Two years ago Save Menlo made an impassioned plea to Stanford to change its proposed 500 ECR project.
"We want Stanford to live up to your previous assurances to Menlo Park - to build low-traffic causing development, and contribute to the city’s vision of safe crossings on El Camino."
Stanford removed its medical office and added more homes.
Then the Keith/Carlton Subcommittee negotiated further reductions and additional public benefits.
The net result was all that Save Menlo originally asked for and more – so why Measure M?
IF Save Menlo had simply wanted to reduce the size of the Stanford project then a one line initiative lowering the FAR for ECR-SE would have accomplished that.
But no, Save Menlo and Lanza/Fry produced a horribly written, convoluted, and confusing 12 page document that would have sweeping and unpredictable impacts on the future of Menlo Park.
One logical answer is that Measure M (with its long list of voter adopted definitions, a requirement for city wide elections to make any changes, its primacy clause and its “frustrate” language) is simply a Trojan Horse that will allow anyone to stop anything in the Specific Plan area that they do not like.
Once a project is challenged as conflicting with Measure M then only a judge or a city wide vote will be able to resolve the challenge.
Measure M is a recipe for disaster.
This story contains 239 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.