Town Square

Post a New Topic

Atherton Little League plans face opposition

Original post made on Sep 11, 2013

Last November, in an Atherton election that sharply divided the town, there was one measure on the ballot most voters agreed on: renovation of the Little League baseball facilities in Holbrook-Palmer Park, a measure approved by 75 percent of the voters.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 10, 2013, 8:38 PM

Comments (42)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Sep 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm

As an Atherton resident who voted for Measure M, I am stunned and disgusted that any of our so-called "leaders" would continue this senseless war against the children and families of little league by attempting to circumvent a 75% mandate. These plans were clear on the ballot and approved by a huge margin. The fact that there were hours of debate on this shows how dysfunctional our government is. Anyone on the Council who does not support the voters on this should be recalled, or at least not re-elected.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deceived
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 7:54 pm

Had voters known the extent to which the supposedly harmless Little League ballpark would overwhelm H-B Park and destroy the peaceful ambiance there, few would have voted for it. Reminds me of High Speed Rail and Obamacare . . . it wasn't until they were passed that we found out what was in store and then we regretted them. Thank goodness for an astute Planning Commission who saw through the phony façade of a supposedly harmless little ball-field and realized that it would be a permanent intrusion and eyesore at least seven months of the year. Little Leaguers have done just fine at the many school fields they already use. Let them continue there and leave our park in tranquility for all the non-ball-players who frequent it. I'm sure that a repeat election with the truth told would turn out very differently.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 8:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This is what the voters approved:

"Should the Town permit the Menlo-Atherton Little League to improve the baseball field and surrounding areas at Holbrook-Palmer Park, including covered seating for spectators, an improved playing area for children, and new restrooms for all park users, using private funds only?"

There is nothing in the resolution which relieves the Town Council from approving the details of the proposed improvements. To argue otherwise would be to accept something like a 300 seat stadium without review or constraints.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Size matters
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 11, 2013 at 8:24 pm

Size really does matter. Do you go smaller, or do go bigger. When you're talking about size removing it does matter, and who takes care of your lawn and how it's trimmed needs to go to City Council. In a nut shell that is what thats what were talking about.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Voter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Everyone who read the ballot knew what they were voting for. The ballot included arguments which made clear exactly what little league is going to do. The minority is simply re-arguing what they said during the election. They lost. Stand strong little league; good always prevails over evil.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jose Canseco
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 11, 2013 at 8:30 pm

I think most voters are not stupid, as the City Council seems to assume. Voters evaluated the artistic renditions. They studied the arguments. And SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT decided they rather liked the modern ball park.

Contrast that with the library in the park idea that went down to sound defeat. How surprising that it's the same people who wanted the library that are throwing up roadblocks!

This sounds like an excellent election platform issue. Do you support implementing what the voters wanted?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Informed Voter - You are simply wrong.
This was the only information in the Voter's Guide:
The Town of Atherton has received a proposal from the MenloAtherton Little League to construct certain improvements to the
existing Little League baseball diamond in Holbrook-Palmer Park.
It proposes a number of improvements to the field and surrounding
facilities, ranging from leveling the field, erecting temporary
removable outfield fences, and construction of a small electric
scoreboard and permanent foul line poles. Of perhaps greater
significance is a desire to install covered seating grandstands and
new restrooms that will result in permanent improvements to the
area. The cost of such improvements will be paid for by the MenloAtherton Little League using only private funds. There will be no
taxpayer's funds used to complete the proposed improvements.
The Menlo-Atherton Little League proposal has not been through the
normal Atherton planning process at this time. The City Council has
determined that it wants citizen input with respect to the significant
permanent impacts of the application. The measure therefore asks
voters to decide whether permanent structures associated with the
Little League baseball diamond area of Holbrook-Palmer Park
should be allowed to be constructed after appropriate planning
review; specifically whether or not to allow construction of covered
spectator seating, an improved playing field, and new restroom
facilities in this area of the Park.
If approved by the voters, the grandstand and restroom permanent
facilities will be allowed in Holbrook-Palmer Park; however, if
rejected by the voters, this measure will prohibit such permanent
improvements in the Park. Voter approval of the measure will not
automatically grant the Little League improvement proposal which
will still have to go through the normal Town land use review
process.
/s/ William B. Conners, City Attorney"

What is not clear about "The measure therefore asks
voters to decide whether permanent structures associated with the
Little League baseball diamond area of Holbrook-Palmer Park
should be allowed to be constructed AFTER appropriate planning
review; "?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Voter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 8:59 pm

Mr. Carpenter, You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are purposefully trying to mislead the readers here. But what you say simply carries no weight. Go back and read the arguments for and against. It's all there. As someone else said, your "war on children" will go nowhere. Get over it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Colleen Anderson
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda
on Sep 11, 2013 at 9:11 pm

I love the idea of first class seating. An inch or two matters to a full bodied person. If nothing else it allows me to put my feet on the seat in front of mine for back support. A number of grand parents I hope will go to games it allows handicap access. Hip & Knee surgery people it helps to have the freedom to move there legs. I love the fact that I can bring family members without making them feel handicapped with the first class seating. Isn't that why we live here. I prefer the best, and it matters to me. Why are we arguing over a couple of inches in 23 acres. I want a first class park in a first class town. Why are we focusing on inches. Isn't that like bringing a wash cloth to a title wave.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peterfcarpenter@gmail.com
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Informed? Voter - you did not answer the question :
What is not clear about "The measure therefore asks

voters to decide whether permanent structures associated with the

Little League baseball diamond area of Holbrook-Palmer Park

should be allowed to be constructed AFTER appropriate planning


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Voter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 9:24 pm

Well said, Colleen. "Appropriate" planning in this context means adherence to zoning ordinances and other legal reqiurements. Unless there are legal issues here which I'm not aware of, the vote of the overwhelming majority cannot be changed. As I understand, Measure M was not an advisory vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peterfcarpenter@gmail.com
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 9:31 pm

Please read the voter approved measure:
. Voter approval of the measure will not

automatically grant the Little League improvement proposal which

will still have to go through the normal Town land use review

process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Voter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 9:47 pm

You should research what the "normal" land use review process is in our Town. Once educated, you will understand that what the minority is trying to do to this project is anything but normal. It is a pathetic attempt to ignore the voice of the super majority, which is just plain wrong and probably illegal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Informed Voter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 10:12 pm

You assume I'm a "he"? Par for the course for the "old guard" in this Town who will always resist change for the better and will run us into the ground if we let them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:24 pm

I think Mr. Carpenter has been very kind to "Informed Voter", an ironic handle to use as it turns out.

Holbrook-Palmer is a multi-use park, and the vote does NOT mean that Little League gets to repurpose the park any way they see fit. There are other sports that play at HP and other events that use the field, and their needs are every bit as important as Little League's.

And shame on "Appalled" for playing the "children and families" card. There are other children and families that use the park, too, and their use and enjoyment of the park is every bit as important as Little League's.

The world does not revolve around you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 am

Let's not forget that Little League is being very generous relative to other park uses, as it has offered to donate real money for resurfacing of tennis courts and enhancement of surrounding landscape. It also will construct new restrooms which will be available to all park users, not just baseball players and families. Of course, all of that was on the ballot, along with the amount of seats which will be constructed and the other features. With the exception of a small group of folks who seem to not respect the democratic process, the Town is excited about these improvements and would like to see the work begin. Thank you Little League for doing this. I don't see any of the other organizations who use the park offering to do the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 6:15 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Measure M was not a blank check for building whatever Little League wants to build.

The Argument For Measure M, which I voted for, states:

"• covered stands and dugouts designed to BLEND PERFECTLY with
existing park structures;"

The Impartial Analysis states:

"should be allowed to be constructed after appropriate planning
review;"

and

" Voter approval of the measure will not automatically grant the Little League improvement proposal which will still have to go through the normal Town land use review process."

We have an appointed Planning Commission of respected citizens and an elected Town Council of respected citizens to whom we look to for the stewardship of our public lands. It is to them that falls the responsibility for determining if the covered stands and dugouts have been designed to BLEND PERFECTLY with
existing park structures.

I again challenge mr/mrs/miss Informed Voter to come out of the shadows and to use your real name And I urge you to stop trying to characterize this discussion as a 'war on children" - what a horrible example to set for our young people on how to conduct a thoughtful dialogue!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the Atherton Way ™
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Sep 12, 2013 at 12:44 pm

Atherton's War on Children has a long history.

Look at all the legal actions and sanctions against youth in schools in Atherton. Look at the way Atherton treated youth sports organizations from Lacrosse to Little League to Pop Warner. Look at the way Atherton treated creative youth in fighting the MA PAC with lawsuit after lawsuit.

Lawsuits First, Children Last - the Atherton Way ™


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Atherton voters gave the Little League a great gift of the use of public property in return for payments that are a fraction of the fair market value for the use of the property in question.

What is lacking is an understanding that this remains public property and the Little League cannot simply do what it wants with this gift - there were very clear strings attached and the voters knew this when they approved the gift.

And all the talk of 'war on children' is hogwash by adults who should know better than to use that language. I note that such language has only been used by posters who are afraid to use their real names.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Sep 12, 2013 at 1:35 pm

"Atherton way" wrote:
> Lacrosse

It's ironic you'd mention Lacrosse since, if little league has its way, their fencing could impede on the ability to play Lacrosse. Hello?

So using your logic, there IS a "War on Children", but the battle is from the Little League, attacking everyone else that wants to use the park for purposes other than exclusively Little League.

Which makes LL and the people clamoring for a dedicated field SELFISH.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by institutional memory
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 1:56 pm

I am a 43 year resident of Atherton and have raised two children here. I along with friends coached soccer and little league in the mid 1970's at Holbrook Palmer Park. I am reminded how little infrastructure we had and yet had a wonderful baseball and soccer league with children, parents and coaches using the Park perhaps as the donor envisioned. It was not very fancy but then you don't need to be fancy playing baseball. Periodically, we had to appear before the Council to make a case for use of the Park and often there was tremendous resistance to organized youth sports. My memory still serves me well hearing Stanford baseball great Jack Shepard plead for Atherton's Little League to some stern looking Council members.
Fast forward a little to 1996 and the linked article describes the development of the field 17 years ago.
Web Link
Seems like the same arguments that have been going on for years but it is ridiculous that the proponents of this colossal baseball facility make the case that it is needed "for the kids". We have been playing baseball here for years and it has been just fine!... thank you.
I did vote YES for the improvements but shame on me in that I did not understand the extent and how it would impact the Park. I hope the Planning Commission and Council will realize they will do real damage to the nature of the Park that has been resisted all these years.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ostrich head in sand?
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Sep 12, 2013 at 4:25 pm

"a great gift of the use of public property in return for payments that are a fraction of the fair market value for the use of the property in question"

A great gift???? Letting children use a park at 'below fair market value' is now a 'great gift'????

There is not a non-profit youth sport in the world that can possibly pay "fair market value" for the time required to run a youth league, practices and games.

Athertonians! Sheesh! "fair market value for" kids to use a PARK!!! Take your head outta...

The sand.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Dear Ostrich (how appropriate a name) - Park space is a scarce commodity and granting one small group of youth exclusive access to that space for extended periods of time denies that space to all other users. This exclusive access is indeed a gift to that small group and the price is the loss of access to all other park users.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 8:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Scott - Thank you for your concern. I have a great life and part of the reason is a heavy involvement in my community.

Are the kids you are concerned with the ones who will be getting exclusive access to the park for a considerable amount of time or the ones who will be excluded by that exclusive access?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by K Riney
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 12, 2013 at 9:44 pm

It's obviously been a few decades since a certain someone has had a kid in a youth sports group.

Make sure to pull up the ladder behind you!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Sep 13, 2013 at 12:35 am

> Are the kids you are concerned with the ones who will be getting exclusive
> access to the park for a considerable amount of time or the ones who will
> be excluded by that exclusive access?

Ultimately, I'm concerned for both. But the the risk I see here is that, without oversight, what little league (LL) wants to build will result in the exclusion of non-little-leaguers to equal usage, like Lacrosse as suggested earlier.

Holbrook-Palmer is a multi-use park, and all reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate using it for a variety of functions, not just LL. LL ALREADY has use of the park, and ALREADY coexists with others that use the park as well. That coexistence should not be changed at the expense of anyone using the park.

But to be clear, I did vote yes to the LL ballot measure. Like you (and unlike some of the folks posting here) I actually read it and felt that some modest improvements could be a win for everyone, and reading the ballot measure and additional information left me assured that there was still reasonable checks and balances to ensure LL wouldn't go roughshod on the park, and deny usage to others.

I hope you, the Planning Committee and the Counsel continue to fight the good fight and protect the park for enjoyment for all. Even including Little League and its friends (though based on their behavior in these posts, I'm not sure I want to associate with them. Perhaps when I have my jogs in the park, I'll just give them a WIDE birth, which I guess I need to anyways since they need 36 inches to sit on a bench :) )


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Sep 13, 2013 at 12:41 am


As a side note, I was in attendance at the counsel meeting where the ballot measure was approved. I thought that was a bad idea; there was no reason to do so. LL was still going to have to go thru the planning committee and counsel approval processes.

In my opinion, the ballot was created as a consequence of the Library fiasco. The people didn't want it in the Park and (apparently, tho I didn't live here at the time) were not engaged in the process that resulted in almost moving the library there. So now the council has swung too far into requesting input on too many issues.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by institutional memory
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:51 am

peninsula resident states, "In my opinion, the ballot was created as a consequence of the Library fiasco. This is a very astute observation in that the LL and library in the Park ballot were parallel events with outside entities trying to use park land for their own objectives. The library JPA like the LL folks marketed the idea that there project was for the greater good, an expanded service area and, of course, for the benefit of the "children". All was to paid for by using free money at no cost to Atherton residents. We know how the library vote ended but the LL project was too superficial in detail (contrary to the library proposal)for residents to sort out. The feckless Council in a fit of pique over being unable to shove the library project through without a vote bucked the LL offer to voters with a poorly designed and ill designed ballot measure. Now the town residents are being mugged. The best thing would be to now delay and require the LL project be a plan developed by Atherton and not a outside third party. Taking third party money always has hooks, doesn't it Council?
Hopefully maybe the LL people would drop their plans and go away leaving Atherton to develop and pay for improvements with their own money. This should have been the way it should have been done in the first place.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 3:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"
At that meeting, council members worked toward developing a compromise proposal for the Sept. 18 meeting, when the council is scheduled to vote on an agreement with the Little League."

18 Sept Council was just posted and this item is NOT on that agenda.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Renee Batti
news editor of The Almanac
on Sep 13, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Renee Batti is a registered user.

Peter, I just checked with the city clerk, who said the Menlo-Atherton Little League requested more time to work on its proposal, so the town postponed the issue. The item actually had been on an earlier version of the agenda.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by institutional memory
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Perhaps Atherton is waking up to MA-LL plan?

Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is joy in Atherton—mighty MA-LL has struck out.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" the Menlo-Atherton Little League requested more time to work on its proposal,"

Perhaps the Little Leagues is listening to the feedback from the supporters of Measure M that the Little League does not have a blank check to do whatever it wants. So much for the pontifications of the so-called Informed Voter, Ostrich etc.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Scott Barnum
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 13, 2013 at 5:08 pm

It is unfortunate to see the degradation of the discourse over the potential changes or improvements (depending on one's POV) to HP Park proposed by the Menlo Atherton Little League. What started out as a good deed and a needed benefit for the Park and MA-LL and its participating families, has now degenerated into a "spit-fest" between generally good citizens who care about the town, good governance and trying to make playing/viewing a youth baseball game in the Park more enjoyable.

I was involved with MA-LL for eight years as a coach and board member. Several of those eight years were after my son had aged out and no longer could play Little League ball. I can personally vouch that the parents involved were and are not "evil people" looking to hoodwink the Town and destroy the park for their personal interests. They are decent men and women who are passionate about their kids, their community and baseball. Simply put, the League wants a better and safer experience for both players and spectators alike and is willing to fund the entire cost plus other needed park renovations. And that I believe, in its most basic state, is why the majority voted their approval to move forward with the project.

Similarly, the people who express objection to some of the proposed enhancements in the proposal or want the full process to take its course aren't heathens or the devil incarnate either. They too have reasonable rationale for their POV's, be it adherence to good governance or concern about how the enhancements might impact other sports or activities in the park. It is their prerogative as users of the park and residents of Atherton.

While healthy debate is good and necessary for initiatives like this one, it doesn't do the Town, its citizens or the League any good to drag individuals and entities through the mud in the course of its approval. All we end up with is resentment, hostility, tarnished images and even more intransigence on future issues.

If there is a formal and legal approval process to be followed for this project, then it should be followed, whether one likes it or not. Has it taken a long time to get to this stage – indeed it has (almost five years from initial inception). That's painfully long. Yet, if it takes a while longer to get to closure, then so be it. The process needs to play out and the Planning Commission and Town Council need to provide their input and final approval respectively. If that also means some of the proposed field enhancements don't get approved, then so be it. In the end, the League, the Town, the Park and the kids will be better off having a better - safer field and viewing conditions than what we have today. Patience and persistence are often hallmarks of noble undertakings, particularly ones in the public domain.

M-A Little League has been a real benefit to our community and the local youth sports scene and has served its families well over many years. I for one don't want to see all the good work and good will undermined on the path towards the project's finalization. I hope the League continues to move the project forward and continues to listen to and adapt to feedback along the way. To an even greater degree, I hope that we can keep the discourse healthy and collaborative as the proposal moves towards final approval.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Scott Barnum - Well said - Thank you


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Central Menlo
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Sep 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm

The simplest answer may be to combine the West Menlo-Alpine and Menlo-Atherton Little Leagues into a single league for Menlo Park, Portola Valley and west Woodside. Atherton shouldn't need to play baseball any more than share or maintain its fields. Correction: grassy area in the park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jose Canseco
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm

The MA-LL probably pulled their agenda item from Council Meeting because the consulted their attorneys. They will be filing suit against the Town for not following the wishes of the voters.

Everyone knew what they were voting for. Perhaps the decision to put the measure on the ballot was arrogant and ill-advised. But, that's what WMD did. And, not it's time to pay the piper.

It was gargantuan library vs. stadium. The voters went with the stadium. Time to enact the will of the voters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Everyone knew what they were voting for. "

Yes they did:

"The Menlo-Atherton Little League proposal has not been through the
normal Atherton planning process at this time."

"The measure therefore asks voters to decide whether permanent structures associated with the Little League baseball diamond area of Holbrook-Palmer Park
should be allowed to be constructed AFTER appropriate planning
review; "

"Voter approval of the measure will NOT automatically grant the Little League improvement proposal which will still have to go through the normal Town land use review process."

Any law suit would fail.

Due process will prevail.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Sep 13, 2013 at 10:39 pm

Scott Barnum wrote:
> {a fair minded and thoughtful post]

Ah, a voice a reason. Thank you. We need more voices like yours. The only thing I'd add in response is that your post implies there's an equal level of hostility on both sides. Respectfully, I beg to differ.

Many of the folks that have shown concern about the impact of what LL proposes voted FOR the measure; clearly there is an understanding that some modest improvements could be a win for everyone, both LL and others that use the park. Even among the folks that are resisting the scale to which LL wants to change the park actually WANT LL to continue to use HP, and are agreeable to making it more functional for athletic play and spectating.

But some from the LL side (hopefully a minority) clearly want the space configured for their exclusive use, AT THE EXPENSE of other equally valid uses. Baseball is not the only game in town, literally, yet these LL parents are quite obstinate and vocal in their refusal to work with others to find a common ground, that allows all equal enjoyment of the park.

Respectfully, the problem here isn't the Town of Atherton, Athertonians or nearby residents. The problem is the hard-headedness of a few little league parents.

> Has it taken a long time to get to this stage – indeed it has
> (almost five years from initial inception).

While you didn't explain why it took almost 5 years to get to this point, I thought I'd mention that I'm highly skeptical that Atherton or HP had anything to do with the bulk of that time. I was at the meeting when the Council agreed to put the LL issue on the ballot. It was LL that came in at the last minute proposing a ballot, and the Council agreed, with the included stipulations on going thru the normal planning committe process.

It's unfortunate that this issue has taken as long as it has to get resolved, but...to paraphrase an old saying, "lack of planning on their part doesn't constitute an emergency on our part."

If LL wanted this done sooner, they should have submitted plans sooner.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Will
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 14, 2013 at 11:00 am

I was not at the council meeting, but rememeber reading in the Almanac about the council rushing staff to put something on the ballot:


Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Atherton's full plate: meetings on Little League, Town Center

by Renee Batti

The Aug. 7 meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The council will try to hammer out ballot language for a measure that will ask voters whether they support aspects of a Little League proposal for facilities in Holbrook-Palmer Park, and another measure pertaining to the plan to rebuild the Town Center.

Council members tabled the same agenda items at a special July 25 meeting after acknowledging that details of both proposed projects were so vague that neither they nor staff could figure out what they would be asking voters to decide.

Council members Jerry Carlson and Elizabeth Lewis oppose putting the two additional measures on the ballot, but the council majority asked the staff to come back with more information so the council can come up with appropriate language, which must be submitted to the county by Aug. 10.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 14, 2013 at 11:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I predict that:

1 - There will be a LL field with amenities at HP Park

2 - It will be designed to blend perfectly with existing park structures

3 - Everyone will be able to continue to enjoy the park


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Betsy
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 16, 2013 at 3:09 am

Oh yes PLEASE build this monster ego park ball field so that the terms if the will of M. Holbrook can kick in -- Atherton will lose the park and the new owners under the terms of the estate can sell the land for high density infill housing.

That is truly thinking "for the children." Think how many will be able to live there. Sadly the fat butt residents of Atherton will have to perch their egos and derrières somewhere else . But the children will benefit. And that is what counts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Barry B.
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Sep 19, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Yes the measure passed with a large majority but it never gave LL a green light to build a facility that was out of proportion to the park. Please build a new, safe facility but one that is repsectful to the natural open space we now enjoy and allows other users of the park to use the grass in the off season.

Clearly the proposed "Grandstand" is too large for the park and will only serve as a trophy to a few. I have never been to a LL game where more than 40-50 people were attending and often it is less than that. The idea of a large baseball facility that sits idle half the year is an eyesore and should be scaled back.

I think the LL organizers need to stop fighting for a new Yankee stadium in the park and recognize that a smaller, more respectful structure will serve the same purpose, please the other users of the park and stand the test of time.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,635 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,110 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,542 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,504 views

It’s Not About The Officer Or The Mom—It’s About All Of Us
By Erin Glanville | 9 comments | 791 views