Fortunately, this is not true.
In the negotiated deal, Menlo Park gets more for less. The city collects a larger net cash reimbursement from a smaller project that generates fewer negative impacts and less demand for city services.
Mr. Boyle is right when he says that the mandated "impact fees" are reduced (because the project and its negative impacts are reduced), but the additional $2 million "public benefit" payment loudly exceeds the impact fee reduction, and, unlike impact fees, there are no restrictions on how it can be spent.
To make it seem otherwise, John's e-mail "analysis" borrows a page from Mickie Winkler's playbook. It obscures the city impact fee calculation and makes several mistakes trying to value and count lost developer profits as lost city revenue.
There is an honest public debate to be had about the costs and benefits of higher-density housing. The proposed project does contain fewer housing units and below market rate (BMR) units. If John Boyle values denser private housing over more public revenue he should say so plainly, and he should vote to place the Derry project on the ballot. The referendum is still in force.
But misstating financials is not the right way to debate housing.
Paul Collacchi is a former member of the Menlo Park City Council.