(taken from Mr. Fredrich's website www.votes4fredrich.com)
In this very important 2016 City Council election I thought it might be helpful to have a website on which to post messages and receive feedback. This site hopes to provide you with that opportunity. As this is my sixth Council election, I have experienced personally many of the difficulties that the failure to communicate can create, and then seen firsthand the even more disappointing results when the entire city charges off in the wrong direction, or, simply out of complacency or confusion, decides to do nothing.
So, in addition to information, I hope to provide here a medium for raising the public dialogue to a higher plain and actually illuminating the issues and stakes in this contest.
I believe that the problems of a democracy are best solved by more democracy, and, in that regard the most potent factor is the voter. This site sees it task as empowering the voter, admittedly, in order to propel John Karl Fredrich into public office on November 8th, 2016. This forum may be useful if you are in any way amenable to that outcome.
Mr. Fredrich's personal statement below partially corresponds to the Palo Alto Forward Questionnaire
My preference for Option 2 b pretty much summarizes my feelings about
Questions 1 and 3. As someone who liked Palo Alto the way it was, I think
that we've reached a point where a pause is needed. Knowing full well that
the clock cannot be turned back, I see that definite actions are needed in
order to slow growth and retain some of the atmosphere of the 'bedroom
community' over the 'Wilshire Blvd North', as the recall election of the 60's
formulated the divide over residential and pro-expansion forces. The overly
convenient term 'residentialist' fails to differentiate between the supporters
of 'residents', who are actual people, and 'residences', large houses which
may not even be a home but a hedge real estate investment.
I recommended a moratorium in the Rail corridor and El Camino in 2014.
It was a strategy to buy some time and craft solutions to the housing/jobs
imbalance. You're not going to make sufficient progress if the incentives
for offices eclipses habitat as there is money to be made by development,
especially by architects, developers, and those with only a limited stake,
a financial one, in preserving the dynamic that Palo Alto real estate has
become and the life style privileges that we have enjoyed in the past. I'm
speaking as a lifetime renter who's lived here for almost 50 years.
A good example of the failure to build in mitigations is the hurried adoption
of the new project at the Olive Garden site with limited housing and barely a
stone's throw from the worst intersection in town where another big project
over on Page Mill had already been approved. I'm not sure that the word
'planning' can even be used in instances such as that. And, I might ask, are
the palm trees going to be spared? Placing the tree protection force in the
public works area rather than community environment short circuits impact
assessment. Water use increases do not get inventoried either.
I encourage regime change at City Hall.
In order to achieve significant affordable housing increases we should try
a community development scheme at the Fry's site and a phased move
with housing to the west side of El Camino into the area of CPI which will
need to be amortized and converted much as Mountain View is proceeding
with the Villa Mariposa Tract between Shoreline and Mariposa on Villa Street.
In order to do this it is important right now not to allow any variances to the
motel at Hanson because that street can be upgraded to be used to keep
westbound traffic out of the Page Mill / El Camino intersection. Projects of
this scope and magnitude require state and federal assistance so it will be
important to end the wars in order to capture revenues for housing, other
public works, and transportation. The era of militarism and monetarism will
need to end; no multi-trillion dollar adventures overseas and 50 basis points
interest rates. This should be called 'normalization' rather than 'utopian fantasia'.
I support rapid transit and bicycling. I have a one-speed and a ten-speed.
I support a carbon tax and an increase in the gasoline tax. I feel we need to
prioritize housing and focus on accessory dwelling units which I strongly
advocated in 2014 and the Planning Department has consistently put on the
back burner. I supported Senior Housing at Maybell and think the new 16
luxury home project is the worse example of NIMBY values in decades. It
would seem that 'sensible zoning' does not include 'best use' as there is
no guarantee that 16, three-million-dollar homes will generate less traffic
than 60 elders, and the problems of the 20% of our seniors who are at the
poverty line go on unattended. I am not of fan of the 'road diet' on Arastradero,
which is an historic artery that predates the founding of the city. Insufficient
monitoring of impacts to Barron Park from reducing parts of the road from
two to one lane concluded that there would be no delays for the 10,000 car
trips per day. The opponents to Mixed Market Housing on Maybell wished
to imply that the horrendous traffic on Maybell was the result of the project
that had not yet been built, succeeded in doing so in an off-year election, and
then rallied their supporters to a big win in the 2014 municipal elections.
Now, the voters need to ask "What has been done?" The City of Palo Alto
has shown no imagination or will power in addressing the housing crisis.
I support an 'employee diet' for the City Manager's office.