Vote NO on Measure B. It will get you BUS-ONLY LANES ON EL CAMINO and more BUGGLING from the VTA. Another $6 billion could be squandered.

For years, the VTA bureaucracy proposed and pushed a plan to take the left lanes on El Camino (each direction) for VTA "rapid transit" buses only.

The idea was that a bus would come along as often as every 15 minutes. Passengers would load at center-of-the-road stations to be built. It is part of a bigger plan for El Camino called the GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE.

But it would waste lane space with miles of empty lane between buses and would bring other traffic (including other VTA buses) on El Camino to a near standstill most of the day (after two years of construction). Even crossing El Camino will be greatly delayed. The plan further splits cities along El Camino (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara).

So while many go-along/get-along local politicians went along with the plan, some real persons objected. With the VTA planning THIS TAX MEASURE, it put the project on the burn burner and stopped talking about it. But the plan remains. And no new money is even needed to pursue it.

Bus-only lanes are already being installed in San Jose on extended El Camino Real (Alum Rock which leads to Santa Clara Street, the Alameda and then El Camino). That project has been over time and over budget, of course. Many Alum Rock businesses have gone broke.

Big corporate employers represented by the self-named "Silicon Valley Leadership Group" like Measure B because (1) it is a sale tax on little guys and gals - not a tax on them directly, and (2) it is written to be a SLUSH FUND with the explicit authority to borrow money against the 30-year revenue stream, broad categories for expenditures and the explicit power to even ignore the categories by vote of the VTA Board.

No one is elected by voters to the VTA Board. They are politicians taken from the Board of Supervisors (2) and city councils across the county (10) - mostly from San Jose.

The local chapter of the Sierra Club opposes Measure B because it offers no real plan for congestion relief. Toll lanes, for example, are a waste of lane space unless they are fully utilized. Amd once you get accustomed to toll lanes, get ready for TOLL ROADS. Same principle.

On October 1, 2015 (more than a year ago), I spoke under "oral communications" to the politicians on the VTA Board at their monthly meeting. I suggested language be placed in any proposed tax measure to forbid bad projects - such as bus-only lanes on El Camino - unless and until subsequently approved by voters. When Measure B was unanimously placed on the November ballot last June, not even one VTA Board Member proposed any such restriction.

WAKE UP PALO ALTO. Vote NO and demand a real transportation plan guaranteed by the terms of any supporting tax measure.

VOTE for GREER STONE. He has the human relations and community building experience needed for this town to move forard in more healthy way. YES FOR GREER STONE.

No on B (bus-only lanes)

I wish you would publish your recommendation earlier in the voting process. I always find them valuable but I have already sent in my absentee ballot.

Question: Will failure of Prop 53 (a NO Vote) give Gov. Brown more power to grab money for High Speed Rail? It so, to keep this from happening, Vote YES on 53. (I got a recorded phone message from Gov. Brown asking for a NO vote.

I want to ask the Weekly to reconsider its recommendation for Prop 51, the school construction bond. The state has had no funds to give for school construction for some time. When districts choose to take state money for projects, the state requires districts to apply high, evidence-based standards and guidelines to the planning and construction to ensure that the schools are not unduly expensive for no good reason, for example. In Palo Alto's Measure A facilities bond spending, PAUSD would never have qualified for state funds because many of the decisions PAUSD made are known to make school construction unnecessarily expensive, but PAUSD had the luxury to ignore guidelines and standards that would have saved many millions. Rich districts can continue to go to local voters, as the analysis points out, and will not take state money as PAUSD did not because they want to do things their own way, but poor districts do not have that choice. Poor districts would have the incentives to follow best practices that make construction of schools more cost effective, and would be more likely to apply for and get the funds.

California schools were largely built in the '50s and studies show a number of important negative outcomes to schoolchildren related to aging facilities, even when renovated. Please contact the state department of education facilities department head for further information. This is probably why PAUSDs Facilities bond promised that renovated facilities would be equivalent to brand new -- does anyone think the schools here that were just renovated could be mistaken for brand new construction? So even when we have more money than most districts can ever hope to have, it's not realistic to expect equivalent renovated facilities, and one could make an argument that we might have gotten a lot of new facilities for the same or nearly the same money, that would last a lot longer.

California has been growing and new schools should be paid for by the developer interests. Vote YES for Prop 51, so that there are funds again for poor districts to pay for new schools, paid for by the development industry. Rich districts are less likely to comply with guidelines to get state funds, as PAUSDs history demonstrates, i.e., there is no evidence they will benefit disproportionately. That rationale is no reason to starve all districts of needed funds for new school facilities. The poor districts are the ones less likely to be able to raise money locally, and most in need of NEW school construction, so most willing to follow guidelines and get funds. YES on Prop 51 is supported by the mainstream educators, lawmakers, and community organizations - I respectfully ask the Weekly to reconsider its recommendation.

@Parent,

Prop. 51 requires that the money only be spent on new school construction rather than the renovation of existing schools. That was a major reason why we and others have opposed it and home builders are supporting it. With the local bond measures now only requiring 55% passage, most are passing if there is documented need.

@Moderator,
Thank you for your reply. First, the legislative analyst for the state says quite clearly in the ballot pamphlet that the money will be for four types of projects, including modenization (which in every state facilities document, means renovation upgrade). The state legislative analyst further shows a chart with how the money will be spent, with at least as much for modernization as for new construction. It is inaccurate to say that all the money can only be spent on new construction.

Secondly, there is a major chunk dedicated to career technical education facilities.

Thirdly, the school improvements would be funded by developer fees rather than more local bonds, something the legislative analyst says rarely happens. Did your analysis confuse that funding source with who in principal supports the proposal? Poorer communities have far less access to developer fees to support school construction than do richer districts. This proposition creates equity and makes developers pay their fair share.

As for the fact that *some* of the funds are dedicated to new construction, it creates the ability for schools to get new facilities that benefit kids where renivation might not be enough. Did you at least call the state department of education facilities people? Even just to find out if it is actually a fact that rich districts would benefit rather than poor districts who would be more willing to comply with state guidelines required if they want the funds?
The DOE facilities peopke say the most widely cited research is from Glen Earthman Web Link

"Even when older buildings have been modernized, the application might not be that successful because the building can accommodate only so much change... There is a body of research indicating that older buildings have a negative influence upon student performance. Research on the age of the building is quite conclusive on the negative impacts upon students."

Again, most building of school facilities in California in over 50 years old and renovation is often not adequate. This bond provides equally for new construction AND modernization, according to the legislative analyst. It is supported by the California State PTA. Both Democratic and Republican parties, the CA School Boards Assiciation, the CA League of Women Voters, and many, many others. Even the CA Taxpayers Association endorses Yes, when does that ever happen? There is no organized opposition to this, and your own endorsement seems to have gotten the wrong idea about what it us. Please review this one again, and be big enough to correct an error in analysis at least, hooefully in endorsement based on that. This is NOT some trojan horse for the building industry as portrayed in this story, it is according to the state legislative analyst, new schools and renovations/upgrades to be PAID FOR by development fees. Rich districts who want the money will have to pony up half anyway and will have to comply with state guidelines for the work, ensuring all the money is better spent.

Please vote YES on Prop 51.

My own correction and apology. This is a general obligation bond rather than a developer fee funded bond. It doesn't change the main argument for it, or the fact that a general obligation bond for the state will better allow poorer districts access to funds. Again, in its own facilities bond, PAUSD did not even ask for state funds because it did not wish to comply with the kinds of analyses that would have entailed to ensure the funds were spent efficiently. If richer districts do decide to opt for applying for such funds, the greater scrutiny will benefit their children, too.

The only arguments you make against are that it would involve only new construction - which is incorrect, according to the state legislative analyst - and that the Yes on 51 Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee and CA Building Industry Association Issues Committee gave more money than TOM TORLAKSON's organization to support 51 and the Community College Facility Coalition Issues Committee. By that standard, you should be supporting Prop 61 since the only and huge funding against it comes mainly from Members of the *Pharmaceutical* industry Research and Manufacturers of America $109 million to defeat it).

A yes Vote on Prop 51 will replenish completed depleted state funds for building and repairing schools, and provide funds for trade school facilities. It is supported by both CA LWV, both major parties, the CA PTA, and even the CA Taxpayers Assn. it has no major opposition. Please reconsider your recommendation.

I was in support of Santa Clara Measure A, until I found out that the money will go to moderate income people, too, who make as much as we do, and the tax amount is a hardship for us. There is no exception for people whose incomes are less than the amounts provided for. I would be happier for a measure that was intended entirely for low income people, that prioritized preventing the displacement of existing residents during gentrification, and that granted exceptions based on income of homeowners. The house poor in the area often only have their hone equity for college and retirement, and no other savings, and cash flow does not allow using the equity like a piggy bank anyway. This Measure seems to have been written with the assumption that homeowners are all rich. And I can't see anything that would prevent its being used for comoany housing for the likes of Palantir to encourage dense housing in Palo Alto that will get taken up by its workers instead of paying them enough to live here. I also get the sense that the funding will likely get used as a bludgeon against community planning concerns.

I wish I could support this. It will likely pass, but the devil is in the details, and this measure has way too few specific details. If for some reason it fails (unlikely), I would prefer it was restricted to low income. I also think measures like this should require actual analyses from communities wanting the funds for where the need is greatest and what will best satisfy the need. When that isn't done, as we have seen, the money and proposals can too easily be coopted by development interests. The penchant for advocates to call names rather than to discuss issues and hone ways to best meet overall need is also troubling and this proposal seems only enabling to that element.

Velly intarethting! I've read all the articles, ads (those negative and rebuttals to them), and video interviews, and I wish I could vote for 6 of the candidates, but unfortunately I can't. The Weekly and the Post agree on some, but not on all. I actually liked mayor Pat Burt's take on it and his choices, in his letter to the Post. However it goes, I don't think that Fine and Keller would work well together, some bad blood going on there. But, I would hope, if that happens, that the bad feelings could be patched up quickly so jointly, they, and the other council members can work well together to get things done in an expedient way. There is so much to be done and it can't wait for the long times and slow process it's taken for other things to happen. I'm getting ready to fill in the black ink lines on my ballot, so if anybody has something else to say, do it soon. I am encouraged to see the support from our young aspirants, Fine and Stone. They are the future for PA. I'll be long gone but would like to take a peek back from whereever I go to see how it all worked out. lol!

@Gale Johnson,
Please read Councilman Eric Filseth's endorsementbletter first! He recommends especially Kou and Keller and also Carl and Stone. In Homan's recommendation of Lydia Kou, she talks about what we need in Councilmembers that speaks also for these candidates.

@Citizen

Steer me to that letter and Holman's recommendations.

Thanks

Holman is responsible for the bay lands bike bridge fiasco, she secretly was meeting with arillaga regarding the MacArthur park location and took finder fees from local realators. Do we actually believe anything she has to say

@Gale Johnson,
Small device with problems is not cooperating. Can someone please post Eric Fikseth's endorsement letter?