Our Palo Alto way to decide Diana Diamond's Blog, posted by diana diamond, Palo Alto Online blogger, on May 24, 2008 at 11:24 am diana diamond is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
As many of you may have read in Wednesday’s Weekly, I am leaving this paper and my blog to join a new paper in town, the Daily Post, which will be run by former Daily News founders Dave Price and Jim Pavelich, whom I have worked with before. Yes, there will be three papers in town.
I want to thank Weekly Publisher Bill Johnson and Editor Jay Thorwaldson for the opportunity of writing both my column and blog — work I have really appreciated and enjoyed doing.
One of the fun things about Palo Alto is there is so much to write about. If it’s not the handling of the Children’s Theatre investigation, it’s what happened at the latest city council meeting or the condition of our roads or how much this city is spending on everything. And as these blogs have shown, we are not of one mind in this city.
We think we could be and that is why we go through what is called the “Palo Alto Proceess.” We spend endless hours – weeks and months – debating whether we should accept or reject something. And because we are a bright community, there is this feeling that there must be one right way to go, one way to compromise, one way to cater to both sides. That’s why it takes us so long to do anything in town much less decide on anything.
But if some residents are for building a new police station, and some are against it, how do you compromise/ Build half a building?
Maybe the answer is more referenda, and the majority would determine what we should do. But that is cumbersome and expensive, and we have elected a city council to make these decisions for us.
The Palo Alto Process is an institution now; changes will come very slowly. It’s the Palo Alto way, I have learned.
In the meantime, thank all of you for all your responses – your agreements and disagreements — with what I have written. I have read and appreciated the spirit of nearly all of them.
Posted by Jay Thorwaldson, editor emeritus, on May 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm Jay Thorwaldson is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
It's been interesting and fun, Diana. We welcome both the competition and the common cause of seeking to report fully local news. I guess your departure means I'll have to post occasionally on my blog now. Hm.
Posted by Goofy, a resident of another community, on May 24, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Sheesh! More of the same! We can expect a decrease in quality reporting now, with Price's people back in town, more of Diamond's inanity, and the Weekly's preciously transparent attempts to look like a sophisticated newspaper.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm
The Palo Alto way to decide. Good title.
With the forthcoming school bond we are being asked to approve a bond. While it is undoubtedly needed for all the right reasons, there is a growing number of people who feel it is too big. Rather than voting yes we are in danger of getting a no vote, not from people who think that the schools don't need some money, but rather that they don't think this is the right bond. The problem is, if we do get a no vote on this, the schools are going to be in a mess. We are already growing at a rate of knots and if we don't get some money then we are going to be in a dire situation very quickly, possibly before a new bond can get organised.
This is Silicon Valley, the heart of the technology capital of the world and our schools are in a very sorry state when it comes to comparable areas of the country (if there is such a thing). We are in a sorry state when it comes to infrastructure and California as a whole has low scores. Palo Alto schools are the bright spot when it comes to scores in the State, but if we can't get the infrastructure up to scratch, then we will be looking like the poor relation. B4E didn't hold up because everything cost more than expected and much could not be done, particularly for those schools last on the list. This Bond is supposed to make sure that this doesn't happen again. If we are not careful, nothing will be done.