Perspectives for and against Palo Alto ballot measures | October 14, 2022 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - October 14, 2022

Perspectives for and against Palo Alto ballot measures

In the Nov. 8 election, Palo Alto voters will weigh in on two measures on the ballot: Measure K, known as the Local Business Tax, and Measure L, the Natural Gas Utility General Fund Transfer. The ballot descriptions are as follows:

This story contains 248 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a member, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Membership start at $12 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Join


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2022 at 8:58 am

resident3 is a registered user.

“In the interests of providing voters with the reasoning behind support and opposition for K and L, the Weekly is publishing two op-eds, one supporting both measures and the other opposing L:“

It’s very telling that the “in support” opinion for both measure is written by the state legislature representative who does not live in Palo Alto, does not appear to reside here or have roots in Palo Alto.

How can it be that Palo Alto “is home to some of the world's most brilliant and creative minds developed by world-class educational systems. And we are strengthened by the diversity of our residents.” and not one Palo Alto resident that is not on Council could be found to say anything.

Either we couldn’t find anyone smart enough to speak to these measures or residents have had enough of political people knowing what is good for us. Like the Weekly and San Jose Mercury News think we can afford two people on Council who are an unqualified author who has never worked on city issues and an attorney who also has no relevant experience but is running on the slogan to get to get to “yes.”

@Weekly, how about publishing what residents really think.

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 14, 2022 at 12:24 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

@Weekly, how about publishing what residents really think.

Thanks, resident3. Your comment above bears repeating especially after reading the recent publisher's letter which elicited lots of comments among subscribers.

Posted by Palo Alto native
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 19, 2022 at 7:19 am

Palo Alto native is a registered user.

I’m voting no on L. No more siphoning off utility revenue to pay for City Council excessive spending. As an example, I attended many XCAP( train grade separation ) meetings. Someone, not sure if it was the City Manager approved a few $100,000 for “studies”. When City Council finally heard the XCAP report, there was no discussion of costs pertaining to the Churchill options. Strange, but true. Also, in comparison, Mt View made a decision in 1 day for their grade separation .
Also, attended some Castilleja meetings, staff bent over backwards to help Castilleja skirt zoning codes and municipal codes to have Castilleja expand. The City spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars not representing its residents to placate its rich and powerful Castilleja Board of Trustees and wealthy donors to get the project built. Yes, unbelievable the amount of staff time/ money spent to get to the wrong decision. Also, sent residents on a wild goose chase having to hire an attorney to get to the facts.
So I’m voting NO on L.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.