News

PUBLIC AGENDA: anti-idling ordinance; prohibiting marijuana dispensaries

 

A preview of Palo Alto government meetings for the week of Aug. 28.

CITY COUNCIL... The council plans to meet in a joint session with the Historic Resources Board; consider a proposal by Palo Alto Housing to build a four-story development with 61 below-market-rate housing units at 3709 El Camino Real; consider increasing the rentention schedule for the Fire Station 3 project from 5 to 10 percent; hold a public hearing on a proposal to demolish an existing commercial building at 3877 El Camino Real and construct 17 dwelling units and a 4,027-square-foot commercial building at the site; and discuss a memo from council members DuBois, Filseth, Holman and Kniss about an anti-idling ordinance. The meeting will begin at 5 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 28 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. View the full agenda here.

CITY COUNCIL ... The council plans to meet in a closed session to evaluate the performances of the city clerk and city manager. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 29, at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. View the full agenda here.

CITY COUNCIL ... The council plans to meet in a closed session to evaluate the performances of the city attorney and city auditor. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 30, at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. View the full agenda here.

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ... The commission plans to hold study session to discuss initial traffic study findings related to Stanford University's General Use Permit application. The commission will also consider an ordinance prohibiting marijuana dispensaries and continue its review of the proposed Transportation and Land Use elements as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 30, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. View the full agenda here.

BOARD POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE ... The Board of Education's policy review committee will tentatively discuss policies on: non-discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, Uniform Complaint Procedure, bullying, class size, access to district records and involuntary student transfers. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 31, at the district office, 25 Churchill Ave. View the full agenda here.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

2 people like this
Posted by Pot Head
a resident of Stanford
on Aug 26, 2017 at 11:17 am

Palo Alto is just like some of the more affluent towns in Marin County.

It professes to be 'liberal' and 'progressive' yet does not want any marijuana dispensaries within in its city boundaries. How phony.



11 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 26, 2017 at 11:51 am

Too bad Palo Alto has decided to ignore our votes to legalize marijuana and to leave all that marijuana sales tax revenues on the table while it rushes to impose its nanny state rules on adults.

Remember that the next time the city wants you to approve some new funding initiative for their pet projects.

Please remind me again why we bother to vote when govt. officials can simplt decide to ignore our votes.


2 people like this
Posted by Conservative Man
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 26, 2017 at 12:22 pm

QUOTE: It professes to be 'liberal' and 'progressive' yet does not want any marijuana dispensaries within in its city boundaries. How phony.

The reason....recreational marijuana dispensaries tend to attract questionable individuals (aka low life, transient Dead Heads, slackers and substance abusers). While a sizable number of pot smokers may not fall into this category, most have cars and can drive elsewhere to procure their stash.

A quality neighborhood/city does not need this kind of tax revenue.


2 people like this
Posted by Pot Smoking Senior
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Hint-Hint. The street fair is one of the best places to procure pot if you happen to know the vendor. Since they move about from town to town, it is a quick 'turn and burn' transaction and no one is even aware of it.

No need for any permits or city ordinances.


8 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 26, 2017 at 1:10 pm

@Conservative Man, pardon me but what gives you the right to decide that the majority of the voters who voted to legalize both recreational and medical marijuana are "substandard slackers" whose votes should be over-turned and that the taxpayers should reject that "kind of" sales tax revenues?

Are you aware that even the conservative Hoover Institute first floated the legalization measure?


4 people like this
Posted by Professor
a resident of Stanford
on Aug 26, 2017 at 4:39 pm

Both medical and recreational marijuana should be 'tax-free'.

The legalization of pot should not have been enacted solely for the purpose of generating additional state and local government revenue. Many voters who are not marijuana smokers voted for marijuana legalization based on the tax concept.

Instead, it should be easily and affordably available to everyone with no restrictions other than selling to individuals below a certain age.

I will continue to support legal independent growers rather than retail dispensaries of any kind. Crass commercialism and investor greed + government taxation is just another way of 'sticking it to the people'.

Another alternative is to grow your own (or form co-ops) for personal usage. 'Gifting' the surplus is another way to beat the system.

Don't Tread on Me.





2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 26, 2017 at 9:28 pm

"It professes to be 'liberal' and 'progressive' yet does not want any marijuana dispensaries within in its city boundaries."

There's nothing particularly liberal about pot these days. Even Newt Gingrich boasts of using it.

The logic of the dispensary ban is analogous to those people who beat the drum for more bus routes, but just not on their own street.


1 person likes this
Posted by Pot Smoking Deacon
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 26, 2017 at 9:56 pm

"There's nothing particularly liberal about pot these days. Even Newt Gingrich boasts of using it."

Newt Gingrich used to smoke pot in his younger days and then he recommended the death penalty for having 2 ounces in possession.

What a guy.


2 people like this
Posted by Simple Solution
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 26, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Not a problem. Renting/leasing a commercial building in Palo Alto is costly and your profits will go up in smoke based on expensive revenue/square footage factors. Buy a van instead and mobilize your deliveries.

Eliminate the greedy landlords with no obligatory sales taxes payable to the City of Palo Alto. After all, if the city won't allow you to conduct your business in a fixed location, then you aren't obligated to pay them any sales taxes as your business address is now nebulous and not necessarily limited to specific PA boundaries.

Just like in the 60s-70s.






2 people like this
Posted by Enterprising Student
a resident of Stanford
on Aug 26, 2017 at 10:46 pm

Simple Solution...you can reduce your overhead even more by eliminating the van (gasoline/insurance/liability).

Just hire 'messengers'. We use bicyclists (a common sight in Palo Alto), immigrant grandmothers pushing strollers and seniors taking a leisurely walk and 'visiting' neighbors.

By keeping delivery quantities small (1 oz. or less) and singular (no multiple deliveries), a potential 'bust' for having larger amounts in possession and/or for distribution is effectively eliminated.

It's a lucrative 'home business' for stay at home Moms, students and retired seniors. Beats selling Avon or Amway any day of the week.


2 people like this
Posted by Just Say No to Newt
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 27, 2017 at 11:20 am

> Even Newt Gingrich boasts of using it.
> Newt Gingrich used to smoke pot in his younger days and then he recommended the death penalty for having 2 ounces in possession.
> What a guy.

The same guy who was carrying on an affair while his wife lay dying in a hospital.


1 person likes this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Aug 28, 2017 at 12:22 pm

If the Hoover Institution floated the idea of a marijuana dispensary then they should offer to put it in their building. Then they can benefit from the great "tax benefit". Maybe the SU hospital to make it look like a medical benefit? So far the states that are legalized spend more money monitoring the whole event then they get in return. It means they have to hire people to monitor this activity and track it - a lot of time and energy that eats up any tax benefit that you all talk about. A recent article in the SFC says that there will always be black market pot because many providers cannot step up to the requirements for a legalized shop and have no desire to do that.

Just like Lobbyist who are selling a government scheme and boast about all of the benefits - then it gets voted in and all of the negatives start happening. Most of us have seen this before and are well aware of the great "tax benefit" schemes in the past that have costed us big time. And how about the other articles in which we are jumping all over the city for thinking up new jobs for new hires which cost us tax dollars to support- and their retirements. Just keep thinking up ways that you can promote Big Government to eat your tax dollars. We do not need more employees to do more "stuff" that only supports a small percentage of the population.
So go Hoover - take on this great idea and run with it. Then SU can hire people to monitor it all - they have the big bucks and the progressive ideology for this activity.


3 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 28, 2017 at 2:54 pm

"If the Hoover Institution floated the idea of a marijuana dispensary then they should offer to put it in their building."

I believe the Hoover Institution has a policy of doing nothing useful on its site. It certainly has that practice.


"@Conservative Man, pardon me but what gives you the right to decide that the majority of the voters who voted to legalize both recreational and medical marijuana are "substandard slackers" ... ?"

I'd cite the example set by our fearless president's comment to the president of Mexico: "I won New Hampshire [primary] because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den." Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Aug 29, 2017 at 12:18 pm

Correct me if I am wrong here but the residents voted to legalize pot because they were told of the great tax windfall. Most people will vote for a project if it promises to create a tax benefit but reality sets in and what you voted for is not what you ended up with - in this case a lot of headaches that will divert the police off to monitor this disparate activity. Look no farther than Oakland and their creaking local government trying to herd cats running around. They get to be in the paper all of the time for their failures in management. And they are not wallowing in any great tax windfall.
I do not believe that we voted on the actual commercial activity because that has yet to be formalized at the state level. I think people are jumping the gun here. Yes - you can go buy stuff somewhere - believe that Mountain View has a dispensary in the commercial area off Charleston. You need to keep dispensaries away from schools and we have schools all over the place - both PAUSD and Charter Schools. And you are not going to put anything near a school. So you are dealing with the ideological approach vs the actual implementation approach.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Aug 30, 2017 at 7:42 am

I would expect any professor from SU who lives on campus to promote the idea that pot should be free with no restrictions. However living on campus of a progressive university is a bubble environment - SU owns the property that the house is sitting on. And when said professor is aging and no longer teaching said professor will be "motivated" to move on so that the house can be sold to the next generation of professors with actual classrooms and active teaching jobs. Also children that need to be incorporated into the existing school systems. Said professor will be motivated to move into a senior center either on or off campus. So "house rules" exist within the bubble. However the majority of PA residents have different house rules. The school system is funded by property/other taxes so promoting tax benefits in theory support the cost of running the city - fire support, police support, teachers, and employees of City Hall. Industry which is profit oriented (god forbid the word profit) pay taxes. In case you have not noticed taxes are what moves the whole city forward and keeps it going. That is not a concern on the SU campus which is funded by donations/student fees of varying degree,and wallows in it's non-profit tax definition. And the majority of residents who are in the business of hyping philosophical ideas as opposed to actually implementing those ideas within an existing tax based economy. That is where "Town and Gown" comes in - the existence of both entities is a benefit for both financially but there is a bottom line of financial concern that has to be addressed.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 20 comments | 6,207 views

Firing Judge Persky as a tennis coach was a big mistake
By Diana Diamond | 23 comments | 2,223 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,956 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 1,812 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,731 views

 

THREE WEEKS TO GO!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now