foundation contributions for remodel), City Hall (bathrooms, Audio/Visual system in Chambers, ventilation,etc) Children's Theater (lighting) and on and on.

City Staff does not know how many people use each facility, so it's not possible for anyone to know proportion of resident vs. out-of-towners.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Erin Tuomy Mershon
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm

I am not surprised that the Editor failed to mention that the City actually owns the 8 acres of Cubberley that are the classroom buildings. It would serve the Weekly well to actually research stories and editorials before writing them.

From the white paper linked above:

Complex and sometimes contentious negotiations resulted in the following three-party
agreements:
1. Stanford University leased to the City for $1 per year for 51 years the 6-acre
old Mayfield School site at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real.
The intended use of this parcel was for construction of a new JCC facility. In
exchange, Stanford would be permitted to build additional square footage in
the Research Park, the amount to be determined by the ultimate size of the
new JCC community center.

2. The City, in an acre for acre swap, acquired ownership of 7.97 acres of the
Cubberley site. The District took possession of the Terman site. Instead of
reducing the annual rent paid by the City to the District for use of Cubberley
proportionately (which would have been about $800K) the rent was reduced
by $250,000, the approximate amount the JCC was paying to lease Terman.
The District retained ownership of the remainder of the Cubberley site. Should
the District wish to re-use Cubberley for educational purposes, it must give
the City two years notice so that Foothill College (and other tenants) can
relocate. The District was granted the right of first refusal should the City
decide to sell its portion of the Cubberley site. The City has the right of first
refusal should the District decide to sell its portion of Cubberley.

3. Stanford provided funds to the District to renovate the Terman campus as part
of its acquisition of additional development rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dan
a resident of Southgate
on Sep 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm

I just realized that this "Utility User Tax" is showing up on my Verizon cell phone bill: 5% which comes to $4.85/month for me. Check your cell phone bill for "Palo Alto City UUT". I guess Verizon applies the tax based on the billing address.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Town Square Moderator
online staff of Palo Alto Online
on Sep 27, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Town Square Moderator is a registered user.

For further background, here are links to prior editorials on the Cubberley issue, as well as a column by former editor Jay Thorwaldson:

March 15, 2013 editorial: Web Link
Sept. 30, 2011 editorial: Web Link
July 1, 2011 editorial: Web Link
July 11, 2011 column: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm

> City Staff does not know how many people use each facility, so
> it's not possible for anyone to know proportion of resident vs.
> out-of-towners.

It's not that hard to watch the cars entering/exiting the Cubberely parking lot, and notice that a lot of them (and I mean a lot of them) are coming from the Mountain View/Palo Alto border.

Moreover, with Foothill being the major tenet for quite a few years, it's really hard to believe that all (or most) of the students taking classes at Foothill actually live in Palo Alto.

I agree that the Staff probably does not know the exact number of people using the facility, or their homes-of-origin, but Foothill most assuredly does. That information could be obtained from them.

From a public records request, I have received information that the Art Center has (in the past) claimed as many as 80% of its customers were non-resident. We know that somewhere in the range of 15%-20% of the Children's theater customers are non-resident. the golf course--about 7-% non-resident, and the Air Port--over 70% non-resident tie-downs. About 20% of the library's customers are non-resident. And so on.

Non-residents use is absolutely necessary to fund the operational side of the many "amenities"/"programs" that Palo Alto offers.

It really is a shame that after all this time, the City's Staff hasn't come up with at least a fair estimate of resident vs non-resident use of the Cubberley site.

Oh, the fact that the City owns about 8 acres of the Cubberley site is more of an accident, than by design. It's not that hard to believe that the PAUSD might not repurchase the property at some time in the future.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm

> I guess Verizon applies the tax based on the billing address.

The tax is demanded by the City. There was a law suit about this some years back. Not certain exactly how it turn out, but if you are seeing a utility tax on your cell phone bill, then you lost and the City won.

Here are links to chapters in the story--

Web Link

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Erin Tuomy Mershon
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 27, 2013 at 5:33 pm

The purchase agreement between the school district and the city was absolutely NOT an accident. It was an extremely hard-fought battle to get back Terman.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Compliance
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 27, 2013 at 5:56 pm

"Sorry to hear Gunn is cutting gymnastics. How does that work out in terms of Title 9 measurements?"

Very few high schools have gymnastics teams (only about 10 CCS schools), so Gunn was unique in having one in the first place. In terms of Title IX, even without gymnastics Gunn has an equal number of girls teams as boys teams and with so many non-cut sports it certainly is in compliance with Title IX.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Corrected info
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2013 at 8:48 pm

No mention is made in this editorial to the fact that 8 acres of Cubberley is owned by the City. Those eight acres are located closest to the Charleston Shopping Center and include most of the former classrooms which presently house many of the non-profits, artists and dance studios.

In other words whatever happens to Cubberley under any new lease agreement, most of the rent paying tenants housed on City property, will continue to pay rent to the City.

If the remaining 27 acres is returned to the School District, they will get a humongous parking lot, playing fields, two gymnasiums, auditorium (library) and a theater.

None of this was made clear in the Weekly's editorial, they simply said if the lease is not renewed, all the tenants will pay rent to the School District, which is not correct.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:18 pm

@ Sally. That's not what I said. I suggested that it might be possible to raise rents and still stay below market. But I did say that the city can't keep going on deficit spending.

BTW, PASA does pay market rate for Rinconada. And without PASA renting the pool (they actually cover 100% of the annual operating costs), the pool would shut down altogether.

And you did miss the point that the other facilities you mentioned are owned and operated by the city. And some of those facilities were donated to the city with specific use requirements and/or access specifications (e.g., the Girl Scout house)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sally
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 28, 2013 at 12:54 am

@Crescent Park Dad - Why do you think the city has deficit spending at Cubberley? Are you counting the revenue? The Utility User Tax, that voters passed when the city leased Cubberley, more than covers the lease payments. That was an agreement between the voters and the city that we would pay a tax and receive community services space at Cubberleley while also supporting the school district. Why is that agreement any less honorable than the one at the Girl Scout House? Surely you don't think that Lucie Stern's contract couldn't be breached if enough lawyers set their minds to it!

And don't forget that the city does in fact own the classrom buildings and land that house the community services at Cubberley. The City does not operate Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Theater Works, Museum of American Heritage, PACCC or the Winter Lodge. The City is moving towards more public private partnerships to make service delivery more efficient. So why discriminate against all the public-private partnerships at Cubberley? Is it that Cubberley is just not geographically convenient for you or is there something else?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 28, 2013 at 8:17 am

I don't know enough about the UUT to comment on every aspect of its use - but my impression is that UUT is used for more than just Cubberly. I think Wayne Martin's posts on many other threads has documented that UUT goes into the general fund, not just for Cubberly.

I did look up the UUT audited revenue and found that it is "about" $7mil. But if the UUT is spent on more than just Cubberly (which I believe to be true), then how is Cubberly fully funded?

I've got nothing against any program or location. I do believe that programs should be revenue-fee/expense neutral. I don't think that is the case at Cubberly and many other programs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 28, 2013 at 9:17 am

> I did look up the UUT audited revenue and found that
> it is "about" $7mil

Last time I asked the City, they said it was over $11M. Keep in mind that as the utility costs go up, the UUT goes up. All of the new commercial developments that are on-tap will increase the "take" of the UUT. The Council did decide to "trim" the tax rate once, but not by much.

By the way, the UUT money can be spend on anything--including fixing the streets and sidewalks.

> The purchase agreement between the school district and
> the city was absolutely NOT an accident.

Nor was it what was planned when the City and schools were laid out in the 1950s. The transfer of this portion of the site to the City was a reasonable compromise for the situation at Terman, but I suspect that the City would rather not be in a joint-tenancy situation with the PAUSD at this site.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Erin Tuomy Mershon
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 28, 2013 at 10:28 am

Wayne - I agree that the neither the City nor the school district would ideally be in the situation of joint-tenancy. However, this agreement was made at a time when the City and school district were barely speaking to each other. It has taken hundreds of hours of tireless meetings (mostly made by members of the school board) over many, many years to get to the current working relationship between the two agencies. This transfer was no small feat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sally
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm

@ Crescent Park Dad - If you give your kids $25 allowance to buy school lunch every day, but they buy candy instead, how would you react if they come to you because they have no money to pay for lunch? Would you complain that the school lunch costs too much?

The City went to the voters and asked for money to pay for the Cubberley lease. Now,they want to spend that money on other things. In other words, they think the lease costs too much. The city collects $11 million to pay a $7 million lease and somehow you conclude that they are running a deficit. How is that possible? Maybe that the city needs to spend less on candy and honor their commitments!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Corrected info
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Whatever is written in this editorial and in these postings is mute anyway. The City and the School District will be renegotiating the lease agreement to extend through 2025.

It is expected that the new lease agreement will not include the clause that has the City paying the School District for non-development of any School District property.

After 2025 who know, but the School District wants Cubberley back by that date. Meanwhile all the tenants will stay and not much else will change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JoAnn
a resident of Ventura
on Sep 28, 2013 at 10:16 pm

I don't know who needs to collect the rent at Cubberley, but I think the cheaper rents for small organizations and businesses need to be preserved. Most of the real estate in Palo Alto is owned by speculators who want to wring the last nickel out of their tenants, and then some. We're driving more and more activities out of town, a lot to the "PA Annexes" Mountain View and Redwood City. Even our adult day care center moved to Mountain View.

We did vote to subsidize the Cubberley operation and the City Council needs to honor that and not carve it up for their developer buddies.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Newly-minted cynic
a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 29, 2013 at 1:36 am

Fact is that the City owns 8 acres of Cubberley

Uh oh. Better make sure the school district decides to use it before the City decides they want to put a high-rise there to fulfill their ABAG allotments.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by senot blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Who is the Town Square Moderator? Name Please?


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

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 2,520 views

Flirtation
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,398 views

King of the Slides
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 1,080 views

The Future of our Parks: Public Workshops this Week
By Cathy Kirkman | 0 comments | 529 views

NO MEAT ATHLETE Workout/Running Group
By Max Greenberg | 2 comments | 407 views