When I think of the additional high salaried managers Mr. Keene has added to the city staff, and the increase in the "Green Team" department (which may be in the Utilities budget) from 1 to 4 new hires recently, with all the future benefits such as health and pensions to be paid out, I am outraged that the animal shelter would have to lay off anyone.

When I think of the high-salaried managers who wanted to put a car dealership where the animal shelter is I can only shake my head.

Do they NEVER get out of their offices and drive El Camino and see all the empty dealerships a mere 5 miles away????

Hay folks it is VOTING time. Maybe we need to evaluate the City & County government. There might be "room" for "cutting there....

SAVE THE SHELTER AND THE ANIMAL SERVICES.

Yes, SAVE the Shelter and help the animals!

Make the fund raising obvious in shops throughout the City. Perhaps Whole Foods "reuseable bags" donations could include the Palo Alto Shelter! Let the residents know where we can send $$!

Great article, Gennady!

At the risk of seeming self serving, I'd like to invite people to join us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/friendsofthepaloaltoanimalshelter or on our brand new website: www.pafriends.org.

Thanks!

The shelter is an expenditure our city can no longer afford. We face annual budget deficits. We have vital needs in our essential infrastructure and public safety that cannot be funded. City management has floated the proposal of raising taxes to pay for these essential needs that should have already been funded and completed.

The Silicon Valley shelter is a more than adequate option that already serves numerous cities in our county. Mountain View already abandoned the Palo Alto shelter for Silicon Valley. The shelter supporters would like you to believe that our animal services would end and that our pets and wildlife would suffer from the move. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don't believe the hype and misinformation. We can still serve our pets and wildlife and save tax payers 2.5 million dollars in the first five years alone by outsourcing. Applying some common sense does not mean that we are less compassionate and caring.

Me,

You proved the point for the dealerships. There are plenty of empty lots on El Camino because they weren't profitable enough. Dealers know that dealerships that face a major highway are more successful.

Cogent, informative article. Thank you.

hay Marrol,

Get a life. The Shelter belong to us - PALO ALTO - How about you volunteering a COUPLE of days a week......

And Rem, how about participating in a forum where we can express our opinions without the offensive comments like, "get a life". We can have differences of opinion without the cheap shots and discouraging those who don't agree with you. Please show some decency, respect, and consideration. That is the PALO ALTO way.

There is an overwhelming argument, despite where anyone sits on this issue, that serious consideration should be given to either outsource, reduce, or eliminate certain city services and programs. Our budget deficit and financial crisis will not be solves until we take these measures.

Marrol, when you call me that, smile.

You are calling me a LIAR because I report exactly what is stated on the SVACA web page. They are NOT accepting owner-surrendered pets. They are already overcrowded. They are very nice people who love animals, but they have to accept reality: Too many animals who need new homes with no room to keep them while they wait to be adopted. AND if you leave a surrendered pet for euthanasia, you must pay a fee of $150.

Hey everyone, don't pay any attention to Marrol's emotional comments about budget shortages. Voodoo economics all the way....

Meanwhile, Friends of the Palo Alto Shelter (a non-profit organization) has a Web Page here: www.pafriends.org

Join the Friends group!

Exclusionary and intolerant Scottie. I would rather have a forum where both sides can state their argument without one side or the other making calls to simply ignore someone. Wow, how sad. Despite your outlook, I will continue to respect and consider your posts.

As for the economic outlook, what is voodoo about annual budget deficits? What is inaccurate about vital needs in infrastructure and public safety that remain unfunded? What is untrue about city management proposing to pay for these estimated 40-60 million needs through a new tax increase? It is precisely this type of spending that contributed to this very real economic plight we're in. We need to outsource, reduce, or eliminate many city services. It's a reality we must face and accept at some point. The animal shelter should be included on that list.

PAW cover dog is Sadie! She's the sweet stray that my neighbors found in Palo Alto & she put up a mighty chase. It took 2 ACOs to catch her. Now she's up for a adoption & needs a good home. Yay Sadie! Thank you, PAAS, for helping this scared, hungry, deserving dog.

Marrol if everything is outsourced to save money... then would the city be run by the county?
There is a reason for taxes.... If dealerships and businesses are run out of town, that results in lost tax revenue leaving the home owner to pick up the tab which sounds like nobody wants to do.
I would say the city has a big problem on their hands to solve!
Time to Vote!!!

I've never spoken in absolutes Choice, so no, I'm not suggesting that "everything" be outsourced. You state, "there is a reason for taxes." Allow me to address that. Taxes are in large part to fund, on a priority basis, our vital and essential needs in infrastructure and public safety. Those are the cornerstones and foundation that a community is built on. That's what taxes are for. Currently our city does not have the money to pay for these needs. Not even close at the tune of 40-60 million dollars by conservative estimates.

Our city leaders and elected officials have spent decades spending our tax dollars on frivolous niche projects and services. The list is a long one. They continue to spend in this irresponsible manner despite knowing full well that our essential civic needs have not been addressed. And what is their solution to this fiscal crisis which they and they alone have created? Why nothing less than return to the tax payers with their hand out yet again. They fail to set financial priorities, provide nothing more than lip service to our vital needs, and are seemingly incapable of saying no to the special interest groups.

I've stated on numerous occasions that the city providing animal services is indeed a civic responsibility. Those calling to outsource this service have never suggested that we stop providing animal services. However, I maintain that it is a service that can be adequately outsourced. It would save tax payers an estimated 2.5 million dollars in the first five years alone.

The vast majority of cities in the bay area already rely on a regional animal service. The city of Mountain View recently dropped out of PAAS for this reason and perhaps other reasons. If PAAS was providing such a great service, I have to wonder why Mountain View opted out. The proponents of PAAS suggest that Palo Alto pets and wildlife would suffer many hardships. I just don't buy it. I have lived in this region for many years and I don't see other cities suffering from animal abuse and neglect. On the contrary. From what I have seen and reviewed the Silicon Valley facility is a highly respected and reputable organization. The proponents complain about having to make the long drive to the South Bay for services. I have to ask the question again, just how many times does the average pet owner in Palo Alto visit the current shelter? I'd venture to say no more than 1-2 times per year tops. I can't imagine people require their services or are surrendering pets at a tune anymore than that. Millions of dollars in savings in exchange for what, a twenty minute ride down 101 to Santa Clara? If one uses common sense the answer is easy.

Marrol I already sent my ballot in.... Enough said.

As I will cast a no vote on any future bond measure that involves raising taxes to pay for essential civic needs that should have already been paid for. Not enough people willing to make sacrifices will result in a deeper budget deficit. Special interest instead of the greater good. That has become the Palo Alto way.

Marrol, here's a quote from one of your recent posts:

"The shelter supporters would like you to believe that our animal services would end and that our pets and wildlife would suffer from the move. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don't believe the hype and misinformation."

You are stating that "shelter supporters" are telling lies. That's what it means when you say "Nothing could be further from the truth." It means you are calling my comments lies. "Don't believe the hype and misinformation." Misinformation = lies.

How is it OK for you to call me a liar, but when I fight back and tell readers (tongue in cheek) to ignore your "voodoo economics," you describe my comment as "exclusionary and intolerant"?

Truth is, animal services for Mountain View are going to decline starting in November, when they switch to SVACA. They have to buy a new truck for SVACA and put up front money (at least $300,000) for a Capitol Improvement Plan so SVACA can build up its capacity to handle animals from Mountain View.

As already pointed out, SVACA does not accept owner-surrendered pets for free (as Palo Alto does for Mountain View, until Nov. 1st). In fact SVACA currently accepts owner-surrendered pets only for euthanasia, and the owner must pay $150 for that cheery resolution.

I am not saying that the good folks at SVACA are heartless, and I'm sure whenever they can they'll open their doors to accept pets for adoption (still charging $150 fee). However, if pet owners in Mountain View can't afford to turn their pets over to SVACA, there might be more strays in the street?

That is NOT the case when they bring pets to Palo Alto. No FEE for owner surrenders from our partner cities. HIGH likelihood the pet will find a new home. Go on. Call me a liar.

Call it whatever you want Scottie, but I maintain that PAAS supporters have attempted to mislead readers with proclamations about the hardships pet owners would have to endure, that deceased pets would be left discarded on the streets, that people would have to drive an unreasonable distance for animal services, and that the cost of surrendering a pet would be unaffordable. That's what I don't buy.

I truly do not believe that we would experience an increase of discarded pets. It's not happening in other cities that participate in a regional facility and it's not going to happen here. Complaints about driving an unreasonable distance are equally unreasonable. A twenty minute drive to Santa Clara is not unreasonable. As for the pet surrendering fee, I also believe that is very reasonable. After all, how many pets does the average pet owner surrender anyway. I'm guessing this would be a once every few years expenditure, and over the life of a pet, considering food and vet costs, this isn't too much to ask.

As I've said many times in the past, whatever relative downside that might exist by outsourcing, which I believe is minimal, is nothing compared to the monumental challenges that we face in dealing with our financial crisis. We must set some financial priorities. By the way, the only remark I took offense to was the "get a life" line. I have no issue with the debate and disagreement otherwise, including yours.

Here's where you can find info about SVACA's policies for collecting deceased animals: Web Link

I provide the link so you can check me on my facts, Marrol. Meanwhile, here's what it says at the bottom of the SVACA page:

"Deceased Animal Disposal Services"

"We also provide services for owned deceased animals from Campbell, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara. Small animals are handled for a $25.00 fee; a dog, cat or rabbit for $50.00; and dogs over 150 pounds are $125.00. An additional $50.00 fee will also be charged for animals collected by staff in the field. Please contact our staff at 408-764-0344 for more information."

So you can haul your deceased Rotweiler to SVACA and pay $125 for them to dispose of the body properly. Or you can pay $175 and have SVACA send a truck to your house to pick up the dog. Or say it's your cat who has passed on. $100 for pickup at your house; $50 if you take the cat to SVACA yourself.

You really don't appreciate the HIGH QUALITY, low cost services Palo Alto has provided for years. Services that benefit outlying communities as well as the "partner" cities. Palo Alto ACOs have been called to pick up a dead mouse in someone's driveway! No charge. No fuss.

SVACA isn't saying what they do about un-owned dead animals....

"our vital and essential needs in infrastructure and public safety. Those are the cornerstones and foundation that a community is built on. "
Marrol, nobody denies infrastructure and police services are vital, but cornerstones aren't limited to those kinds of things, are they? Cities exist partly to develop social capital, to help turn people into citizens. The shelter has obviously got much to contribute to this equally vital aspect of "civic needs."

I agree with you BusinessDecision, and I have stated on numerous occasions that providing animal services is a civic need that we're all responsible for. I have never once called for an end to the city providing these services. However, I argue that this service can be provided at a much lower cost if we outsource. This is not an all or nothing proposition. There are viable options that would be more than adequate in providing these services. Palo Alto doesn't need to be in the shelter business in order to be supportive of our pets and wildlife.

With you not living in Palo Alto presumably you may not fully be aware or appreciate the dismal financial state that we're in. Our city has faced annual budget deficits for several years running. There is no relief in sight unless we begin to outsource, reduce, or eliminate certain non-essential city services. We have severe, multi-million dollar needs in infrastructure and public safety that remain unfunded. Our city leaders and elected officials have already begun to float the notion of another bond measure and tax increase in order to pay for these vital needs. Conservative estimates list that figure in the 40-60 million dollar range on the low end.

As someone who wouldn't be paying into this tax increase I can understand why you feel the way you do. You don't have a monetary stake in this. But for many Palo Altans, we are tired of city management's lack of setting financial priorities, irresponsible spending, catering to special interest groups, and the inability to say no to the feel good, fluff projects. Enough is enough.

You might win, but PA would be even less worth living in than it is already. (But PA won't be alone.)

Scottie, I do appreciate the service that PAAS has provided over the years. It is also a service we can longer afford. You mentioned that PAAS has been beneficial to outlying and partner cities. If that were the case, why did Mountain View choose to drop out of the partnership? Was it just an issue of economics, or did they feel that they could provide an adequate and more affordable service by going elsewhere.

As for the disposal fees, thank you for making my case. All of the fees you cite are quite affordable when you consider that it only occurs once in the lifetime of a pet. Unless someone is disposing pets on a regular basis, which we all know isn't true, then it should be looked at as part of the responsibility of being a pet owner. Also, I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask pet owners to take the short ride to Santa Clara for these services.

Marrol,

There is always a way to "afford" a necessary service, especially in a city of such affluence. We must stand up for the voiceless, who are completely at our mercy. And mercy is what we must show them, not "outsourcing." No civilized society outsources creatures.

Again Nora, another emotion filled plea of mercy, as if anyone is calling for an end to providing animal services, or, that those who are are somehow less caring and compassionate. It's flat out not the case. I have consistently stated that animal services is a civic responsibility, so please don't characterize me as being uncivilized. This is about providing a very adequate service, from a reputable organization, at a much lower cost.

I will respond to your statement, "there is always a way to afford a necessary service." Here's how our city management team would like to get that done. Continue spending irresponsibly on services that can either be outsourced, reduced, or eliminated, and propose yet another bond measure and tax increase to pay for our vital civic needs that have been essentially ignored and neglected. Sorry, but our city is still grappling with annual budget deficits. We do not have the money to pay for these needs. But I suppose as a Stanford resident, you're not that concerned with our budget deficit and potential tax increase. Just offering something else for you to think about and consider. It's called the big picture.

Marrol
Take a deep breath, go for a walk, or do whatever you need to do to get a grip on reality and get an attitude adjustment.

What Nora wrote was "No civilized SOCIETY outsources creatures." You attacked that? She never mentioned you.

Then you attack the fact that she is a Stanford resident and make a sarcastic wisecrack telling her to look at the big picture. It seems to me that Nora IS DOING JUST THAT...looking at the picture across the street from her.

Palo Alto is still a rich community. Here in Redwood City -- which is a much less affluent neighbor of Palo Alto -- we provide basic human and animal services, and manage to pay our cops, firefighters, and police a living wage that allows them to support their families in our community.

Ooops -- a typing error. In the last sentence of my previous note I meant to write "our cops, firefighters, and CITY WORKERS"

I just read this website's story about the Dragon Theatre leaving Palo Alto to come to Redwood City. WELCOME ! Our city sign says "Climate Best By Government Test" and we mean it. Both the physical AND social climate is the best.

And by outsourcing Neighbor from Redwood City, we too will provide a very adequate animal services while addressing our very real financial problems. And how do you make the jump to "attack" simply because I pointed out that we're not any less civilized if we outsourced this service, and, that she like you may not be aware of the financial mess we're in because you don't live here. It's a much different perspective when you have no financial or community stake on this issue.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Redwood City is a wonderful city and community. Our city management should borrow a few ideas for your city government. With that said, if I'm not mistaken, Redwood City provides animal services without being in the business of operating their own shelter. It seems to meet with your approval. No reason why a regional service shouldn't work well here in Palo Alto.

Marrol, by your standards then, people who own pets should pass an income test before adopting? A single mom with 2 or 3 kids in grade school should not be allowed to have a family cat unless she can set up a savings account to endow all future care for the cat?

Everything wrong with that concept is mitigated by a local service agency such as PAAS. Their mission is to control unwanted reproduction of kittens, puppies, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc. To find loving homes for animals who are surrendered or picked up as strays. To send animals to their new homes who are spayed/neutered, microchipped, vaccinated and ready for a healthy future. Meanwhile, in the background the ACOs at PAAS are here to ensure public safety, rescuing stray dogs on the freeway, picking up dead animals near a schoolyard, capturing injured animals who might act aggressively out of fear, maintaining a sense of well-being in the community for pet owners and their non-pet-owning neighbors. PAAS does this with great dedication for "poor" Palo Alto, and for our partners in Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. PAAS does this without regard for a family's net income.

Let me see now.... I predict that your response (inevitable, I know) will call me out as foolishly sentimental and hyper emotional because I used the term "loving homes" in that last paragraph. Bingo! You are RIGHT. I do get sentimental about animals I've owned and the animals I volunteer with at PAAS. All the PAAS volunteers talk fondly of animals we have known at the shelter (by name), and we're always eager to hear from the new owners how our friends are doing. Personally, I'm proud to be a sentimental, soft-hearted, romantic when it comes to animals. So sue me.

I don't think your sentiment is foolish at all Scottie, and there is not one service that you listed that cannot continue to be addressed by outsourcing to Silicon Valley. They are a highly reputable organization operating out of a new, state of the art facility. I truly do not believe that they are any less compassionate or caring than we Palo Altans.

Interesting point you made on the issue of financing a pet. No, of course I don't believe that people should pass an income test to own a pet. However, I know it is common place for shelters, veterinarians, and pet adoption agencies to fully brief potential owners on the anticipated costs of owning a pet. Prospective owners must have an understanding of their financial obligations to properly feed and care for a pet. I think dealing with the end of life issues for a pet is a part of that responsibility, and again, fortunately it only happens once. Considering the cost of pet ownership for food, medical costs, and general equipment over the course of a pet's life, I still maintain that the end of life fees are not unreasonable.

I know about Palo Alto from having many friends there, from reading it's newspapers and reading editorials/comment/letters online, and from having worked in Palo Alto for a good part of my professional career.

It is a very wealthy town that is stingy, has quixotic spending, is often surprisingly racist -- especially about its Asian citizens, and is just angry about almost everything.

Those are serious issues, which should be the topic of community discussion and action.

Scottie, a quick question if I may. I have been discussing and proposing a means where the city can still provide adequate animal services and still address the serious financial challenges we face. I am truly considering both sides of the issue, while trying to keep the big picture and greater civic good in sight. You and other have discussed in depth the virtues of PAAS and why we should continue to fund this service. So, how would you begin to propose dealing with our annual budget deficit, and inability to fund vital needs that exist in our infrastructure and public safety? Under the current circumstances what should our financial priorities be? How and where do we outsource, eliminate, or reduce spending in order to close that gap?

Wow Scottie (referring to Neighbors last post), and you were lecturing me about relaxing and taking a walk? LOL

M, the PA that you want to see come into being (addressing cop shortage and infrastructure issues and nothing else) - is it a good business decision to stay in a place that's so expensive but only able to hunker down in that way? (not that other places won't be just the same, but cheaper.) See why people are trying hard to avoid PA becoming that?

BusinessDecision, when have I ever said that's all I want Palo Alto to be about. Of course not. I would just like to see our city leaders and elected officials stabilize the dire financial straits that we're in. Once we've balanced the budget and funded the vital civic priorities that exist, I have no issue with reviewing which services and programs collectively that we'd like to fund. It's a matter of setting some priorities, taking care of first things first, and practicing some fiscal responsibility. No one is proposing an all or nothing scenario.

As Palo Altans, I believe that many of us expect our city management team to take the lead in this endeavor and not expect to return to the tax payers and pay for these vital needs after many years of irresponsible spending. We have a huge hole to dig ourselves out of and a big part of that unfortunately is to either outsource, reduce, or eliminate certain city services and projects. Again, you're in a convenient arguing position if you're not the one facing a significant tax increase.

M, I know what you mean-- and let me get one thing out of the way first: I don't pay PA taxes but have a life-long interest in having PA be solvent. You could move away.
Regarding your idea that we could put everything back after the finances were sorted--you don't really think that once those things were dismantled they would come back again, do you? It would surely be a case of all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again. You might have money but you need good will, too. You don't want to discourage people too much in your quest for stability...

And if you're really that interested and solvent in Palo Alto, then you could move here, thereby having a financial stake in these matters. As a third generation Palo Altan I believe I have, let's say a more complete understanding of these issues along with a historical perspective. You can't provide or sustain goodwill or services unless the essential needs are covered first.

Dear Marrol,

You wrote that "As Palo Altans, I believe that many of us expect our city management team to take the lead in this endeavor [regaining solvency by setting better priorities]."

Let me suggest that this won't happen until Palo Altans get another city manager and another assistant city manager. Just look at what they regard as priorities--appointing an urban forester, for example.

I'm beginning to agree with you Jardins. This current city management team has and continues to make misguided decisions when it comes to our public finances. Rather than having a sense for the greater good and displaying leadership, they continue to cater to the special interest groups and vocal minorities who dictate the cities direction. They do not have the courage to say no. They do not have the ability to apply some common sense and logic to what they have proclaimed as a financial crisis.

Posted by Marrol, on Jun 5, 2012 at 1:02 pm

"Wow Scottie (referring to Neighbors last post), and you were lecturing me about relaxing and taking a walk? LOL"

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have not lectured you on taking a walk or whatever.... Who are you talking to? LOL

Meanwhile, the shelter supporters (a large and growing group) have several activities in the works. We've started a Friends group for the animal shelter. We've filed papers in Sacramento for incorporation, after which we become a non-profit 501(c)(3). We've got a lawyer and a financial wizard advising us, and are soon to be joined by a woman with years of fund-raising experience. We're developing clusters of projects in 8 or 9 areas. We're fighting back at every City Council meeting (politely, of course). We've got a new Web page at Web Link If you visit the site and click the PRESS button, you can read all the relevant newspaper articles about the shelter, right up through last Friday's issue of The Palo Alto Weekly. We cannot provide a DONATE button on the Friends web page until we are a non-profit. But meanwhile donations are pouring in to the shelter and to the Friends (thanks to the generosity of the Palo Alto Humane Society who are temporarily -- and legally -- sheltering us with their non-profit status).

Anyone reading this who's up for it, JOIN the Friends group, starting on their Facebook page: Web Link

When you get there, click LIKE, and you are counted as a Friend. We keep in touch, let you know what's going on at City Hall and elsewhere. The support group includes people of all ages, stations, and cultural backgrounds. We have occasional disagreements, but we are governed by our commitment to the future of one of Palo Alto's signature city services. We just had a Friends meeting, and I'm inspired and rarin' to go! (Anybody knows where the word "rarin'" comes from?)

My apologies Scottie, that observation was meant for Neighbor. I wish you and your supporters luck with your endeavors. If these efforts result in the shelter operating on its own, as a non-profit entity, then more power to you. If the shelter remains in the auspices of city government, and the fun raising efforts match those of what we would save by outsourcing, then again, I would have no issue.

Budget deficits and meeting financial obligations on a civic level will not occur if we do not outsource, reduce, or eliminate certain services and projects. If there is enough private money and interest to keep the shelter going and sustain itself without requiring any further government subsidies, then how could I have a problem with that. If not, then it would clearly be a time to outsource. Again, best of luck.

As long as the "taxpayer" is not paying for it... (Not that the whole economy would not benefit from people who could afford to buy Mr. Ford's cars. But that was then. This is now.)

Hello folks,

I've lived in Palo Alto for the last 56 years (my age) and have a pretty good sense of our residents' collective values.

First, it disappoints me that posters who make broad, illogical statements, like, animal service is just something we can't afford anymore, don't use their full, real name when discussing something as vitally important as living beings - the animals of Palo Alto.

Yes, we can afford our services to our cats, dogs and our other animal friends and companions.

If Palo Alto were to ever undermine oR stop the care of these important living beings, then we've totally lost sight of what is important in life.

Maybe I should have been more involved in this issue - when it first came up, I knew that our CITY STAFF and our CITY COUNCILMEN AND WOMEN would find a solution. For this issue to have gotten this far without a resolution is disturbing.

RESIDENTS, DON'T LET ANONOMOUS POSTERS HERE - OR ANYWHERE ELSE - TRY TO CONVINCE YOU THAT CARE TO OUR ANIMALS IS SOMETHING "WE SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD." I don't have to tell you what that is.


Andrew L. Freedman
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Thank you for being so candid Mr. Freeman, but on an open forum such as this remaining anonymous in order to freely exchange ideas and thoughts has become quite common place. That's all we're doing here. If people wish to express themselves in a more formal setting such as a city council meeting, which I have done in the past, then naturally it would require greater qualification and exposure. I truly don't see how an anonymous post on this forum, for the purpose it serves, is any less virtuous or valuable than one which is attached to a name. If I were to apply your logic, then are you equally dismissing the vast majority of shelter supporters who have commented on this forum and are also anonymous. No, of course not. But apparently you give them a pass because they happen to agree with your position. Sorry, but it has to be a two-way street. With that said, I do respect your commitment and willingness to put yourself out there.

As for the issue at hand, you appear to join the ranks of many of the shelter supporters who somehow believe that the city providing animal services would cease to exist. No one, including myself, has called for animal services to be abolished. I have said from the very beginning that providing animal services is a civic responsibility that we should all share. I just happen to believe that by outsourcing we could continue to provide a more than adequate service at a much lower cost. A very important consideration when one thinks about our budget deficit and civic obligations that aren't being met.

As Mr. Zimmerman has pointed out, the shelter supporters have been quite active in fund raising, etc. I wish them the best of luck and success in their cause. If they manage to accumulate and annually sustain the funds necessary to keep a city shelter open then good for them. I would support this arrangement just as long as the funds they raise are equal to what tax payers would save from outsourcing.

One last thing Mr. Freedman. Like many supporters on a myriad of controversial issues you focus entirely on the cause in which you support. However, we can't dismiss the big picture here. This became a controversial issue because the city management team moved to outsource our animal services in order to help balance the city budget and dig ourselves out of the financial mess we're in. That move is now being deliberated and reconsidered apparently.

So I ask you, do you have any ideas on how the city should address the deepening budget deficit? What steps should we take to remedy this financial crisis? How do we pay for our vital and essential needs in public safety and infrastructure without another tax increase? If spending less is one conventional method of solving a budget issue, then which city programs and services should be outsourced, reduced, or eliminated? Again, we have to look at the bigger picture.

You see it's not just a matter of considering or supporting a single cause. If that were the case then everyone would simply wish to preserve their own cause and not take the greater good into consideration. Undoubtedly sacrifices have to be made. Our city cannot continue to operate and function to its fullest potential under the current circumstances. So I ask again, where will the sacrifices be made? I still happen to believe that by outsourcing animal services, which would save tax payers approximately 2.5 million dollars in the first five years alone, is a viable option. It would be another step toward addressing this financial crisis, balancing the budget, and freeing up public funds to pay for our vital and essential needs in public safety and infrastructure.

Marrol,
I'm not Mr. anything. In fact I'm in a couple of the photos appearing in the online Weekly article that prompted this line of comments.

I'm Ms. Zimmerman. And it's my real name.

Then once again I apologize for misstating Ms. Zimmerman. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuits.

M, It might be too late for you to read this, and Post might remove it, but I do not accept that you have more understanding because you are 3rd generation PA. ("I have, let's say a more complete understanding of these issues along with a historical perspective.")
No. Your stance on a balanced budget and vital needs (aka limited govt) is political, nothing more.
Anyway, historical perspective: remember when Palo Altans felt so terrible because police, teachers, and nurses could not afford to live in PA? Now these same public servants are vilified. So much for "perspective."

You're out of touch with the issues Business. This isn't about politics, it's about being fiscally responsible and reducing our growing budget deficit. It's also about our city paying for civic needs in infrastructure and public safety without raising taxes. I'm not vilifying our city employees either, especially our police officers. Quite the contrary. A big part of our public safety needs involves avoiding any further cuts in the department.

Like I said, until you're faced with a financial stake in these matters you can never truly appreciate the position our city is in. Easy for you to be supportive of the shelter when you'll never be faced with having to pay a nickel in additional taxes. I suppose I'd be supportive too if people in another city were picking up the tab.

M, I did not say that you personally vilified anyone.
I have not said that I would NOT support higher taxes. I did say I could not afford to live in Palo Alto. But for all you know, I am a person who does support higher taxes.
This is politics. People often support or oppose things even if they have no skin in the game. They have beliefs that are very often independent of what is involved for them financially. It is insulting to say that someone can of course support the shelter if someone else's taxes are going to pay for it.

Support if you wish, but while doing so, consider the totality of the circumstances and realize that our city is in the midst of financial crisis. Sorry, but we can't afford it.

You just do not accept that this is politics, not economics.

How is a multi-million dollar annual budget deficit, and zero allocated funds to pay for essential civic needs not an economic issue. LOL It's precisely your way of thinking that got us into this mess. Like I said, if you were paying what it costs to live in Palo Alto, already paying higher taxes, and facing yet another tax increase, then you might be singing a different tune. A convenient position you're in, but one that leaves you with little influence on the issue. Sorry, but PA can't be the regional keeper of the peninsula anymore.

"your way of thinking that got us into this mess."
Believe me, I don't get through a single day without reflecting that my entire life was lived on a false foundation. I did sometimes think that it could all come crashing down. (Did you?) But I didn't do anything.
Why? Because that was everybody's way of thinking, that even if it seemed in many ways too good to be true, everything would be o.k.
Having said that, I should be lining up with you, and saying we cannot possibly go on like this.
But I say instead: "things were not nearly as good as we thought they were throughout my life, so now they are probably not as bad as we think."
I should really look at the numbers, though, and I will try to.