I am with Mark Michael, or this version of him, above, in that I am concerned with process, perhaps more than what the outcome is. In that context I would say that 75 to 100 people at the Elks Club scoping meeting or whatever is hardly a mandate. Even 30 speakers last night, and about 20 of them were this so-called “new voice” should not be over-emphasized in that these changes — fairly radical, and part of a pattern, a commercial real estate rout and push for dense housing — will impact thousands of Palo Altans, who already live here.
There seems to be a sense that our General Plan is obsolete — Michael says it is from a previous century. It is not. We use it all the time, it guides all our policy, like our Constitution (as my venerable college– I meant colleague — in dissent, 2009-2013, Tim Gray said last night).
Palo Alto has a 120-year continuity; Democracy has a 240 year continuity; they are not obsolete. But we have to push back and resist the significant recent pressure to change by special interests, the builders. Ninety-six percent of those pulled — I meant pulled — by PAN now agree with this.
Horizon year? The sun also rises, my friend.
(I had to smile when my zinger to the venerable or uber-venerable former corporate law slickie turned commish Mark Michael includes a reference to an American classic I read at Dartmouth, in the 1980s. I admit it took me a minute to recall the name of my professor, Lou Renza.)
Isn’t it pretty to think so? (That I will actually re-read the syllabus, and use them in policy debate. I also said: those who don’t re-read the classics are condemned to live thru them).
edit to add: Lou Renza also later taught a course on Bob Dylan — I’d like to read his notes on it. I think I wanted to write him about it, circa 2002, maybe when I was managing Stew. Dylan apparently likes Stew and sent word once.