Town Square

Post a New Topic

Park off housing list -- two other sites back on

Original post made on Sep 13, 2012

As expected, the six people overseeing Menlo Park's hunt for new housing sites voted to drop a neighborhood park from the list on Wednesday night. The 2.67 acres of the 10-acre Sharon Park are no longer under consideration as a possible location for affordable senior housing.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, September 13, 2012, 3:36 PM

Comments (13)

Posted by member, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 13, 2012 at 6:54 pm

low-income housing in Menlo Park? People pay extra to live there so they don't have to be around the projects. California is a joke. You get what you deserve, liberals.


Posted by get real, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm

Member, Low-income housing equals the projects? Really? Teachers, librarians, nurses, social workers constitute populations that are typical of "the projects"? I think I've figured out what you're a "member" of: The One Percent. Get thee behind me.


Posted by lies and more lies, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:37 pm

Teachers, nurses, and social workers earn too much money to live in these high density projects. Almost half the housing units are supposed to cost less than $200,000 and will be available to people earning less than $50,000.

Decades of scholarly research have shown a strong correlation between dense housing and depression, crime, and other antisocial behavior. These are indeed the modern manifestations of the last century's housing projects. Or do you prefer the word "ghetto?"


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm

Hmmm is a registered user.

Linfield Oaks - quit whining! You've completely overstated the traffic "issues" since the increased housing.


Posted by Janet, a resident of Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres
on Sep 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm

What was the City Attorney doing all these years when no H.E. got done. Also, why did it take him forever to figure out that Sharon Park was dedicated? Now they added in two additional sites. One on top of the 109 PGE gas line at the Buck Estate, and the other "banana" site on a sliver of land by 280. Both sites are owned by Stanford who is not in agreement with the proposed use. The Sharon Park site was to be for senior-only living (i.e. no kids) However, because that was taken off the list they added in Stanford property so that the mythical kids from 50 or so units would be allocated to the Los Lomitas School District in the same geographical area. The Settlement Agreement had no mention of allocating to school districts. Also, why is this "allocation" irrespective of the size of the different school districts. The other Stanford property on the list is Rural Lane which would screw up Alpine Road even more than it presently exists. Stanford does not want this either. How come developing land for Stanford Faculty equates to helping provide affordable housing anyway? This Housing Element is a fiasco and does not appear to fulfill what it is supposed to do.


Posted by Analyst, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Just think about it! Its Political!

The City is forced to just go through the motion, therefore residents do not need to make all the noise they are making. The staff already knew that this would be the outcome, but they must do the exercise.

That's why they picked sites in Sharon Heights that would not even work, but they had to make it look like they did their jobs. There's always more to the picture than what is visible to the eye!

Just think about it folks!


Posted by Pointing Fingers, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Sep 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Both the City Staff and the City Attorney knew that parkland cannot be rezoned for housing and yet, they allowed the list to include the Sharon Park site. Once the news got out to the national web site, Petition.Org folks, over 1500 people who know nothing about the issue joined in. Shame on the City Attorney and Staff. This could have been avoided. Council needs reprimand both. This issue is frightening for the uninformed and fearful as it is. Why throw kerosene on the fire? Now, let's get back to the usual ugly insults about low cost housing and poor people driving on our streets and sending their dirty children to our schools. We need to remember who we are in precious Menlo Park.


Posted by lies and more lies, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Sep 15, 2012 at 8:34 pm

I make poverty level wages working for a nonprofit, so I can tell you from firsthand experience that Menlo Park residents are in general compassionate, caring people. Just because we don't support socialism or (worse) a dictatorship doesn't make us worthy of derogatory labels.


Posted by Common Sense Housing Ideas, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Sep 19, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Are our elected officials and/or planning commission morons or what?
Why cram low-income housing in the western, scenic part of town. It should be thrown on those tons of ugly, unsightly CENTRALLY located cement lots downtown, along El Camino Real, near Hwy 101/Dumbarton Expressway corridors, and TRANSIT (i.e. rail lines, bus lines, business parts of town). Has anyone heard of "smart developments". If I am not mistaken, the Derry project wanted to integrate much-needed housing ATOP first-floor commercial spaces where tax-revenue can be generated via i.e. restaurants/bars, shops, stores, and other businesses. Even building on the other spots near Hewlett and I-280 is idiotic as it can be reserved for additional COMPLIMENTARY higher-tax generating uses (i.e. venture capital, hotels, and etc). Why would city officials want to slow higher-revenue generating uses in that area? One words: MORONS! Vote these jackasses out of office.


Posted by Judy Jones, a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Sep 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm

I agree it is not even compatible uses to cram low-income housing in those other 2 areas added to list. Who is coming up with these lists?


Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community
on Sep 20, 2012 at 8:20 am

In defense of the good and talented people in Planning and on the subcommittee working on the "list". WHile the court ordered settlement does not require the City to build the housing, it does require that the eventually resulting plan identify sites that have a "reasonable" chance of being developed with HD housing. The vacant lots along El Camino (vacated auto dealerships) are owned, for the most part, by Stanford. While these properties are currently vacant, the fact is Stanford still holds unexpired land leases and is collecting revenue until those lease expire. Secondly, the university, in its bylaws, is prohibited from selling land. While housing can be built on long term land leases,, its is rare that a developer will take on such a project so long as alternatives exist in the market where they can own the land and convey title to buyers.
Similar issues, not readily apparent to the general public, exist for other properties that on the surface appear to be candidates. Identifying these issues is part of the heavy lifting that the planning staff and subcommittee are grappling with.


Posted by lies and more lies, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Sep 20, 2012 at 10:58 am

Menlo Park gets no money from venture capitalists. Or lawyers. Or any of the other white collar professional offices.

Mass transit around here is a joke. Caltrain is constantly on the verge of going bankrupt, and the non-school buses run empty because they are too slow for commuters. Our transit corridors are the freeways, so Sharon Heights makes sense as a housing site. So do the sites adjacent to 101 and the Dumbarton.

Putting more housing in the middle of Menlo Park will only exacerbate the horrendous traffic that already clogs our streets for much of the day. Anyone who advocates for housing on El Camino has apparently not spent much time stuck in gridlock on that street.


Posted by Oski, a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Sep 20, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Those Stanford owned car lot leases expire 2012-13. Developers will build on Stanford long term lease land. Look at Oak Creek Apts., the Hyatt, etc.
Great spot for senior housing, higher density, low traffic and school impact, walk to stores, Little House, etc.
Great mixed use opportunity, and housing is included with a mid range hotel in the ECR plan just adopted.
But height limit opponents didn't want a Redwood City ECR "zero setback canyon effect", but that isn't necessary, just by stepping back the buildings and increasing height away from ECR.
Let's get council and council candidates to get involved in a substantive diaglogue with Stanford to get some working drawings for high density senior housing there NOW!!!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Veggie Grill coming soon to Mountain View's San Antonio Center
By Elena Kadvany | 21 comments | 3,345 views

Finding mentors in would-be bosses
By Jessica T | 0 comments | 1,895 views

The Dude Abides
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,265 views

Marathons
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,011 views

Medical Madness
By Paul Bendix | 0 comments | 58 views