Posted by Darwin, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm

This and the "destination art piece" at the Mitchell Park library will be over half a million dollars.

Unbelievable.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Paying for City Forum is a good idea.

Paying for destination Palo Alto is most definitely not.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:33 pm

"Despite questionable results and fuzzy record keeping"

Boy, oh, boy what a statement and what a statement about our city "leaders". Another $240K down the tubes.

What does our city council really think that Palo Alto is a destination? Stanford is the destination and people happen to stay/eat/shop in Palo alto.

What i do not understand is the constant carping in Palo Alto about "too much traffic". Yet, here are our city "leaders" championing a campaign that will bring more traffic into the city. Do they think that people will bicycle into Palo Alto?

Then there is the Stanford issue--they will be giving Stanford a hard time about the hospital remodel and as they usually do will claim that Stanford will generate too much traffic in Palo Alto, yet Palo Alto seems to make quite a bit of money from Stanford events--athletic events, summer events, the recent senior games.

So if traffic is such a concern for Palo Alto, it seems hypocritical for our city "leaders" to be promoting programs that will, they hope, increase traffic in the city. Is it greed or hypocrisy?

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm

I wish this entire council were up for re-election. It is really time to clean house. (And who are we getting this time?EAch subsequent council seems worse than the last one.) What are they thinking?!!!

Posted by PA Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm

In a downward spiraling economy, this money would be better spent on more pressing City needs. Palo Alto will never be a "destination" city like San Francisco or Florence. People need hotel rooms in the area for specific reasons that will not change: visiting Stanford or local famililes. This is a complete waste of money.

Posted by Read form 990, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Is the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau the same as the "San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau"? If so, their finances for the period 2005-2007 can be found at Web Link

Interesting how thier 2007 form 990 (the first year of Destination Palo Alto) is all about promoting conventions in Burlingame. Kind of hard to see what that does for Palo Alto.

Posted by R, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 10:00 pm

So, we are all in agreement!

Now, how do we recall these people?

Posted by That's how it's done, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 10:10 pm

San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, local hotels and the Chamber of Commerce contribute generously to candidates running for City Council. No wonder Council gave them another year.

Posted by Ralph Johnson, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:19 am

This is a VERY good use of money. Visitors bring new money into our community and that money stays in our community. Council should consider doubling the fund rather than questioning the need.

Posted by Fuzzy Math, a resident of another community, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:12 am

The article mentions fuzzy record keeping, but what about fuzzy math:

>Last year, the city spent $240,000 on the program,

>$215,000 of which was awarded to the Visitors Bureau.

>The other $55,000 was awarded to the Palo Alto Weekly ...

Posted by Paula Sandas, PA Chamber CEO, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:27 am

I would like to correct the following statement in the above article: "LeClair attributed the lack of information about visitor spending to slow survey responses from Palo Alto hotels and the city's Visitor Center, which is administered by the Chamber of Commerce."

The Visitors' Center is NOT administered by the Chamber of Commerce. It is administered by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau that was awarded the contract for Destination Palo Alto. The Visitors' Center resides in the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber does not oversee, or in any way advise, the Visitors' Center.

The Chamber does, however, support the council's approval to extend the contract as an investment in our business community.

Thank you.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:41 am

"The Chamber does, however, support the council's approval to extend the contract as an investment in our business community. "

I would like to hear from Ms Sandas how this is an investment in our business community. The results have been questionable and the math fuzzy. Also, i hope you are not counting the Senior Games as being part of the destination Palo Alto campaign, since our council paid extra for that (remember the donation to the senior games).

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Palo Alto is a "Destination" for the following:

Business people, having a PA or Sand Hill office is still prestigious

Stanford visitors (parents, business, sporting events, hospital)

Family and friends of residents

People desperate to buy rugs :)

The small amount of tourists are here to see the HP garage and Stanford.

So maybe we should be destination Stanford?

Posted by Gennady Sheyner, Palo Alto Weekly staff writer, on Nov 4, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Gennady Sheyner is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Hi,

The Weekly received $25,000 from the first-year contract and not $55,000 as originally reported. Hope that clears up the fuzzy math. Sorry about the error. Thanks for the catch.

Gennady

Posted by Bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 4:23 pm

What is heartening to me is how many posters identified the holes in the logic of spending this money. For one, Stanford is the draw, not the city. I'll bet most families stay at relative's homes when they visit.

What is most discouraging is there is no way to show any return on the "investment" - nor can I see how there ever could be. Another example of council wishful thinking, or non-thinking. The color of Palo Alto anyone?

Fortunately the art for Mitchell Park Library came out of the bond measure, not from the abused general fund.

Posted by Hilarity Ensues, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:09 pm

So these are the folks who put up the signs last year on University Ave that said "Palo Alto: A Winter Destination." I love Palo Alto, but I spent all winter trying to think of anything that would make it "a winter destination." Can't go surfing, can't go skiing, it's neither tropically warm nor quaintly snow-covered. I imagined the visitors' bureau trying to come up with slogans and finally saying, "Well, forget providing a reason to come here... let's just put up some signs telling the people who are already here that it's a winter destination, and be done with it!" That always gave me a good laugh.

Maybe the city would like to hire me instead. I'll be happy to come up with an equally witty, compelling slogan for only $140K, saving the taxpayers $100,000!