News

Will new council members shift Palo Alto's priorities?

While housing and traffic top the list, some say council should devote more energy to finances, airplane noise

When Palo Alto's new City Council meets in late January to set its priorities for the 2017, housing and transportation will inevitably top the list, as they have in each of the past year.

But with three new members now on the council, the annual retreat may also feature a few wildcards, as newcomers, incumbents and citizens offer new ideas that they hope will influence City Hall's agenda. Should the council, for instance, set as its 2017 priority to "increase City revenue by 50 percent without new tax increases," as newly elected council member Greg Tanaka proposed? Or should it devote significant energy this year to make sure Palo Alto is a "smart, efficient, experimental city," as Adrian Fine, also a council newcomer, wrote in his survey?

It's not just the newly elected members who are proposing fresh ideas for the council's annual priorities, which are defined as topics that will receive "particular, unusual and significant attention during the year." Councilman Cory Wolbach listed housing and transportation as his two top priorities but then added a third: human and civil rights. And Councilwoman Karen Holman made a pitch to include as a priority "living up to City promises," which she noted refers to code enforcement, traffic and noise violations, collection of appropriate fines and making sure developments meet their conditions of approval.

Some council members played it relatively safe and signaled their intent to stay the course from 2016, when the four priorities were the built environment (housing and parking, with a particular emphasis on mobility), infrastructure, "healthy city, healthy community," and completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Newly elected Councilwoman Lydia Kou, for instance, recommended retaining three of the 2016 priorities (all save the Comprehensive Plan) for the new year. Councilman Eric Filseth offered the same list, with one additional item "long-term financial stability."

Other council members are proposing something completely different. In addition to pursuing a 50 percent revenue increase (from sources to be determined), Tanaka is also suggesting adopting as a 2017 priority the placement of Caltrain tracks underground, a project that the council has been discussing for more than five years and that is expected to cost more than $1 billion.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Under the council's guidelines, each member is asked to submit up to three priorities. The council adopts no more than three priorities at its annual retreat (this year scheduled for Jan. 28), and each priority has a three-year time limit. In practice, all of these priority-setting guidelines are routinely ignored, as the 2016 list of four rather than three priorities makes clear. This year, four of the nine members of the new council submitted longer lists (Kniss' includes seven items; Greg Scharff's has five; Holman's and Filseth's have four), some featuring items that would inevitably require many years of effort to achieve progress.

One 2016 priority that may or may not remain on the docket is completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the land-use bible that has been stuck in revision mode for close to a decade. For at least two council members -- Scharff and Kniss -- getting the revision done remains a top priority. Others have omitted it from the list and shifted their focus to items that are either more concrete, like a new bike bridge (Kniss), or more intractable and City Hall-focused.

Both Tom DuBois and Holman, for example, have proposed setting a "long-term staffing strategy" as a 2017 priority. For DuBois, this includes "hiring, retention, pension and benefits and leveraging technology to increase efficiency." For Holman, it also includes "focused resource needs" and "sustainable funding mechanisms."

The most extensive and specific list of priorities came from Kniss, who has proposed approving at least one affordable-housing project, building the "iconic" bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101, and determining the future of Cubberley Community Center in south Palo Alto. Kniss also proposed partnering with schools (though it's not clear what form the partnership would take and what objective it would aim to achieve), completing the Comprehensive Plan update and pursuing a new study for separating roads from train tracks along the rail corridor.

These wildcards notwithstanding, the council's early feedback indicates that at least some of the items on the new priority list will have a familiar feel. The "built environment" priority received nine mentions, according to staff, and is likely to stay. Healthy city and the Comprehensive Plan each received four votes. No other priority has more than one.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Residents, meanwhile, have their own ideas. While housing and traffic remain near and dear to many hearts, dozens used the social-media site Nextdoor and the city's Open City Hall forum to request that the council include "airplane noise" on its priority list for 2017. One resident on the forum called jet noise "unbearable," while others called it "terrible," "harmful," "excruciating" and a "hijacking of our skies by the FAA."

"End the jet noise over our community," resident Micheline Horstmeyer wrote on Peak Democracy. "This is a major health and quality of life issue."

Karen Gould, a resident of Crescent Park, concurred and urged the council to do something about the "terrifyingly loud plane noise in the middle of the night."

"I'm woken up EVERY SINGLE NIGHT by planes above my house," Gould wrote. "This is severely disrupting my sleep and, consequently, my health and the quality of my days."

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Will new council members shift Palo Alto's priorities?

While housing and traffic top the list, some say council should devote more energy to finances, airplane noise

When Palo Alto's new City Council meets in late January to set its priorities for the 2017, housing and transportation will inevitably top the list, as they have in each of the past year.

But with three new members now on the council, the annual retreat may also feature a few wildcards, as newcomers, incumbents and citizens offer new ideas that they hope will influence City Hall's agenda. Should the council, for instance, set as its 2017 priority to "increase City revenue by 50 percent without new tax increases," as newly elected council member Greg Tanaka proposed? Or should it devote significant energy this year to make sure Palo Alto is a "smart, efficient, experimental city," as Adrian Fine, also a council newcomer, wrote in his survey?

It's not just the newly elected members who are proposing fresh ideas for the council's annual priorities, which are defined as topics that will receive "particular, unusual and significant attention during the year." Councilman Cory Wolbach listed housing and transportation as his two top priorities but then added a third: human and civil rights. And Councilwoman Karen Holman made a pitch to include as a priority "living up to City promises," which she noted refers to code enforcement, traffic and noise violations, collection of appropriate fines and making sure developments meet their conditions of approval.

Some council members played it relatively safe and signaled their intent to stay the course from 2016, when the four priorities were the built environment (housing and parking, with a particular emphasis on mobility), infrastructure, "healthy city, healthy community," and completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Newly elected Councilwoman Lydia Kou, for instance, recommended retaining three of the 2016 priorities (all save the Comprehensive Plan) for the new year. Councilman Eric Filseth offered the same list, with one additional item "long-term financial stability."

Other council members are proposing something completely different. In addition to pursuing a 50 percent revenue increase (from sources to be determined), Tanaka is also suggesting adopting as a 2017 priority the placement of Caltrain tracks underground, a project that the council has been discussing for more than five years and that is expected to cost more than $1 billion.

Under the council's guidelines, each member is asked to submit up to three priorities. The council adopts no more than three priorities at its annual retreat (this year scheduled for Jan. 28), and each priority has a three-year time limit. In practice, all of these priority-setting guidelines are routinely ignored, as the 2016 list of four rather than three priorities makes clear. This year, four of the nine members of the new council submitted longer lists (Kniss' includes seven items; Greg Scharff's has five; Holman's and Filseth's have four), some featuring items that would inevitably require many years of effort to achieve progress.

One 2016 priority that may or may not remain on the docket is completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the land-use bible that has been stuck in revision mode for close to a decade. For at least two council members -- Scharff and Kniss -- getting the revision done remains a top priority. Others have omitted it from the list and shifted their focus to items that are either more concrete, like a new bike bridge (Kniss), or more intractable and City Hall-focused.

Both Tom DuBois and Holman, for example, have proposed setting a "long-term staffing strategy" as a 2017 priority. For DuBois, this includes "hiring, retention, pension and benefits and leveraging technology to increase efficiency." For Holman, it also includes "focused resource needs" and "sustainable funding mechanisms."

The most extensive and specific list of priorities came from Kniss, who has proposed approving at least one affordable-housing project, building the "iconic" bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101, and determining the future of Cubberley Community Center in south Palo Alto. Kniss also proposed partnering with schools (though it's not clear what form the partnership would take and what objective it would aim to achieve), completing the Comprehensive Plan update and pursuing a new study for separating roads from train tracks along the rail corridor.

These wildcards notwithstanding, the council's early feedback indicates that at least some of the items on the new priority list will have a familiar feel. The "built environment" priority received nine mentions, according to staff, and is likely to stay. Healthy city and the Comprehensive Plan each received four votes. No other priority has more than one.

Residents, meanwhile, have their own ideas. While housing and traffic remain near and dear to many hearts, dozens used the social-media site Nextdoor and the city's Open City Hall forum to request that the council include "airplane noise" on its priority list for 2017. One resident on the forum called jet noise "unbearable," while others called it "terrible," "harmful," "excruciating" and a "hijacking of our skies by the FAA."

"End the jet noise over our community," resident Micheline Horstmeyer wrote on Peak Democracy. "This is a major health and quality of life issue."

Karen Gould, a resident of Crescent Park, concurred and urged the council to do something about the "terrifyingly loud plane noise in the middle of the night."

"I'm woken up EVERY SINGLE NIGHT by planes above my house," Gould wrote. "This is severely disrupting my sleep and, consequently, my health and the quality of my days."

Comments

Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:13 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:13 am

I would like to see the Council to prioritize quality of life issues for residents already living here, rather than quality of life for those who want to live here.

Sometimes it seems that those of us living here just get forgotten about except by introducing new rules to make our lives more difficult.


NeilsonBuchanan
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jan 4, 2017 at 10:25 am
NeilsonBuchanan, Downtown North
Registered user
on Jan 4, 2017 at 10:25 am

Where is the National Citizens Survey conducted last August? It is overdue and scheduled to be released within days. This annual report of citizen opinions and attitudes is sitting within City Hall and should be the cornerstone of the priority setting process. If "old" and newly elected officials want objective, unfiltered feedback from residents aka voters, then at least submit personal priorities based on objective annual citizens survey.


mauricio
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 4, 2017 at 11:14 am
mauricio, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jan 4, 2017 at 11:14 am

There is a very aggressive, and tragically very effective coalition in Palo Alto which includes PAF, pro growth and developer council members, and ABAG types like Steve Levy, who believe, completely or to some extent, that perpetual and substansive growth and urbanization are always good, and that every person in the world who wants to settle in Palo Alto should be enabled to do so. Many voters who voted for pro growth candidates didn't support them because they want Palo Alto to become a large, dense city, but for a myriad of reasons, often despite opposing their views on growth and quality of life.

As long as the pro growth coalition frames the debate as 'long time home owners want to build a wall around Palo Alto and exclude young people from living here', they will be successful. Once the debate is about the real issues:quality of life, livability, environmental protection, traffic, overpopulation, that land is finite and that not all people who insist on moving to Palo Alto can do so, those who are trying to save Palo Alto just might prevail.


resident
Charleston Meadows
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:12 pm
resident, Charleston Meadows
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:12 pm

There is land in Palo Alto that is owned by the various transit authorities. Also land owned by the city, county, state, and US Government. Yet these groups target R-1 individual residents in order to get their land. Identify where the land is that should be available for ABAG requirements so that the transit authorities can be using their own land for these purposes. We also have a number of buildings that are always "For Lease". If we have buildings that are not being utilized on a continual basis then some pressure needs to be exerted to update, or sell those buildings so that they can be updated for a useful purpose. The pieces are there we just need to get those pieces positioned correctly so they can be utilized.
If any "new" CC member starts targeting R-1 housing then work to change that dynamic.


John
College Terrace
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm
John, College Terrace
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm

For some reason I see no mention of our unfunded pension mandates. CalPers is in deep trouble, and our city is on the line to make up the difference. Just today I saw an article about a $10 fee increase on all vehicle registrations in California, not to fix our roads, but to bolster CHP pensions, which are also underfunded. How can our city council refuse to face up to our pensions obligations, and the true cost to all of us?


jh
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:41 pm
jh, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:41 pm

Both the mayor ad vice mayor, Greg Scharff and Lis Kniss, have a track record of and have been staunch supporters of commercial development in the past, despite what they have said during their re-election campaigns. So it will be interesting to see what direction the new council majority will take takes during the next two years.

As both Liz Kniss and Greg Scharf will be termed out and not dependent on residents' votes to get re-elected we will find out how much they prioritize quality of life for residents over ever more dense commercial development, bringing every more jobs to the city and the resulting pressure for ever more housing and infrastructure to support the pace of growth.

Council members who desire a political future and to run for higher office after serving on the council may tend to be dependant on and possibly influenced by those they hope might provide both influential and financial backing in the future.


jh
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm
jh, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm

@resident "There is land in Palo Alto that is owned by the various transit authorities. Also land owned by the city, county, state, and US Government. "

Other than the Stanford Research Park and one of two empty lots along El Camino I haven't seen any undeveloped properties, unless you mean parking lots owned by the city and the parking lots adjacent to the two train stations.


38 year resident
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 4, 2017 at 3:00 pm
38 year resident, Old Palo Alto
on Jan 4, 2017 at 3:00 pm

How about undoing the traffic logjam created at Middlefield and N. California Ave by our bicycle first transportation commission. There are more than just this example of poor judgement by the "traffic calmers" (code for get rid of cars).


Ken Horowitz
University South
on Jan 4, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Ken Horowitz, University South
on Jan 4, 2017 at 5:25 pm

Kudos to Councilman Cory Wolbach for going out on a late Monday night to clean up swastikas by himself on several street signs as soon as he became aware of the vandalism. As far as his priority of human and civil rights, he is one who does "walk the talk". Thank you for your service in making a difference in Palo Alto!


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 4, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 4, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Shaking my head at this quote from the article "Should the council, for instance, set as its 2017 priority to "increase City revenue by 50 percent without new tax increases," as newly elected council member Greg Tanaka proposed?"

What does this mean? How is is it possible? And why -- and how -- should the city get a 50% raise when it already spends a fortune on salaries and is running a budget deficit (not what's owed on the pensions)??

Are we going to see our utility rates and other non-tax "fees" and "surcharges" rise by 50%? Are we going to see "creative" fees for, say, parking tickets? Failure to align our waste cans correctly>

Are we finally going to be among the recipients for part of the $24 BILLION California collects by taxing marijuana?

Some clarification would be nice.


resident
Charleston Meadows
on Jan 4, 2017 at 6:35 pm
resident, Charleston Meadows
on Jan 4, 2017 at 6:35 pm

We need to check the "California values" that the CC is committed to protect.
Note that San Jose now has it's highest murder rate and it's police need to live in motor homes to cover the overtime. Any tax dollars spent to legally protect illegal immigrant's who have a police record are indicator's of the Mexican cartel infiltration into the county/state. How money is budgeted for any effort in this direction needs to be singled out separately. The taxpayer is not here to cover that element being subsidized. We now have a police shortage and need to protect that the services for security are firmly in place.


Ahem
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Ahem, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 6:56 pm


Q: Will new council members shift Palo Alto's priorities?

A: Priorities will remain the same. Continue to enable the conversion of Palo Alto's quality of life into personal wealth through real-estate development, and leverage that wealth to finance your political career and/or business interests.

Camouflage the whole scam by pretending you are just trying to help school teachers find affordable housing by building limited utility $1,000,000 micro units next to the soon to be blighted fake transportation corridor next to the railroad tracks while you live comfortably in the 1950s leave-it-to-beaver world of Old Palo Alto, or bucolic Portola Valley


Debbie Downer
another community
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:15 am
Debbie Downer, another community
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:15 am
mauricio
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 5, 2017 at 11:07 am
mauricio, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jan 5, 2017 at 11:07 am

In my naiveté I used to think that council members' most supreme priority was to maintain and increase the quality of life of the residents. Years ago I realized that in Palo Alto, with the incestuous relationship of council members to real estate developers and to Stanford's corporate interests, this is very much not the case.

The priorities of land developers are the priorities of the current pro growth majority and the very aggressive groups and businesses behind them. They are interchangeable. Quality of life for residents, which translate into tranquility(including preventing the town from becoming a permanent, and incredibly noisy construction zone), peace and quite, less traffic, less crime, clean air, more parks and open space and less urban blight, receive at most lip service, but are actually not even a low priority anymore. It is now all about how to cram as fast as logistically and politically possible as many offices and additional residents into the existing space. It is about how to Manhattanize Palo Alto as quickly as possible.


Curmudgeon
Downtown North
on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:02 pm

"Will new council members shift Palo Alto's priorities?"

Coming soon! 27 University!


A real palo alto resident
College Terrace
on Jan 5, 2017 at 4:51 pm
A real palo alto resident, College Terrace
on Jan 5, 2017 at 4:51 pm

There is a subset of palo alto residents and non residents like maurucio who refuse to accept the election results. Of course priorities will be shifted. The voters overwhelmingly rejected the PASZ slate, their negative ads and the huge amount of money poured I to their campaign (which makes the constant complaints of developers and council members being cozy as hypocritical).lus resdients saw two years of substandard performance by the PASZ members, dubois, filseth and holman. Clearly voters wanted a change. And who knows maybe the bike bridge over 101 will finally get built.


Curmudgeon
Downtown North
on Jan 5, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
on Jan 5, 2017 at 5:10 pm

"The voters overwhelmingly rejected the PASZ slate, their negative ads and the huge amount of money poured I to their campaign..."

Wrong. The voters thought they were voting for residentialists and again got the ol' bait and switcheroo that was successfully test-run by Scharff in 2014. You have to be, or pretend to be, a residentialist to get elected in this town.


A real palo alto resident
College Terrace
on Jan 5, 2017 at 5:24 pm
A real palo alto resident, College Terrace
on Jan 5, 2017 at 5:24 pm

And curmudgeon quickly proves my point. There were two clear slates in the election-- the PASZ one and the slate that proposed sensible development. The voters knew exactly who they were voting for and yet we have curmudgeon insulting the intelligence of the voters that rejected PASZ, negative campaigning and a record amount of money from donors with an agenda. And who got the most votes-- Liz kniss.


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 pm

@A real palo alto resident -- a "record amount of money from donors with an agenda"?? All those 5 donors did was level the playing field; go back and review the numbers and you'll find that the 2 slates got the same amounts of money.

Re "sensible" development, take heart. Housing prices are expected to tank since the GOP is moving to eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction.

Re agendas, are you saying the well-funded Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Palo Alto Forward and Palantir have no agendas even though they now dominate all the planning and transportation commissions?

I still want to know how Mr. Tanaka plans to get the city a 50% revenue increase without raising taxes and why he thinks the city deserves one. Where's the money going to come from and where's it going to go?


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:31 pm

@Real Palo Alto Resident

What makes you more real than me?

What makes your opinion more valid than mine?


Curmudgeon
Downtown North
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:46 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:46 pm

"...yet we have curmudgeon insulting the intelligence of the voters that rejected PASZ..."

Au contraire. Intelligent PA voters chose candidates who advertised residentialist leanings, respectfully never doubting their veracity. Being intelligent, they will not be so trusting in the next election.

Nobody rejected PASZ. They didn't have to. It was nowhere in sight during the past election. A one-time angry uprising does not a political movement make.


resident
Charleston Meadows
on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:24 pm
resident, Charleston Meadows
on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:24 pm

I keep reading about California Values that need to e protected. They are not spelling out what those "values" are and if everyone agrees that tax dollars need to be assigned to those "values". We need to square up how the budget is assigning tax dollars. Political Mayhem not withstanding there needs to be a lot closer look at how this city is run.


YIMBY
Mountain View
on Jan 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm
YIMBY, Mountain View
on Jan 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm

"As long as the pro growth coalition frames the debate as 'long time home owners want to build a wall around Palo Alto and exclude young people from living here', they will be successful."

But that is exactly what you're trying to do. Now that you live here you're pulling the ladder up with you. You aggravate traffic and environmental issues by making it expensive for workers to live anywhere near Palo Alto, which means more cars commuting in and spewing pollution. Building high density housing in downtown near mass transit is the solution. Or just continue to let your Prop 13 protected investment continue to gain value through a housing crisis you continue to perpetuate at the expense of everyone else.


HamiltonH
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 7, 2017 at 1:07 pm
HamiltonH, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Jan 7, 2017 at 1:07 pm

@YIMBY, you said "Now that you live here you're pulling the ladder up with you. You aggravate traffic and environmental issues by making it expensive for workers to live anywhere near Palo Alto, which means more cars commuting in and spewing pollution. Building high density housing in downtown near mass transit is the solution."

The primary blocker for building high-density housing near mass transit is the fact its more profitable to build office buildings rather than apartments/condos. Just drive around downtown Palo Alto and see all the new office buildings and lack of new housing that has just been built. That is why the first thing the residentialist council majority pushed through was a temporary limit on office development, however, more needs to be done. In the current economic environment office remains more profitable, followed by luxury condos. Despite the rhetoric, there is actually more underlying agreement than appears on the surface. Now that the election is over, rather than arguing about who supports housing more, let's work together to update the zoning rules. Specifically, to enable denser multi-unit housing to be built near mass transit with an emphasis on affordability for folks who work in Palo Alto that does not dig us into a deeper hole for parking and traffic. This is possible if done in a thoughtful moderate manner.


mauricio
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 7, 2017 at 6:04 pm
mauricio, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jan 7, 2017 at 6:04 pm

A million dollar one bedroom condo is not affordable housing for "folks" who work in Palo Alto. Even if they didn't buy it, the rent would be in the neighborhood of 4,000 dolars a month. Mentioning the word "affordable" with such housing is laughable. Those Palo Alto workers with children would never want to live in them, and those who are single, could never afford them. What we are really talking about is urbanizing, densifying and destroying the quality of life in Palo Alto so highly paid tech workers, and deep pocket foreign investors could buy in.


YIMBY
Mountain View
on Jan 7, 2017 at 10:08 pm
YIMBY, Mountain View
on Jan 7, 2017 at 10:08 pm

It's not even enough for you that you own a home in the bay area, you have to go the extra mile and try to deny housing to anyone else. All you care about is preserving your suburbia at the expense of the generation following yours. Selfish doesn't even begin to describe home owners like you.


Innovation
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 10, 2017 at 4:28 pm
Innovation, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jan 10, 2017 at 4:28 pm

New ways to raise money in this town are not impossible. SF passed a soda tax measure and the Council has already been looking into a way to incentivize retail tenants to boost sales tax. Let them at least try their plans before casting doubt


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

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.