Your article states: "The split was reflected on election night, with Veenker, Lythcott-Haims and Forssell all attending a party at the Homewood Suites by Hilton hotel that was organized by the Measure K campaign before moving on to their own events. Meanwhile, Lauing and Summa were surrounded by supporters at The Patio when initial results were announced."

You missed the fun group photos of Lauing, Veenker, Lythcott-Haims, and Forssell at Homewood Suites followed by enthusiastic clapping and wide smiles to celebrate the end of the campaign. (Photos available). Later, candidates left for other events.

Congratulations to all candidates for your courage and stamina, win or lose.

I am very happy the policy majority on Council will continue.

While not easy to fill the shoes of DuBois and Filseth, it was done when voters wisely chose two knowledgeable, experienced new Council Members.

@felix,

"Congratulations to all candidates for your courage and stamina, win or lose.
I am very happy the policy majority on Council will continue."

Ditto. Congratulations - to all candidates, and to the newly elected. Also to Palo Alto Rebecca Eisenberg for taking on a serious incumbent - that is what I would call change.

Was there really a policy majority in play for the City though? The direction of the City doesn't change with Councils. It's what they get done as individuals. In practical terms, Filseth devoted a great deal of time to city finances but was one heartbeat away from defining his and Dubois' tenure with the purchase of dinosaurs for $980,000. In terms of personalities, glad we don't have a Liz' kids situation. Lauing is experienced on city issues; JLH's is all about building so that is predictable. Venkeer, unclear, but sounds like it may be about building or not building.

Building or not building is the recurring theme of Palo Alto elections. It's like we're run by a real estate office which explains Alex Comsa's candidacy. Meantime, the city's finances bounce around and various things that residents care about go by the wayside.

I am just hoping that the City Council will remember those of us who live here and our infrastructure as top priorities.

I’m happy…two out of three picks should be enough to get things done along with the incumbents. I might have been a little harsh on Julie during the run-up to the election but if she holds true to her words as reported in the article, it might work out okay. Less talk…more listen and learn…is my dollar’s worth (inflation adjusted) bit of advice.

Congrats to all the candidates. Thank you for running and for conducting campaigns that talked about the issues.

Campaigning can be an interesting process and now you must make a mental switch from campaigning and talking about what YOU will do to how will you work TOGETHER, compromise when needed and get things done as a group. It’s a real shift.

Everyone on council was elected by the voters - there are no personal mandates more valid than the others.

You will also each be on 8-10 other boards and groups in your role as council members. Many people don’t realize the job entails much more than Monday meetings. Enjoy serving the fantastic Palo Alto community.

@Tom DuBois,

"Campaigning can be an interesting process and now you must make a mental switch from campaigning and talking about what YOU will do to how will you work TOGETHER, compromise when needed and get things done as a group. It’s a real shift."

If this was true, then people wouldn't be celebrating a so called majority out of 7 votes. Reality is that once elected you have a ticket to "compromise" away to get just 3 more votes for what "you" want. Great that everyone can sleep at night this way but I would rather have a more accountable form of government, an elected Mayor.

Echoing what Resident3 said since there's no evidence that people unjustifiably accusing their opponents of being Jim Crow will suddenly decide to work together in peace and harmony.

Not one environmentalist to choose from on this ballot, pretty sad. It will be funny as always to watch the council squirm to explain how they are pro growth AND anti-climate change waaahahaha

I think this was a tough campaign and while I do wish Doria Summa had been elected so that we would all benefit from her knowledge and experience, the job now is to move forward. I also think Tom DuBois has given the victors very good advice and I hope it is heeded.

So all the candidates the Weekly endorsed won. For me, this points to the editorial board not doing its job. There is Doria Summa who had the stead the most experience and expertise in land/housing issues. For thSad that the Weekly is not truly representative of the residents.

@Palo Alto native - does that mean the vote was also not truly representative of the residents, since Doria Summa only got 5th place?

The Weekly didn't endorse Tanaka for re-election but he won anyway. The Weekly's endorsement helps, but it's not the end-all-be-all.

@Palo Alto Native,

"the Weekly is not truly representative of the residents."

In the grand scheme of power - City Hall being a building office, and the Weekly's advertisers (many real Estate agents) should tell you who the Weekly knows and what they know what to report on.

The Weekly has one "economist" who hasn't met a building he doesn't like. If the Weekly was even neutral, it would at least stop billing Stephen Levy as the only economist in town. The only true representatives of residents are residents, project by project. People evaluate on merits and it's why referendums are the only resort. Let's see how the Weekly's candidates do.

I suspect that is why the Weekly suggested pro-housing Lisa Forsell stick around to run again but it didn't support the candidate who doesn't see Palo Alto as a commodity. Housing, housing, housing and dinosaurs.

Thanks to Dubois and Filseth for their years of service on CC. They were well prepared for discussion and debate on issues. They were also civil and respectful of other council members’ opinions. Now let’s hope that carries over to the new members. Of course I’ll be watching the meetings starting in January to see how the members work together. One of my wishes is that they can work together to actually get more housing built for the very low, low, and middle income people who serve our community and have to drive long distances because of the lack of affordability of housing here. But it shouldn’t be a repeated blame game of how the jobs/housing imbalance happened. We know that history and the makeup of CC members that promoted and allowed it to happen. It is important for CC members to know that history, however, so they understand how the policies of accommodation to the pro growth (offices) policies that favored commercial property owners and developers happened, to the detriment of residents who pay taxes for our infrastructure. If a large portion of their campaign donations came from developers and non-residents, then they have some work to do to show us residents that they take our interests first, above those of donors that only have a business (profit) interest in mind. CC members should be bold enough to tell us residents that we will have pay for that ‘affordable’ housing, through taxes and bond measures, or hope we can get grants from all levels of government…county, state, and federal. I’m encouraged that there weren’t advertised slates and that remnants of Kniss’ kids are fading away.

I suspect the reason that Doria did not `get the Weekly endorsement and came in 5th place in votes is that she has a reputation for nitpicking everything. In order to build more housing, we have to look at the big picture and focus on the things that make a difference in building new housing.

It does not mean accepting all developers proposals as is. It means working with them in a constructing way. It also means more flexible zoning and height restrictions that can be a win/win.

The Housing Element acknowledges that there is a lot of commercial property that is not well utilized. It is up to the City Council to make those changes come to life.

That required report on plans to make available space to build housing to satisfy the state’s mandate for housing is paper. No shovels lifted or sweat involved. As a kid I had fun playing “kick the can”. I was raised on a family farm in Montana. We kicked that empty Cambell’s soup can around for hours, even well after dark.

Maybe housing could go into all the empty offices spouting throughout the county and state -- Salesforce, Twitter, Meta, Oracle, the company andling corporate shuttles... and into the housing they're surrendering at nearby San Antonio Center.

The layoffs number in the tens of thousands and could go a long way to meeting our housing targets.

Congratulations to all.

My wish is that we would get ranked choice voting so it would be more clear what the results in a large field actually mean. Also so that lots of people can run without concerns of vote splitting. This would make an excellent project for some young people…

I also hope Lythcott-Haimes will be able to work for what she wants while learning to be respectful of others, especially others who might otherwise agree with her but whose input and motives she can’t see over her own biases. Veencker got the most votes because she understood that the majority of Palo Altans were with her efforts at Buena Vista, and deals with all people in good faith, something people like LH could not see at Maybell and thus the possibility of a collaborative 3rd way to get what she said she wanted (that had precedence before) was lost. If she finds herself in a choice again between a soap box and collaboration with people who disagree on vision but not outcome, my fear is she may choose soapbox. She’s never shown an ability to deal well with nuance/subtlety, which City Council requires. That said, she does care/learn, and anyway I hope she doesn’t lose that energy and bit of steamroller if she chooses to challenge Berman (hint, hint) who has been a disappointment. I think JLH would make an excellent state representative, including for some of the reasons I’m concerned about her at the local level. I remain cautious but open to being wrong about those concerns.

Congratulations to ALL.