|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Bob Dickinson
Menlo Park has lost its way. The two most obvious signs are the city’s struggle to meet its state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the epidemic of unsolved home break-ins in recent years.
Take downtown development as an example. It was prominently featured in the city’s housing element, yet leaders didn’t fully anticipate, and work proactively to defuse, the fierce opposition that downtown merchants would mount when the proposal moved closer to reality. The result has been a lawsuit and an upcoming ballot measure.
While in the near term we should move forward with housing on the downtown parking lots, including adequate new parking, to meet our goals and prevent “builders remedy” projects, the city needs to recognize that building affordable housing on public land isn’t a viable long-term strategy. The city must find a way to incentivize private property owners to participate. There will be more housing required in future housing element cycles and not enough public land to satisfy those needs.
As for public safety, the police department’s approach to break-ins has been to tell homeowners to strengthen their defenses and clearly hasn’t worked. The perpetrators ignore, or disable, lights, cameras and alarms, secure in the knowledge that by the time the police arrive they will be long gone.
What’s really needed to deter, and apprehend, them is a visible police presence and a faster response time. Some of our neighbors in Sharon Heights have given up on the police and are considering contracting with the Woodside Patrol, which, unfortunately, is more likely to be a placebo than a solution. The only thing the Woodside Patrol can do is call the police and the professional burglars know that.
Less visible is the failure of the city to protect our parks from development. The city has taken the position that state law is sufficient to do that, while former mayor and now San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller pointed out several years ago that this isn’t the case and our own city attorneys have provided differing opinions on the subject.
The council at that time voted to have staff prepare an ordinance addressing the loopholes in state law, which staff failed to do, pleading insufficient resources. Another indication of the low priority placed on our parks, which help make Menlo Park an attractive place to live, is the pond at Sharon Park. Only a few short years ago it was home to fish and ducks and had a functioning recirculation system with an attractive fountain. As a result of ongoing neglect, the fish and most of the ducks are gone, the recirculation system and fountain are in disrepair and the pond is stagnant and full of algae and debris.
While the council and staff likely have good intentions, strong leadership and effective management of resources are also needed to successfully deal with these issues. I’ve never seen an organization that thought it had all the resources it needed — the successful ones are those that focus on getting accomplished what needs to be done with the resources they do have. And a clear vision of what Menlo Park strives to be would help guide policy and operational decisions in the right direction, rather than the one most expedient in the short run.
Bob Dickinson and his wife, Sylvia, have lived in Menlo Park since 1983. A former tech CEO, Bob has consulted on climate impacts and adaptation since 2011.
Bob: The number of Menlo Park residents who oppose the Downtown parking lot housing project far exceeds the number of merchants in Downtown and that is not surprising. First, city councils have failed to SHOW this project would not harm Downtown and our city. There have been no studies of potential negative impacts and credible mitigations. Next, the City has not genuinely evaluated alternative sites that would allow it to build a significant amount of the proposed housing elsewhere. There are many feasible alternative sites, and I know residents are already evaluating them because the City won’t. Next, the two existing developer proposals are NOT financially feasible because our city expects non-profit developers to replace all existing public parking at their expense. This has always been a poor assumption and known for years. Yet, the Council has not prepared voters for the inevitable need for them to pay for this parking. And finally, the Council has never held “town halls” where our community could get answers to the important questions residents and business owners have about the project. And our community has been excluded from the entire planning process that started in mid-2024. This created and has sustained the widely help perception that councils do not truly represent our community and instead make decisions primarily shaped by individual council member motives and beliefs. That’s why voters will block this project.
Thank you for your very articulate, factual response.
Dana, I’m the last person to defend our current Council. I have to point out, however, that the housing element process was very visible and offered ample opportunity for input from anyone who bothered to take the trouble. And, development on the Downtown parking lots was prominent in that process and makes good sense in terms of proximity to transportation and services. As another person who commented, it will also bring more customers to the businesses there. Parking to replace what’s lost is, of course, critical, but I’ll point out that Palo Alto has a vibrant downtown without the extent of surface parking that Menlo Park has. I don’t disagree, though, that the Council has been disingenuous with respect to the cost. Incidentally, part of the problem with Downtown is the Design District, which only draws people when they’re shopping for furniture or have some other project in mind. And, I agree with Menlo Parker that the Council has focused on things that while important don’t excuse neglecting public safety and our parks.
It’s not just Menlo, it’s the entire state of CA. That’s gonna change in November…….
Ironically, the City Council has been neglecting both our parks and our parking lots! Everyone loved the pond at Sharon Park. It’s unfathomable that the city, which professes to value parks, let it degrade this far.
Similarly, Menlo Park is known for its downtown shopping and dining district, yet the city has allowed the sidewalks, street crossings and parking lots to deteriorate for years, unlike those of our neighboring cities. Yet they profess to care about “downtown vibrancy.” Of course removing the parking lots would mean the end of half or more of the stores, which the Council doesn’t seem to care about any more than they cared about the ducks in Sharon Park.
And now we learn they’ve done nothing to protect West Menlo Park residents from home break-ins. Their focus seems to be on climate change, environmental justice, electrification and bike lanes– which translates into their leaving behind the nitty gritty of managing a city and maintaining it as a safe and attractive place to live and to visit.
I agree with Mr. Dickinson that the City could/should offer incentives to property owners to build new housing, especially in the neighborhoods within a several block area of downtown. There are a number of run-down duplexes and 1950’s-60’s apartment buildings that could be turned into 3-4 story housing units IF the proper incentives were in place to do so.
I agree that the downtown needs to be made more attractive with new striping, better landscaping, and refurbished parking lots. Yes, parking lots to be retained but improved!
I do not agree that building on the downtown parking lots is an assumption that wasn’t properly explained. It is a plan that will smother and stifle downtown business by reducing accessibility and the number of parking spaces available. Downtown Menlo Park has a very attractive feature that should not be destroyed: it is two-story commercial buildings, with easy access for all who visit, and it is therefore one of the last remaining sweet suburban downtowns. Why urbanize? Why stifle downtown business?
Why not create a vibrant downtown that is fresh and well maintained to attract visitors from other downtowns that have lost the character of their shopping districts to multi-story commercial and residential mega-buildings. Why not capitalize on our downtown’s greatest asset: a small, friendly low-scale shopping and dining experience!
Exactly, Lynne! This City Council doesn’t seem to understand what “vibrancy” means in the context of a small, suburban downtown shopping district. As you point out, many other cities’ downtowns have lost their unique character in favor of big chain stores and multistory office and apartment high-rises. That’s fine in much bigger cities like San Jose, but it destroys the character and ambience in small suburbs like Menlo Park.
I can’t articulate what troubles Menlo Park. It requires more abilities than I have to connect the dots. But I will channel a 19th-century epithet describing the Ottoman Empire: Menlo Park is the sick man of the Peninsula.
Investing in the Heart of Menlo Park
For too long, our downtown has been neglected. The Downtown Menlo Fund is changing that. As a new non-profit, we are building a public-private partnership between the City and local businesses to prioritize beautification, economic growth, and host a calendar of community events.
We have already launched a new Business Association and a community website at downtownmenlo.com. We invite all residents to help us build a solution and hold the city accountable.
Visit menlofund.org to join us, or email Founders@menlofund.org with your questions. Let’s give Menlo Park the vibrant heart it deserves.
I looked at the website and have some concerns. Your map puts Kepler’s and the Menlo Park Chevron in San Francisco for some reason, many of the business descriptions are factually incorrect or seem AI-generated, and the Downtown History page doesn’t make any sense. For example, why did Menlo Park come to national attention in 1948? There is no explanation on your page. I surfed around online and all I could find about 1948 relates to the parking lots, which is information I found on savedowntownmenlo.org website.
Thank you
I agree that we need to do more to incentivize housing (and especially affordable housing) on private land, especially in places that are near transit and other services. And, we need to take advantage of this once in a generation opportunity to build affordable housing on public land downtown. A vibrant downtown needs more people, and housing downtown means more people who will shop and dine downtown.