Thumbs Down on Growth in Palo Alto

Come on folks. We know in our heart of hearts the cause of so many woes faced by Palo Altans.  Developers need relentless growth to keep the profits flowing in and our government is more than happy to help.

They are hooked on it. Physical growth (up for the most part given our distinct boundaries.) Economic growth (still defined as jobs, jobs, jobs.) Population growth (we simply must house the people who work here.)

Never mind that convoluted efforts to enable relentless growth give only  lip service to solving such nasty side effects as horrific traffic, insane housing costs,  and let’s not even begin to talk about parking -- anywhere. Growth is the unquestioned goal and we must drive forward.

Maybe not.

Jobs? That means more office square footage so companies can boast they are headquartered in Palo Alto rather than Mountain View or (OMG) Redwood City. Commercial leases per square foot in some parts of Palo Alto are higher than those in Manhattan. It also means thousands more people fighting for services and cars jamming streets well away from their offices.

More housing for new tech and service workers? Zillow posits Palo Alto’s median home price at about $2.6 million. Average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,837, according to Rentjungle. People looking to live a few miles south in Mountain View face average one-bedroom rents $2,849. Anyone who could create a meaningful stock of affordable housing in such a market would deserve canonization. Not going to happen.

Increased property tax revenue? New construction means more property tax money flowing into city coffers. But a lot of that increase goes to servicing the new construction via infrastructure and other service.  

More money for the overall economy? Office workers spend a lot of money on lunch but at the end of the day they return to houses and apartments somewhere else.

Now is a good time and Palo Alto the right place to test the innate assumption that growth in and of itself is good.  “Yes, but it must be achieved in a way that takes into account…” is an unacceptable answer because there is no right way to cram more into Palo Alto’s borders without the consequence we’re already coping with. The tap should either be on or off. And that decision should be made by the citizens, not developers and their cronies.

A Plan for Trumpite Pushback

Let’s say a crazed Turmpite Republican is on the primary election ballot for whatever office in a GOP-majority district. In the Democratic column are a couple of benign nobodies everyone figures are just out for the free cookies at the candidate forums as they have no chance of winning.

Just for funs, let’s try this:

Somehow a non-Trumpite Republican is persuaded to run. She picks up support and votes from sane GOP voters.

Democrat voters re-register as Republicans and combine with the sane Republicans to defeat the Trumpite.

Re-registered Democrats switch back for the general election. Regardless of the outcome, there will be someone certified as rational in office.

There might be a few, tiny holes in this plan. But might not creative yet perfrectly legal tactics such as this be one tactic to resist the fascist juggernaut? A few victories might even emerge.

Think.

Trump's Plan for Russia

I have discovered Donald Trump's true motivation for seeking the presidency. He wants to take care of his pal, Vladimir Putin.

It's no secret Trump owes millions to Russian companies and oligarchs. His former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, made millions from the Russian government. Trump has spoken admiringly of Putin on more than one occasion. He even invited Russian hackers to infiltrate U.S. computers in an effort to uncover some of Hillary Clinton's supposedly lost emails. Two of his three wives (Ivana and Melania) are of slavic extraction and it's rumored number two, Marla Maples, likes borscht.

But what could Trump do for his bra Vlad as president? It's not exactly like the U.S. and Russia can hold hands underneath the diplomatic negotiating table when they get together.

Perhaps the most straightforward gesture would be to sell Alaska back to Putin and his oligarch chums. Adjusted for inflation, the break even price would be about $110 million but a president who wrote a book on the art of the deal likely would do much better.

Selling Alaska back to the Russians would have benefits beyond just the price. Alaska currently receives about $1.50 in federal money for every dollar it sends to Washington so savings would accrue as soon as contracts are signed. Russian vodka would cost less because importers would be hauling the stuff from distilleries in Juneau rather than Minsk.

Culturally, Americans and Canadians could more easily gain international travel experience. Absent two colleagues. U.S. senators could stretch out a bit more when debating and voting. And, to be blunt, Alaska's 710,000 residents would hardly be missed in a nation of 350 million.

Of course there would be drawbacks. Already outrageous prices for Bering Sea salmon and crab probably would jump. Any number of preppers and dog sled racers would flood into the Lower 48 once it became clear Alaska would be changing hands. Easing that burden is the fact Wyoming, Idaho and Montana have plenty of room.

In all, I see no real reasons for President The Donald not to sit down with President Putin right after the inauguration over a couple of drinks to start hammering out an agreement. After all, they are already buds.

Homeowners Are the Housing Problem

I own a home in Palo Alto, California but please don't hate me.

For various reasons few new homes are built in Palo Alto, which limits the supply. Concurrently, many people would like to live here for access to great schools, a Mediterranean climate, Stanford University, career opportunities offered by Silicon Valley, proximity to San Francisco and so on.

The median home price in my city of about 60,000 people is $2.5 million and the median rent is $6,100.

These prices are often decried as "insane," "ridiculous," and "unconscionable." But they simply reflect the market's judgment, right? Not really.

The market does not exist in and of itself. It is an abstraction aggregating many human decisions. In Palo Alto real estate the most important decisions are made by sellers. And sellers are thinking big.

According to real estate site Zillow, my rickety 90-year-old, 1,050-square-foot bungalow might fetch almost eight times what we paid for it. A nearby home that has remained in the same family for 60 years could easily fetch 80 times what was initially paid. Similar situations exist all over town.

When people look to purchase a home in Palo Alto they are confronted by sellers who demand double digit multiples of what they paid. Doubling or even tripling their investment isn't good enough. They want the 10X or even 80X gain. Greed or simply good business?

The only ameliorating factor is an attitude of entitlement among some people who want to live in Palo Alto. Too many are literally outraged they are unable to afford to purchase a home or rent an apartment here. I have little sympathy for their complaints. There are many wonderful and more affordable places to live with equally good weather, excellent schools and amenities. They just aren't here.

At the bottom line (a necessary cliche) lies a fundamental conflict. The debate is over housing, a basic human need. But it also involves a financial asset, often the largest in a family's portfolio and sometimes the cornerstone of a retirement plan. As a potential beneficiary of this system, I hesitate to land solidly on either side.

Thank the 1 Percent for Donald and Bernie

How did the country get to the point where a fascist could gather millions of less-than-bright, gun-toting retromingents to upend a staid and polished political system? And what's up with those 13 million closeted left-wingers who backed an avowed socialist?

The answers can be found along Park Avenue in New York and hidden behind gates in Atherton, California and other enclaves of the venal and greedy.

It was the 1 percent who created the conditions that nurture the frustrations fueling populist anger. The Wall Street types who crashed the mortgage market and forced so many people from their homes. The corporations who stash literally trillions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes while keeping wages stagnant to shore up profits. The same people who are vacuuming up every dollar generated by the economic recovery.

In the past, the oligarchs (yes, that is the correct word) kept things quiet by sharing enough of the economic pie to satisfy most people and give others the hope they could one day get a taste. Unfortunately for them, they upped their greed quotient to the point where they shut out everyone else. And now everyone else is beginning to fight back.

Violence and Black Lives

Many are mindlessly batting around Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas K. Gandhi as examples to follow in fighting the flood tide of violence against black people and, now, the police. If people cite those pillars of civil and human rights to insist on a strictly non-violent approach to change, they are dead wrong. 

Both King and Gandhi were shot to death. Both believed at times that violence to fight violence was sometimes appropriate. 

King's views evolved over the years and, at the time of his assassination, he refused to knowingly have guns around himself. But in 1956 when the Montgomery bus boycott set a fire under already simmering racial tensions, King kept a number of weapons in his home and even unsuccessfully applied for a concealed carry permit, according to UCLA law professor Adam Winkler author of the book "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America."  

It was not uncommon for other U.S. civil rights leaders to keep firearms on hand for defense, including Medgar Evers and Andrew Young. Historian and former Student Nonviolent Coordidnating Committee field leader Charles E. Cobb Jr. has said that some around King kept guns available. "They would say, even as they were cleaning their rifles, how glad they were to be part of the movement," Cobb said in a Huffington Post interview. "They knew King wasn't going to be carrying a weapon so people's attitude was, 'We're not going to let the white people kill him.'"

But, Gandhi? Yes, him too. 

Gandhi based his philosophy on nonviolence. He often called it "infinitely superior" to the use of force, even, in some cases, for self-defense. But the saintly advocate for freedom had his limits. 

In a 1920 publication ironically titled "The Doctrine of the Sword," Gandhi made a strong case for nonviolence as the best way to free India of British colonial rule. However, he noted that sometimes violence is necessary to fight dangerous forces. 

Gandhi reminded readers he took up arms to fight against the Boer and Zulu uprisings in South Africa. He said Indians need not be "paralysed before the machine guns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English" and urged people who would turn to guns to gain training in their use. "I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."

Neither King or Gandhi ever urged the use of terror, murder or violent aggression. But both men recognized no one need to embrace oppression or even death simply to stand on a pedestal of superior morality.

(photos from biography.com)

Why We Should Vote for Donald Trump

That extreme characters Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders can achieve widespread support for the presidency illuminates the depth of the American malaise. People who just a few years ago ran toward to the center to discover their leaders now race to either end of the political spectrum seeking someone to rekindle their hope. I believe a Trump presidency will ensure positive change but not because of his proffered ideas or policies.

As president, Trump will soundly alienate every conceivable political constituency. Taking him at his word, he will appoint one or more anti-abortion Supreme Court justices, thereby ensuring a woman's right to choose will disappear.

The economy? As noted before, it's time to stock up on MREs and AAA batteries.

Internationally, he'll probably kiss up to Putin and tick off Angela Merkel by commenting on her brustë. He'll scold the Chinese and the Japanese. And he just might have the cojones to ask the Mexicans to pay for his border wall.  Naturally, they will respond in kind.

Everything Donald Trump says or does will swell the ranks of disaffected Americans battered by stagnant wages, slow job growth, out-of-control cops, crumbling roads and every other factor feeding their malaise. The anger and loss of faith that fired the engines of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will spread farther and deeper. And after just a few years, a critical mass of citizens will demand real, fundamental change in how the country is governed.

That will be Trump's contribution to positive change. And we should help him build that legacy by ensuring his election in November.

Trump Will Destroy the Economy

Look at a Trump presidency purely in the context of dollars and cents and tremors of fear set in.

Trump wants to slash tax rates, which, he and other believers in fairy tales, will set off an explosion of economic growth. They aver growth will flood federal coffers with money to pay for a war against ISIS as well as the estimated $400 billion to $600 billion to fulfill his pledge to deport all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

Unfortunately for Trump and the other myth-makers, cutting taxes achieves nothing more than lower revenue. Ronald Reagan slashed taxes and tripled the national debt.  The Bush II tax cuts racked up a $3.29 trillion deficit and stuck Barack Obama with a budget that added another $1 trillion during his first year in office.

OK. So Trump will just have to trim the bloated federal bureaucracy to even things out. Won't work. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, non-defense discretionary spending in 2015 was $585 billion, or just 15 percent of the total. Perhaps we should have a national plebiscite on which parks to close, what roads should go un-repaired, whose crop subsidies should disappear and how many border patrol agents should be laid off.

What about Trump's capitalist cronies? According to a wide range of news reports, he scares the crap out of them. The money guys can thrive in any number of environments but start to get nervous when uncertainty is the order of the day. And no one has ever tried to argue the name Trump is a synonym for stability. "From an economic an market point of view, a Trump presidency could be a disaster," Barry Randall, a tech portfolio manager for Coverstor told U.S. News. Is it any wonder that Wall Street money mavens backed Hillary with  $21.4 million by the end of 2015 to back Hillary?

Trump has already turned off much of the world and not just  because of his crassness and ridiculous hair. He has proposed a 45 percent tariff on manufactured Chinese goods. China is expected to surpass Canada as the U.S.'s largest trading partner this year. It also holds more than 7 percent of the debt incurred by tax-slashing Republicans.

Oh, well.

Be Bold ... Not Old

            Not so long ago the one thing guaranteed to set my eyes rolling was an old person nattering on about his or her latest medical problems or such ancillary topics as health insurance co-pays and the outrageous cost of medicines.

            Today, I sometimes begin conversations with the admonition that those around me must immediately stop me from droning about exactly the same topics, all of which are increasingly fascinating to me.

            I also search for shampoo to enhance the gleam of silvering hair. I accept senior discounts at the movie theater even though I don’t really qualify. When my dentist warns my tooth implant might last only 10 or so years, I shrug. 

            All that makes it logical to conclude I am evolving into that creature known as an Old Fart. Maybe, but I am not so far gone I an unable to fight back. And as they declare in those weepy too-much-information stories, perhaps my experience-based advice can help save others from the worst bits of (in this instance) senescence. Here’s what helps me:

            Embrace tech. Upgrade your computer and your smart phone regularly. Use GPS in your car. Stream video to your HD-TV and save your memories in photos and videos you store in the cloud. Learning to take advantage of all your gizmos (if not all their features) offers a sense of achievement and gives you something useful to discuss rather than the side effects of your new meds.

            Buy cool stuff. Everyone lives on a budget of sorts. But everyone also must replace possessions as they wear out. When that happens buy absolutely the best and coolest you can afford. Maybe you only have enough money for a compact car, but there are a number out there with convertible tops and, yes, they have automatic transmissions for when you start to get a bit shaky. Only need one suit or formal dress as time goes on? Fine, but choose the best in the store and make sure it’s in style. Looking and feeling sharp count when it comes to happiness.

            Cop an attitude. Be careful with this one and don’t become the neighborhood crank or the curmudgeon who urges the city council to vote ‘no’ on everything. But if you care pro or con about something take advantage of feedback options in online publications or even start your own blog. It is personally liberating to mouth off intelligently even when others disagree or children are embarrassed.

            Avoid old people. Of course, you don’t want to completely ignore them as your peers will age and become your most relevant support group. But avoid drowning in the downside of aging by constantly cultivating relationships – or even acquaintances -- among people of varying ages. It will keep your mind ticking along as well as create a continuing connection with the more active stages of life. Even after your own children are grown and gone, some kid noise from next door can be invigorating from time to time. Some.

            Don’t enjoy aging. Doing one’s best to enjoy life at every age is a worthwhile goal. But creaky backs, memories full of holes and the loss of friends and loved ones are not elements that make for a period of life eagerly sought, like young adulthood is to a teenager. Do what you must to stay happy but always feel free to get angry about the negative bits as you get older. It will only prove you are young at heart.

Wimpy Cops?

So hundreds of NY cops turned their backs on a video screen showing Mayor Bill De Blasio's eulogy to a murdered officer.

Is that their best shot? Turning their backs to a video image? Only a completely self-absorbed group of people could possibly believe a pol like De Blasio would even faintly blush at such a move.

And only an outsize collective ego would use the funeral of a colleague to make any kind of political statement.

Feel disrespected, officers? You can start to fix that by getting over yourselves.

Hillary Bush for President

I have given up on the notion that we will have a president with a surname other than Bush or Clinton for some time to come, so this is how it will shape up.

It's about damn time we had a female president so that's eight years for Hillary. Jeb Bush will be 69 when he's inaugurated after that, a bit long in tooth, but only a couple of years older than Hillary when she took over.

Chelsea Clinton will be 50 a month after Jeb hands over the reins. Or, if you prefer, the Bush twins, a year younger, could set a precedent by sharing the job. Maybe Jenna could handle domestic matters while Barbara focuses on foreign policy. Or vice versa. It's really up to them.

There will be plenty of other job openings in government for other people. But for the forseeable future, the presidential dynasties look solid.

I'm Not a Hero

After 9/11 everyone - and I mean everyone - who wore a uniform was hailed as a hero. It didn't matter if their assignment was to nab shoplifters, deliver fire safety lectures to grade schoolers or mix drinks at the officers' club. Dress in green, blue or khaki for work and get ready for reverence, thanks and unending preferential treatment.

That was bad on us, the fawning public that insisted the cops and firefighters and soldiers and sailors adorn a pedestal for accomplishing nothing more than showing up for work.

Somewhere along the line, though, many folks in uniform came to believe their own PR and started seeing themselves as professional heroes.

That's why St. Louis cops were comfortable demanding Rams players be disciplined by the NFL for a silent protest against questionable police shootings. It's also why New York City cops decided they could try to exclude the mayor - their boss - from police funerals for doing nothing more than raising a few questions about their behavior.

Let's go back to pre-9/11 standards and declare heroic risks and actions are required for reverence to be awarded. Assigning praise for nothing more than wearing a uniform demeans those who make the sacrifices that define the word hero.

I Live In A Slum

I just learned that, according to various sources, the median home price in Palo Alto, California is somewhere around $2 million.

Those same sources note the median home price in my Zip Code within Palo Alto is a shameful $954,000. My online research also showed the estimated market value of our home is well below the 94306 median.

I am stunned but educated.

I  now understand why some people look at me differently when they learn I live south of Oregon Expressway. I can figure out why the flicker of a smile when I note our home is west of El Camino Real is just a twitch.

I am so ashamed.

No Franc Talk From Romney

I don't much care that Mitt Romney is wealthy. It's no big deal to me that his tax rate is lower than mine. But this $3 million Swiss bank account thing bugs me.

Justified or not, there is something nefarious about an American possessing a Swiss bank account. It says he's hiding something. That Romney declined to include income from that account in his tax return is just plain cheating regardless of the amount.

As for Newt Gingrich trying forgetting to include $252,000 in income on his presidential campaign report -- well, what else would you expect?