July
1, 2014
San
Jose Mercury News
By
Diana Diamond
While Palo Alto City Manager
Jim Keene declared there were no surprises in last week's Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury report, I for one remain upset at the nine-month,
behind-the-door maneuverings by city staff and some council members.
Together, they planned and
strategized with developer John Arillaga to build four tower buildings and a
shell of a new theater at the 27 University Ave. property adjacent to the train
station, where MacArthur Park is situated.
Aghast may be a better word.
First, everything was secretive, with the public constantly kept in the dark.
Second, council members held closed sessions, where they're somehow brainwashed
into thinking nothing that occurs behind doors can ever be told to anyone.
I do not exaggerate. I have
talked to several council members about closed sessions the last couple of
years, and to a person they said their lips were sealed. When then-vice mayor
Jack Morton and controversial councilwoman Nancy Lytle were bickering, I asked
a member whether one of the two left the room in anger. "I can't tell
you," she said. But walking out of the room isn't on the agenda, I
replied. Then I facetiously asked if council members were dumping their paper
dinner plates into a trash can. She repeated she could not tell me, because it
was a closed meeting.
So when we get to the nine
months when Arrillaga was negotiating with the city, I get the same "can't
tell" response. That should not be the way democracy or transparency
works, particularly since the city funded a $250,000 design study for the
developer's project that had not even gone public or been approved.
Furthermore, this wasn't a
one-time innocent mistake. There were other meetings held among staff, council
and developer. This was a project that had huge implications for the city and
its downtown, yet when it finally was made public there was a glowing staff
report supporting the project.
Back then, Deputy City Manager
Steve Emslie was orchestrating the negotiations with Arrillaga and staff was
devoting a lot of time to it. Emslie retired from the city in March 2013, but
continued as an occasional paid consultant. In April 2014, he went to work as a
principal for Goodyear-Peterson, a public affairs consulting firm that lobbies
cities. "The firm offers clients guidance and access to elected officials,
policy makers and the media, helping to facilitate business success," its
website says.
Emslie's new job feels to me
like too fast a revolving door, where former city employees are hired because
of the access they have to former colleagues.
San Jose has a two-year waiting
period before a former employee can become a lobbyist. I think Palo Alto should
have at least a three-year wait.
The city has embarked on a
two-year effort to learn what residents want. "Our Palo Alto 2030" is
holding a series of meetings on a $325,000 study that includes staff members
running meetings and tracking public responses.
A couple of meetings
spotlighted "smart growth" -- how to decide where the city should
encourage more housing. Some participants urged no growth, saying our city
already has too much. But that's not an idea some staff members want to hear.
The problem I have is that the
smart growth concept lacks sufficient data, such as whether housing built near
public transit leads to occupants taking the transit to work. The premise is it
will, but city officials have shied away from any surveys in existing housing
near trains and buses.
Instead, it's another
politically correct bandwagon concept that we're supposed to hop on.
Personally, I need cold hard facts first.
No comments:
Post a Comment