|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A cap on medical office space, along with two minor changes proposed for the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan, goes before the Menlo Park council tonight (Oct. 29).
The Planning Commission unanimously supported the changes during a meeting on Oct. 6. The cap would limit medical office space per project within the specific plan area to 33,333 square feet for projects of 100,000 square feet or more; smaller developments may include up to one-third of their total size as medical office.
You can review the staff report on the city’s website. The meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at the Civic Center at 701 Laurel St., and will be streamed live online.
Once again the council tries to trump the voters. Funny how this came up just before the election. Clearly the council is worried that it might lose its power to micro manage.
Strange – Save Menlo claimed that the council was unresponsive and now they say the council is too responsive.
I really feel sorry for the Mayor as he tries to do the right thing and then gets criticized for trying.
Save Menlo does not want the right thing, they just want nothing.
More spin from “Yes on M”.
They asked Stanford to remove medical offices and Stanford agreed.
The city council puts a limit on medical office usage which they should applaud and they criticize them.
Never satisfied?
Feeling desparate?
Thanks for the attack… it’s revealing.
property owner:
you are prime example savemenlo and their philosophy. Demand something, get it, then demand more, get that, then demand even more.
Bottom line is savemenlo won’t be happy with anything but zero change and zero growth.
Some of this is just silly.
What we supporters of Measure M want is 1) city officials who hear our views and respect them, 2) complete revision of the Specific Plan, and 3) the rejection of outsiders who seek to pervert the democratic process through the injection of massive amounts of money into our elections. When the city council panics and starts offering minor adjustments at the last minute, we will not pretend–as you would have us do–that those adjustments represent the accommodation of our needs.
The fundamental problem here is one of attitude. On October 23rd, Peter Carpenter typified that attitude when he wrote in another comment thread that supporters of Measure M are like noisy customers in a restaurant who are upset about the food and now want to go into the kitchen and tell the cooks what to prepare. What Carpenter fails to understand, like the city council members and some of their allies, is that we residents of Menlo Park own the restaurant; we employee the staff; and we get to decide what goes on the menu. We also have the right to refuse service to outsiders like Greenheart who are trying to dictate how the restaurant is run.
The issue isn’t medical office space: it is the entire package represented by Measure M. There is nothing wrong in refusing to be bought off by ad hoc concessions by officials who, having failed to discover and respect the wishes of a large percentage of voters in a timely fashion, are now scrambling about in an attempt to save their jobs. Nor is there anything wrong in taking offense when a corporation with a stake in the issue spends a huge amount of money to influence the outcome of a local election.
The referendum system was designed to permit precisely this sort of popular challenge to the decisions of tone-deaf politicians, and the ballot box is how democracies fire bad cooks. Do you really find it objectionable that the proponents of Measure M want an up-or-down vote on that entire package and on the competence of the city council? Or do you think that we should sit back, shut up, and let the nobility do the thinking for us?
Are you really that uncomfortable with the democratic process?
MP Resident:
The DSP process took six years and had tons of public input. How can you possibly justify saying, ” having failed to discover and respect the wishes of a large percentage of voters in a timely fashion,..”?
The problem is you and others of your ilk either slept through the DSP process and now have awakened and you don’t like what you find and want a “do over.” Or, you did participate and didn’t get what you want so, are now throwing a tantrum.
It’s not about outsiders. I’m not an outsider and I think savemenlo is trying to pervert a long public process by which the DSP was arrived at. On top of that they are trying to shove bad governance down our throats. Zoning and planning by ballot are stupid.
Measure M is a HUGE MISTAKE
Vote NO on M
Resident states – “What Carpenter fails to understand, like the city council members and some of their allies, is that we residents of Menlo Park own the restaurant; we employee the staff; and we get to decide what goes on the menu”
Using your, rather strained analogy, you have everything but the customers . It is the customers who will decide what to eat – if they come to your restaurant at all.
If you have a lousy menu and poor customer service then there may be no customers.
“We also have the right to refuse service to outsiders like Greenheart who are trying to dictate how the restaurant is run.”
We “outsiders” simply want a good menu with good food, not reheated hash from old, lost, anti-anything food fights. Feel free to “refuse us service” but don’t expect us to then pick up the bill.
@ Resident: “What we supporters of Measure M want is…complete revision of the Specific Plan… .”
Meanwhile, Ms. Fry, one of M’s main instigators asserts: “Yes on M leaves nearly all the [specific] plan’s rules in council hands.”
I’ve been reading to understand the “process” by which the DSP was implemented – and I have a question.
It appears that Kelly Ferguson was mayor of Menlo Park until early December 2010 – http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2010/12/10/kelly-fergusson-resigns-as-menlo-park-mayor-revote-delayed-
and the DSP was initially passed before that (April 2010) – while Kelly Ferguson was mayor
http://www.almanacnews.com/morguepdf/2010/2010_04_07.alm.section2.pdf
From the above mentioned article:
“…Zoning guidelines would allow for tall mixed-use buildings, with an emphasis on retail and housing, on both sides of the street between downtown Menlo Park and the train station. Fanning out both north and south along El Camino, zoning would transition from resi- dential mixed-use (retail topped by apartments, for instance) to general mixed-use (retail topped by office, for instance). Housing would cluster around the down- town and station areas to create more of a sense of “vibrancy” in the city’s core, and to encourage people to use public transit.
Buildings could reach 60 feet high (up to five stories) on both sides of the street between Oak Grove and Menlo avenues, and on Stanford-owned land along the east side of El Camino Real, from Ravenswood Avenue south to San Francisquito Creek. Those buildings would be broken up by frequent stretches of open space, including major gaps accessible to the public at Middle and Cam- bridge avenues. They would have
to be set back from the street by at least 15 feet, and in some cases more, opening up a generous side- walk — a major improvement from current conditions, where the sidewalk is often occluded by poles and other impediments, and sometimes vanishes altogether.
Strict architectural guidelines would require varied building mass- ing, with upper stories stepped back from the facade. The regulations would prevent a sort of contiguous, imposing wall from forming along El Camino in either the vertical or horizontal direction, according to city planners.
…
The new rules would for the first time establish clear guide- lines for development, including uniform energy efficiency stan- dards. Developers who want to construct larger buildings would be required to fund public bene- fits, which could in part pay for some of the capital improvements outlined in the plan.
…”
Seemed like a reasonable plan at the time. I don’t think much has changed from April 2010 to Oct 2014 — but maybe I’m missing something.
formerly:
it is a reasonable plan and not much has changed since 2010 except the economy has improved and more traffic has come with it.
Plus a bunch of folks that slept through the process woke up and didn’t like what the DSP process had produced.
Menlo Voter,
You seem not to know how a republican form of government works. We hire representatives so that we can “sleep through the process.” It is incumbent on our elected officials to discover our needs, make decisions based on those needs, and then build a consensus behind any policy that is likely to be controversial. If we had the time and the energy to disregard our families and our work and pay attention to all of the governmental initiatives, we would run the city through direct democracy and not hire representatives at all.
There is nothing wrong with the way Measure M supporters have behaved. If our elected officials blow it, we use referenda to reverse their judgments and perhaps the ballot box to replace those politicians. To say that this is irresponsible, or selfish, or anything else nefarious is to express one’s own discomfort with established democratic procedures.
But don’t worry. There’s a strong chance that you opponents of Measure M will succeed. Despite a much broader revulsion at the way Greenheart has attempted to buy the election, it’s not yet clear that we supporters of that measure have a majority.
resident states – ” We hire representatives so that we can “sleep through the process.” It is incumbent on our elected officials to discover our needs, make decisions based on those needs, and then build a consensus behind any policy that is likely to be controversial It is incumbent on our elected officials to discover our needs, make decisions based on those needs, and then build a consensus behind any policy that is likely to be controversial”
I love it – these people REALLY do think that they CAN “sleep through the process.”
Democracy is not a spectator sport and it is not meant to be easy.
If you slept through all of the Specific Plan process then you deserve what other people who did not sleep through the process decided. There is NOT a Rip Van Winkle clause in the Constitution.
Actually I think No on Measure M should use this quote to describe the philosophy behind Measure M ” We hire representatives so that we can “sleep through the process.”
MP Resident: Do you not see the irony in wishing to “hire representatives so that [you] can ‘sleep through the process'” and now supporting M, which would require an election to modify or fix anything… even something that everyone agrees upon?
MP Resident:
Astonishing! You want to “sleep through the process” then complain about what you get. When you hire someone do you not supervise them? Do you not expect that they will report to you? Staff and council are “hired” by the voters. As employers we have the responsibility of supervising those people. As responsible “employers” we don’t get to sleep through the process or phone it in. If you do that in business you don’t have a business after awhile. And I can assure you, you won’t get a “do over” when it happens.
As Peter said, “democracy is not a spectator sport.” It requires work and involvement. If one can’t be bothered to be involved, they don’t get to complain at the outcome.
You guys are great.
We proponents of Measure M ARE supervising our elected officials. That is why we are overruling their mistaken policies and reconsidering whether we want them in office. Applying your logic–that we should be so involved in the minutia of government that our representatives cannot possibly make mistakes–implies that the people of the United States should never demand that Congress overturn a law and that we should never throw an elected politician out of office. Jim Crow should be the law of the land, gay marriage should still be illegal, health care should never be reformed.
I sincerely doubt that you people are so unreasonable as to follow your own logic to its conclusion. The truth is that none of you are fully informed on all issues arising at the city, state and national level; many of you are probably disturbed occasionally by actions of your various representative agencies; and some of you probably occasionally vote to oust incumbents. In other words, you do precisely what we advocates of Measure M are now doing.
Your eagerness to criticize us now for doing what, by definition, each of you do on a state and national level, is hypocritical. I hope in particular that people remember the disregard that Carpenter has repeatedly expressed for people who disagree with him until his next election campaign. The hubris in declaiming against voters who think they run their own affairs is truly remarkable.
It is some of his recent anti-democratic rants that should be placed on placards and yard signs. Perhaps we will see that one day soon.
“The hubris in declaiming against voters who think they run their own affairs is truly remarkable.”
Not my claim, just more of your made up claptrap.
“It is some of his recent anti-democratic rants that should be placed on placards and yard signs.”
Please provide direct quotes which support this stupid statement.
You know exactly what I’m talking about, Carpenter.
Supporters of Measure M are just upset because they didn’t get their own way and are unreasonable because they think they still have a right to influence the process. As if that is not how democracy works.
October 23: Supporters of Measure M are like clients in a restaurant, upset at the food, and presumptuous enough to want to go into the kitchen and tell the staff how to cook their meals. As if once the cooks are hired, the employers should shut up and eat whatever the cooks deign to prepare.
Resident – I honestly can’t tell if you are for or against having people involved in “the minutia of government,” but it’s hard to imagine an initiative that would require more assessment of minutia than Measure M.
Your statement: “I sincerely doubt that you people are so unreasonable as to follow your own logic to its conclusion. The truth is that none of you are [sic] fully informed on all issues arising at the city, state and national level.”
I’m not sure what you are saying here, but seem to be critical of “you people” not being well-informed. So how would everyone properly inform him/herself and assess the minutia Measure M would require the citizenry to stay abreast of and competently vote on going forward?
And criticizing Mr. Carpenter for “anti-democratic rants?” Really?
“It is some of his recent anti-democratic rants that should be placed on placards and yard signs.”
Please provide DIRECT QUOTES which support this stupid statement.
What have Save Menlo and the proponents of Measure M done to ensure that there is a fully informed electorate?
– Held public meetings – NO
– Answered questions raised about Measure M by using the exact language from their own initiative – NO
– Designated a official spokesperson to speak on their behalf – NO
– Provided updated information on the Stanford and Greenheart proposals on the Save Menlo web site – NO
– Been accountable for the misinformation provided by their supporters – NO
They have deliberately chosen ignorance as their ally.
Observer,
Yes, when Carpenter implies that we have no right to demand responsibility from our elected officials and city bureaucrats, that we should sit down, shut up and take what they decide to offer us, he is presenting undemocratic cant. In these columns he has on numerous occasions belittled people who disagree with him. You may find this acceptable, but several of us do not. The fact is that he lives in Atherton, not Menlo Park, and has not advocated the same sort of commercial development in his town.
If the development projects are so good, why does he not promote them in Atherton? Because he does not want big office buildings and big-box retailers in his neighborhood. He does, however, stand to benefit from increased office buildings and big-box retailers in Menlo Park, which would drive up the value of residential real estate in his quiet, relatively traffic-free town of Atherton. In that sense he sits right with Greenheart, whose $200,000 intervention in our politics he has yet to criticize. It thus seems that he is less worried about representative democracy in Menlo Park than he is about the enactment of his own personal preferences.
On the role of voters in the political process, I’m sorry you found my comments confusing. Let me try again. I am not criticizing you and other opponents of Measure M for not being fully informed on all local, state and national political issues. What I am saying is that for perfectly understandable reasons–family, job, other responsibilities–none of us can possibly achieve that level of information. You have not found the time, I presume, to review the US tax code or to read the text of the Affordable Health Care Law. That is precisely why we have elected officials: we choose the officials, they make the minute decisions, and then we hold them to account for the results. You do that; I do that. It is how a republican form of government functions.
What I am objecting to is 1) your assumption that all voters should be fully engaged and informed regarding a single complex issue, the Specific Plan, at every stage of the process; and 2) the position advocated by the opponents of Measure M that it is illegitimate to step in now and demand a thorough revision. We supporters of Measure M are doing exactly what we should do and precisely what you do on almost every issue that arises at the state and national level.
Those who claim to accept the republican principle and yet declaim against supporters of Measure M for not having followed the Specific Plan for five years are clearly hypocritical. And elected officials should be careful in how they treat those who disagree with them.
Carpenter,
Your suggestions for how an initiative process should be handled are good ones. I would add, however, that there are inconsistencies in your list of recommendations.
First, a lot of the mailings against Measure M are misleading and incomplete. To criticize advocates of M for doing precisely what your camp is doing is hypocritical.
Second, you do not seem to understand the balance of responsibility in the democratic process. Voters are not “responsible” to elected officials or to outside corporate developers; and supporters of Measure M do not have to behave better than you opponents of that initiative. To put the point more starkly, is anyone holding you personally to blame for the lies and misrepresentation that Greenheart and its minions are propagating?
Finally, it would be nice if advocates of Measure M had an organization, an official spokesperson, etc., as you say. But then we don’t have an outside ally like Greenheart that is willing and able to pour $200,000 into the fight. You stand on the side of the elected politicians who produced this mess and the outside corporate interests who will make millions if only they can get us to shut up. We are not able to match your resources and are under to obligation to do so.
MPR – ”
Yes, when Carpenter implies that we have no right to demand responsibility from our elected officials and city bureaucrats, that we should sit down, shut up and take what they decide to offer us, he is presenting undemocratic cant.”
Please provide DIRECT QUOTES which support you assertions.
If I have hurt your feelings – tough. Otherwise put up or shut up. Opps, did that hurt your feelings again
“Finally, it would be nice if advocates of Measure M had an organization, an official spokesperson, etc., as you say.”
That is what Save Menlo claims to be but then they choose NOT to hold public meetings, NOT to have updated information, NOTt to respond to the many questions posed to them.
“We are not able to match your resources” The Menlo Park Deserves Better committee has spent less than 1/10th of what Save Menlo has raised and MPDB has done it all with small donors. Save Menlo has multiple $10k plus donors – so who has the big bucks?
MP Resident:
if you’re not going to be fully engaged and informed regarding a complex issue that effects your own city what are you going to be fully informed and involved with? Local issues are the ones that most directly effect us and as such should demand most of our attention.
As I said before, what’s going on now is not supervision and oversight. Oversight could have occurred during the five years the DSP was being developed. It’s a bunch of people that either didn’t pay attention or didn’t get their way so NOW they are going to object. How about raising these issues over the course of a five year long very public process? That’s what it’s for. It’s not like this was done in secret. This was a very democratic/republican process.
MPr – ” I hope in particular that people remember the disregard that Carpenter has repeatedly expressed for people who disagree with him until his next election campaign. ”
I have stood for election three times and each time received more votes than any other candidate. And I did not do it by being an anonymous complainer or by being a silent observer or by sitting in the shadows watching others do the hard work of democracy. I am accountable to the voters and the ONLY elected officials who regularly posts on this Forum.
And you?
Carpenter,
I respect that you serve the community and that you express your views on important issues. I don’t respect your dismissive attitude towards those who disagree with you.
I also ask whether you are seriously suggesting that the pro-Measure M camp has received as much money in donations as the anti-camp. And you are certainly being disingenuous when you imply that the Measure M camp has received as much outside money as you guys have, particularly from major corporations with a stake in the outcome of this election. Put simply, is there any corporation that has donated $200,000 to the pro-M camp?
Alternatively, has your anti-M camp received $200,000 donations from any person or company that does NOT stand to profit massively if M is defeated? If not, then you’ll have to forgive us for thinking that Greenheart is acting in its own interests and not ours.
” Put simply, is there any corporation that has donated $200,000 to the pro-M camp?”
NO – Menlo Park Deserves Better has not received a single donation of more than $2,000 and certainly not a $200,000 donation.
Greenheart is a private property owner defending its own interests with its own money and there is no relationship between Greenheart and MPDB. Look at the FPPC filings.
MPR – ”
Yes, when Carpenter implies that we have no right to demand responsibility from our elected officials and city bureaucrats, that we should sit down, shut up and take what they decide to offer us, he is presenting undemocratic cant.”
Please provide DIRECT QUOTES which support you assertions.
“It is some of his recent anti-democratic rants that should be placed on placards and yard signs.”
Please provide DIRECT QUOTES which support this stupid statement.
In response to Peter Carpenter, who wants response to exact quotes and who LOVES TO USE CAPS TO YELL:
He said:
“- Held public meetings – NO”
WRONG! They’ve had all kinds of meetings and spread invitations liberally. I guess you just weren’t invited. If you mean they haven’t had a city-style open meeting, you are correct because they are not the city.
When you were championing Measure L in 2010, the pension reform measure, did they hold public meetings? Please provide DIRECT SOURCES for your answer.
“- Answered questions raised about Measure M by using the exact language from their own initiative – NO”
NO is RIGHT! WHY should they?! YOU are the only one who does that and you mostly do it to confuse people. Why would anyone copy whole sections of the measure into their campaign materials? Does No on M use the exact language of the measure? NO! Do you think people would find it useful to copy whole sections of the measure when they can go read it all here: http://www.savemenlo.org/initiative_documents
“- Designated a official spokesperson to speak on their behalf – NO”
I DUNNO! What is an official spokesperson? They have a contact person identified on all their press releases. Who is the official spokesperson for Menlo Park Deserves Better?
“- Provided updated information on the Stanford and Greenheart proposals on the Save Menlo web site – NO”
WRONG AGAIN! http://www.savemenlo.org/myth_fact shows both the January and the April plans.
“- Been accountable for the misinformation provided by their supporters – NO”
WHAT?! Has Menlo Park Deserves Better been accountable for the misinformation of their supporters? NO!
Some who oppose Measure M have stated that they haven’t received any donations from Greenheart. That is true, Menlo Park Deserves Better has raised $16,173 (as of Oct 18).
It is “No on M” Committee for a Vibrant Downtown who raised $202,500, all from Greenheart.
“Answered questions raised about Measure M by using the exact language from their own initiative – NO”
NO is RIGHT! WHY should they?”
Well, because unless I read the fine print it would be foolish to sign a forever contract.
And a smart saleswoman will tell me it is just a “simple” contract that only covers “four things” and don’t worry your sweat little head about all that fine print.
“- Designated a official spokesperson to speak on their behalf – NO”
I DUNNO! What is an official spokesperson?”
Someone who can tell the voters exactly what they are being asked to vote on and respond on the record to questions from those voters.
“- Provided updated information on the Stanford and Greenheart proposals on the Save Menlo web site – NO”
WRONG AGAIN! Web Link shows both the January and the April plans. ”
Here what the Save Menlo web site states right now:
“See Stanford’s Plans Here (January 2013 Submission)”
@ Beth Martin – Respectfully, Measure M’s actual language is what will control, if it passes, not what Measure M proponents say it says without citation.
A case in point:
Over a week ago, Patti Fry — a chief M proponent — asserted: “Yes on M leaves nearly all the [specific] plan’s rules in council hands.”
This is demonstrably incorrect, but she will not so acknowledge or provide a citation. As such, this statement is misleading. Failure to correct or withdraw it makes it intentionally so.
“It is “No on M” Committee for a Vibrant Downtown who raised $202,500, all from Greenheart. ”
Greenheart is a private property owner defending its own interests with its own money and there is no relationship between Greenheart and MPDB. Look at the FPPC filings.
Beth:
it would be nice to see measure m supporters quote the language from the measure just to see if they actually can. As far as I can tell most of them haven’t even read. They just come on here spouting the savemenlo koolaid with absolutely no substantiation for what they say.
I’ve read it. I know what it says and it certainly doesn’t say what Patti Fry and the other savemenlo folks say it does (it really doesn’t change much).