Posted by Why is it?, a resident of another community, on Oct 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Why is it that Mr. Crittenden is not required to replace the neon and facade of the building on his own dime? If memory serves me correctly, he tore it down illegealy with out a permit a number of years ago...

Mr. Crittenen doesn't like other options since other potential buyers are looking for a better deal. It seems to happen that way when one is buying something with their own money.

2.2 million for a building in disrepair seems extremely high. If the city, or better yet Mr. Duncan, offered 1 million for the building, I bet Mr. Crittenden would be entertaining other offers.

I could see 2.2 million if it was back to its former state, but now its an eyesore with a huge repair bill associated with it.

The city of Menlo should not get involved with this type of use for public tax payer dollars.

Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Maybe they thought we were bluffing. Maybe they thought Menlo Park would take this lying down.

www recallfergie com

www.recallfergie.com

Let's get this started. We cannot let Fergie et. al make a mockery of Menlo Park. We don't like corruption.

Recall Fergie

Posted by keep it straight, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2007 at 3:34 pm

So where's the corruption? Where's the mockery? Please give examples.

Frankly this is coming across as political and nasty. Have you even spoken with each of the council members about this?

In any event, I don't think a final decision has been made. The entire council still has an opportunity to make the appropriate decision - to let the private sector rescue the theater, not use public monies for a private enterprise. There are far better uses for the money (streets, police, planning for starters)and for the officials' time.