Publication Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Guest Opinion: Citizen input critical in deciding on a new police HQ
Guest Opinion: Citizen input critical in deciding on a new police HQ
(November 23, 2005) by Dan Dykwel
Once again, Palo Alto finds itself wrestling with the need for improvements to a public facility and is having difficulty completing the task.
For eight years we have struggled to find a solution for upgrades to the police station -- and we now have some staff proposals that may not have examined all the factors needed to determine the best solution, as was discussed Monday night at the City Council meeting.
We experienced a similar problem with the storm drains, where a staff-driven proposal resulted in multiple failures of effort. Had the Measure D library bond been scaled correctly and driven by citizens, it probably would have passed.
We have gone in circles with at least four city councils and two city managers -- and police department needs are still unresolved. Staff hasn't reconciled appropriate size and scale for a new police station and its priority of need in relation to other capital improvements, such as our libraries, parks and playing fields.
One need only look at the storm drain vote and the campaign for Measure A to show that citizens of this community can define their needs carefully and are engaged with the broader community. The successful passing of both initiatives was the result of looking critically at needs, determining what we could afford, then making a compelling case to the community.
We are fortunate to be surrounded by an intelligent, engaged citizenry; and our successes have been based on a recognition of needs and a sound analysis of those needs versus our wants, a recognition of reliable funding sources, and determination of city-wide priorities.
Of course we want to see something happen with the police building. But to be successful at the ballot box, we must not shoot for the moon. The proposal put forth by staff includes a desired size and cost-per-square-foot figures that may not apply to the needs of our city.
Let's start with the location: Why is a downtown location so necessary? We don't have beat cops, and the services offered at the counter don't require a presence in the center of town. If a new structure is deemed the most desirable, surely we should consider a less expensive location on city property -- not on private land in the most expensive part of town.
But if consideration is given to expanding the current facility, the contiguous space, size and scale certainly could benefit from fresh independent review.
Next, the work done by city staff is professional and thoughtful. However, I do question whether a 60,000-square-foot police facility with a $45 million dollar price tag is the best solution for the needs of a city with a very low crime rate.
I join citizens active in our community who believe that a new police facility could benefit from the independent review of a citizens advisory committee, in much the same way citizens helped define and confirm our storm-drain priorities. This committee would review and prioritize the police department's needs, explore alternatives and answer the question, "What can we afford regarding the range of our infrastructure needs?"
We face a host of needs competing for limited funding: renovated library facilities, the Mitchell Park Community Center and a rebuilt Municipal Services Center among them.
The new council should strongly consider appointing an independent blue-ribbon committee, or have one emerge from community leaders. Citizen input will make the critical difference in designing a plan that can succeed.
Dan Dykwel is a broker associate with Alain Pinel Realtors and is president of the Palo Alto High School PTSA. He can be e-mailed at dykwel@comcast.net.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
