|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Should Menlo Park build housing on three of its eight city-owned downtown parking lots? For more than a year, that’s the question that has sparked a spirited debate among residents, mobilized its downtown business district and launched a ballot initiative: Measure P in the Nov. 3 general election. The Almanac invited members of Save Downtown Menlo, the group backing Measure P, and the No on Measure P campaign to make their cases to our readers.
This is the Con argument from the League of Women Voters. Read the Con argument by Van Kouzoujian of Save Downtown Menlo here.
The League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County (LWVSSMC) opposes Measure P on the November ballot for voters in Menlo Park. The League, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to informed civic participation and sound public policy, has carefully analyzed this “Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance.” Our conclusion: Measure P would harm our community in multiple critical ways.
First, it jeopardizes state compliance. Since 2022, the City of Menlo Park has engaged in complex discussions with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to certify Menlo Park’s 2023–31 Housing Element, which requires 1,662 new affordable units. The city considered every city-owned site for its potential to develop affordable housing, and the parking plazas were central to this certification.
If Measure P becomes law, it would effectively block the production of affordable housing and replacement parking on the downtown parking lots and could cause HCD to decertify the city’s Housing Element. (Los Altos has an almost identical ordinance on its November ballot and has already received notice from HCD that its Housing Element is under review as a result of the proposed measure.) Decertification could trigger state penalties, loss of funding and more “builder’s remedy” projects that bypass local control entirely, such as the high-rises proposed for 80 Willow Road (the former Sunset Magazine campus), which were submitted during an earlier period when the city did not have a certified Housing Element.
Second, it undermines democratic, representative governance. Measure P replaces transparent decision-making — informed by public input, expert consultants and professional city staff — with a rigid ordinance that handcuffs future officials and residents from adapting to changing needs.
The League supports representative government because it enables the complex, technical decision-making required for effective housing policy. Our City Council is supported by housing experts, financial consultants and legal counsel. They study engineering requirements, evaluate environmental impacts, assess traffic patterns, review financing structures and balance competing community needs through public hearings where all residents can participate.
Development decisions cannot be responsibly reduced to yes/no ballot votes decided by campaign slogans. Our elected officials can be voted out if constituents disagree with their actions — but they must be empowered to make informed decisions about housing production in the meantime.
Third, the legal defense provisions in Measure P exemplify bad governance that could create a fiscal nightmare. Measure P requires the city to defend the ordinance against legal challenges at taxpayer expense. If the city declines to defend or appeal, three unelected proponents, Alexander John Beltramo, Caitlin Ann Darke and Van Richard Kouzoujian — not voters, not the City Council — are authorized to incur legal fees “as agents of the people” with no accountability, no guardrails and no requirement that the defense has merit. This provision creates an opportunity for ongoing litigation that could cost Menlo Park taxpayers millions of dollars.
Finally, it blocks affordable housing and replacement parking. Measure P would indefinitely prevent construction of affordable homes on this city-owned land near transit, parks and shops — precisely where housing is most needed and sustainable. The most immediate and damaging consequence of Measure P is simple: It would block or significantly delay the construction of at least 345 badly needed affordable homes planned for three downtown parking plazas. The city’s plans call for replacing 100% of the current parking plus developing additional parking for these critically needed homes.
Measure P would require voter approval in a general election before any changes can be made to downtown parking lots, adding months or years of delay to projects already in the pipeline. Worse, the ordinance would effectively freeze our downtown parking lots in their current 1940s-1950s form indefinitely, preserving asphalt over housing our community desperately needs. Measure P would also prevent any material changes to use of the parking lots without a vote in a general election.
LWVSSMC isn’t alone in opposing Measure P. Over 50 current and former local officials (including U.S. Congressmembers Sam Liccardo and Kevin Mullin, California State Sen. Josh Becker and State Assemblymember Marc Berman), and scores of community members, organizations and businesses share our concerns.
We need good governance and fiscal responsibility. We need more affordable housing, not less. We need to maintain local control over housing, not risk builder’s remedy developments citywide. We need to empower our elected officials to lead, not tie their hands indefinitely.
We need to vote no on Measure P.
Lucia Tedesco is the president of the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County and Tom Enger, Leigh Flesher and Carol Orton are board members.
Most Popular
Letters to the Editor: In downtown Menlo Park, it’s all about the parking garageOctober 10, 2026 9:40 pm
Menlo-Atherton grad files sexual abuse lawsuit against her former teacher, high school districtOctober 9, 2026 11:14 am
Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxesOctober 9, 2026 1:30 pm