News

Menlo Park to study changing public benefits trigger in specific plan

The Menlo Park City Council agreed Tuesday night to Menlo Park Mayor Ray Mueller's request to have the city schedule a time to study the process in which developers in the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan area are allowed extra square footage if they provide public benefits.

A joint study session with the City Council and the Planning Commission will "discuss refining the public benefit process and the public benefit thresholds" within the city's downtown/El Camino Real specific plan, Mayor Mueller said. Staff will also bring to the session information on the market value the extra square footage gives developers when public benefits are provided.

The request for a study session came after an Oct. 6 Planning Commission meeting on three amendments to the specific plan led to a discussion of what size of project should require public benefits.

Mayor Mueller said the sole topic of the study session will be public benefits, but that another study session about traffic will also be scheduled. City staff said both sessions will have to be held off until at least next January or February. The specific plan's two-year review also comes up next year.

At the October Planning Commission meeting, several commissioners, including Vince Bressler, Katie Ferrick and John Kadvany, said the topic of public benefits needed review because the council failed to recommend any changes to that aspect in its review of the specific plan. Mr. Kadvany referred to the lack of action as "the biggest mistake" the council has made in recent years.

Mr. Mueller could not take part in the the 2013 review of the specific plan because he owned property within the plan's boundaries; he no longer owns the property.

Measure M on the November ballot would modify the specific plan, but does not make any changes to the public benefit thresholds. The measure's supporters have argued, however, that public benefits should have to be provided in smaller developments.

Of the two mixed-use projects currently proposed, one would meet the threshold and require public benefits -- Greenheart's proposal at 1300 El Camino Real. The other, Stanford's proposal for 500 El Camino Real, would not meet the threshold, but the university is negotiating with the city anyway.

Comments

1 person likes this
Posted by fugal
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm

How convenient, just two weeks before the Measure M Vote. and now that it's come to light how Stanford is making out on the question of Public Benefit.

Mr. Carpenter. Do you have anything to say?


Like this comment
Posted by Mary Gilles
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Oct 22, 2014 at 5:19 pm

Great. Let's change the rules on the developer now! Greenheart purchased the property at 500 El Camino based on a set of rules. Now you want to change the rules. This is purely an obstructionist tactic. The people who didn't like the outcome of the DSP and public benefit threshold will stop at nothing to stop Menlo Park from moving forward. It is so predictable. And, now, 2 weeks before election day, Patti Fry and Mike Lanza reveal they are not the authors of Measure M. So who is the author of Measure M? Who is the mystery lawyer who wrote Measure M and who paid him to do it? Or, are the residents in Menlo Park willing to allow some mystery lawyer and financier to change the zoning rules of Menlo Park? This is unbelievably corrupt. Residents need to get a grip on what is going on here.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 22, 2014 at 5:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"now that it's come to light how Stanford is making out on the question of Public Benefit."

Mr. Carpenter. Do you have anything to say?"

Yes, as usual Measure M supporters make assertions without ANY facts to support those assertions.

Please document "how Stanford is making out on the question of Public Benefit".


1 person likes this
Posted by curious
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 22, 2014 at 7:04 pm

Did the pension reform initiative proponents write their own initiative?

What is wrong with hiring an attorney? Makes sense to me.


1 person likes this
Posted by Go Giants
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm

Measure M would not have been necessary had City Council shown a little more leadership when the Specific Plan was up for review earlier this year. Now, they only have themselves to blame.

I am glad that at least Ray is putting the topic of Public Benefit back on the table.

Four and five story buildings on El Camino are an abomination for a town like Menlo Park.


3 people like this
Posted by morris brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 22, 2014 at 7:51 pm

Any group that would not hire an attorney to draft an Initiative, or Referendum, or ReCall would be crazy to not pay an attorney, an expert in this area of election law. The law is very complex; by not having an attorney who knows all the complexities of the law, the sponsoring group would without a doubt end up drafting a Measure, which would be challenged in Court and it would probably be ruled illegal.

Mary Gilles, get off your "high horse", and face reality. The sponsor of the Initiative, SaveMenlo, chose the right path to getting a legal Initiative circulated and is now on the November ballot.

Vote Yes on Measure M




Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 22, 2014 at 8:13 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

So Morris, why won't Save Menlo disclose the lawyer's identity and who are her/his and his/her firm's other clients?

What are they hiding?


Like this comment
Posted by morris brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 22, 2014 at 10:55 pm

Peter:

You keep asking this question:

So Morris, why won't Save Menlo disclose the lawyer's identity and who are her/his and his/her firm's other clients?

What are they hiding?

------
Yet this is all disclosed:

Peter read this letter which is posted in the City Council email log:

link:

Web Link

Are you now satisfied?



6 people like this
Posted by Menlo Park Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27 am

What is happening here was perfectly predictable.

The city council and its allies want to develop blighted parts of town and increase the revenues that new businesses generate. They made a mistake, however, in not considering the need for more open space, reasonable traffic, and the importance of small businesses. Instead, they approved plans that would put massive office buildings and apartment complexes in the heart of Menlo Park. How could this not alter the balance of businesses and local retail that give the town its charm? How could it not increase traffic substantially and make it more dangerous for our children to ride their bikes to school? The clear beneficiaries of the development plan are government agencies that would gain revenues and the residents of Palo Alto and Atherton, who will see greater demand for residential real estate in those areas as more middle-clasee people decide that Menlo Park is no longer such an attractive place and seek to relocate.

Carpenter and his allies may be right that Measure M is deficient in some regards and that its passage would be an embarrassment to the city council. But so what? It was idiotic of the authorities not to anticipate the adverse reaction of residents when they realized that the development plan would greatly increase the number of cubicle workers, the prominence of block apartment housing, Walmart-style businesses displacing local shops and restaurants, and traffic.

Measure M represents a resounding blow against city officials who thought that they could adopt development measures that voters would not tolerate. It is their job to consider and represent those voters' sentiments. It is likewise the responsibility of voters, their wishes betrayed, to hold the elected officials to account for their arrogance

That is what is now happening. The city council would not be initiating new studies on traffic, public space, and perquisites for the developers if the politicians were not afriad that they are losing the battle. Obviously those council members running for re-election have belatedly recognized that they may lose their jobs because they did such a poor job of informing the public and reacting to its concerns. Perhaps the authorities will learn that there is a price to be paid for such high-handed disregard of the feelings of Menlo Park residents.


2 people like this
Posted by Fiction
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 23, 2014 at 6:27 am

That's an interesting essay, but it's total fiction.

The City Council has never approved the Stanford project nor the Greenheart project. At the time the first Specific Plan review occurred the only project known in a scoping phase was Stanford's project. That project was scrutinized and then impact studies were ordered. Those impact studies just came back and the City Council reacted appropriately. Measure M had no effect on that process whatsoever. There are no "new" traffic studies. There are no "new" studies on open space.

With respect to the public benefit threshold discussed in this article, Measure M doesn't even address the issue.
This is just an example of the City Council doing it's job.

The world does not revolve around Measure M.

Measure M, by comparison, is like a bunch of people being in such a rush to get their meal just the way the like it at the restaurant, they yell at the waiter, create a giant scene, demand their refund, and ruin dinner for everyone else, prior to appetizers even being served. And now the customers are trying go into the kitchen and yell at the restaurant staff and tell them how meals should be cooked.

Measure M is a terribly drafted document that does more unintended harm than good to the City's planning process. In reality, the City Council is doing far more to protect the City and create balanced development in the normal course of business than Measure M does.

That's why the Almanac, The Daily Post, and the San Jose Mercury News all agree: Vote No on M.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

If Keith Wagner from Davis wrote Measure M then what is Save Menlo paying thousands of dollars to the Sacramento firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn for?


7 people like this
Posted by Menlo Park Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 23, 2014 at 8:11 am

Dear "Fiction,"

You say that my comments are fiction; that there are no new studies ordered by the city. Perhaps you should reread the article to which you are purportedly replying; maybe you should read about the Lisa Wise study, the criticism thereof on the grounds that it explicitly ignored major questions of interest to the public and that a follow-up to that report was commissioned at the last minute.

When politicians suddenly order multiple re-evaulations of both their planning process and the application of that process in specific cases within weeks of a vote to overturn the results of that process, they are panicking. They are attempting to assuage public anger and protect their own jobs. Are you denying this? Are you saying that the city is happy with the planning system, the Greenheart and Stanford projects, and the city council? Silly.

I actually like your depiction of Menlo Park people acting like spoiled customers in a restaurant demanding that the restaurant fix their meals and issue a refund. That is precisely what we are doing. The restaurant belongs to the citizens of Menlo Park; they pay for the restaurant, the restaurant staff, and the food. If the restaurant gets the biggest meal of the year wrong, its managers should be fired.

Where I disagree with you is when you say that the Menlo Park public should not "ruin dinner for everyone else." It is our city; it is not for anybody else. Who are the other patrons in your metaphorical restaurant? Are you worried about Atherton? About Palo Alto? Are you upset that Menlo Park is furious at its own management and is making things unpleasant for people who do not live in our town?

As for Carpenter's complaining about outsiders from "Sacramento" having been involved in the drafting of Measure M, need I point that as a resident of Atherton he too is an outsider? Need I point out that he is not advocating the construction of five-story office buildings in his neighborhood?

I'm glad you guys like to eat in the restaurant we own and operate for ourselves. Please don't forget that it is our restaurant.


3 people like this
Posted by wcs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 23, 2014 at 8:26 am

Dear Peter and other anti M supporters- please document how the Specific Plan in it's current state - building a huge office building thing - benefits the public and residents of Menlo Park. Thank you.


2 people like this
Posted by Fiction
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 23, 2014 at 8:35 am

You are very confused.

The Lisa Wise report was ordered to study Measure M. So was the follow up report.

At least you don't try to refute anything else I said, except for an attempt to play with the metaphor I used.
Unfortunately you don't understand the metaphor either. Let me explain it to you.

I don't disagree with you the those who own the restaurant are Menlo Park taxpayers. They are the same ones who participated in the Specific Plan over 6 years with over a million dollars spent of tax payer money. And they are patrons of the restaurant who are having their meals ruined, watching a small group of residents run around and spread fear, based on fiction.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 23, 2014 at 9:05 am

Menlo Park Resident:

you need to work on your reading comprehension. Peter has not complained about "outsiders" from Sacramento. He said: "If Keith Wagner from Davis wrote Measure M then what is Save Menlo paying thousands of dollars to the Sacramento firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn for?"

Please point out where he says anything about "outsiders."


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 23, 2014 at 9:07 am

wcs:

clearly you haven't been paying attention throughout this long debate. I suggest you do a search on the Almanac site for related threads and you will find numerous ones in which a variety of us have pointed out the numerous benefits these projects will bring.


7 people like this
Posted by old timer
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 23, 2014 at 9:12 am

WCS:

Building the huge structures which Stanford and Greenheart now propose, simply doesn't benefit Menlo Park residents.

Building these structures pours millions and millions of dollars into the pockets of these developers. Why do they want to build so much office? Because that is where the big money is, that's why.

The whole root problem lies in the Specific Plan being a terrible development plan for Menlo Park. It doesn't conform to what the Menlo Park citizens wanted as the result of the Visioning process.

What the Specific Plan does conform to is,a dream world for developers; and the Vision of the Menlo Park Staff, who with the assistance of the consultant, a consultant with an obvious conflict of interest, since they were working for Stanford at the same time, drew up this monster.

All of this under the blind supervision of Council. Rich Cline who is the father of the whole concept of the specific plan, allowed all of this to take place, and here he is seeking a 3rd term as a council member. Cline, who at one time claimed to be a "residentialist", now advocates for everything dense and bigger. He should not be put back into office.

Measure M is hardly all that big of a deal. It won't come near to solving all the deficiencies of the Specific Plan, but it is a start.

Why is Greenheart pouring $200,000 in the campaign to defeat Measure M; because they will make millions and millions if they can get their monster project approved.

Vote Yes on M

Do not vote for any of the incumbents. We need a new council.


7 people like this
Posted by Menlo Park Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 23, 2014 at 9:15 am

Good try, Fiction.

Menlo Park is owned by a partnership: the people of Menlo Park. The City Council and the city administration are hired by the partnership. If the council and administration adopt policies that divide the partnership fundamentally, with a majority or even a large minority of the partners profoundly upset, the government has failed and must be replaced. Is there any business in the world where managers can ignore the interests of a large part of their ownership and not lose their jobs?

The people of Menlo Park hired managers because they are too busy with their families, jobs, and children to govern the town themselves. They pay the city council for results. You now say that the citizens should have been watching every decision made by the council and planners all along the way. That is nonsense. No one has time for that, and the managers are paid to eliminate the need for that. It is their job to anticipate the people's needs, accommodate those needs, and generate a consensus behind any major policy departures.

They have obviously failed to do that. For you step in now and say that the people of Menlo Park were derelict because they did not oversee the development of the menu, go into the kitchen and cook the meals they wanted to eat, and then serve themselves is amusing. We paid the restaurant managers to do that for us, and they have failed.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 23, 2014 at 9:30 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" building a huge office building thing"

This should be a fact based discussion.

The Specific Plan does not permit a "huge office building thing". The Stanford and Greenheart properties cannot be more than 50% office with the balance being residential and retail.

See Table E-6
Maximum FAR for Offices, inclusive
of Medical and Dental Offices One half of the Base or Public Benefit Bonus FAR,
whichever is applicable


Like this comment
Posted by No Easy Solutions
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 23, 2014 at 9:46 am

@MPR: I respect your viewpoint, but completely disagree with you comment that our city council has been derelict in executing their responsibilities. I think they have represented the diverse views of all of MP well and not just a vocal community.

@old timer: there is no difference between companies and individuals contributing money to political causes, they both have their own motives, whether you agree with it or not. Is it the size of the contribution or that they are contributing?


4 people like this
Posted by Mike Curtis
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Same old alarms, same old theme..."developers making millions" - umm, I think that's ok, that's how they make their living, that's the American way. Kepler's/Barrone's is a development, your home at one time was a development. Are you envious that "developers make millions"? How mad are you that Steve Jobs sold a little iPhone and made millions? Or Sand Hill VC's make millions? Or Stanford is worth an endowment of millions? Who cares?! "4+ story office buildings" - again, we have a couple already on ECR, and they look and feel a whole lot better than vacant blight! "No more traffic, we hate traffic" - we all hate traffic, but get a grip, the traffic we have now is traveling THRU Menlo Park, this won't change regardless of what we put there. I am thoroughly convinced, and have seen this in the 20+ years of living here, this is all a ruse to delay, delay, delay. Delay = empty theater lot, empty Derry Project, empty car dealerships.....I think the Menlo Park resident, once they study this issue, will see the annual ruse this has become.


7 people like this
Posted by curious
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 24, 2014 at 8:41 am

I participated in the community workshops. The way I see it, we residents told the city what kind of development we wanted, and the city hired consultants who worked with staff to create detailed rules that could lead to a totally different kind of development and totally different kind of resulting town. Residents trusted them to define rules that would support their vision. This is bait and switch in my book. I do not blame developers; they always act in their own self interest. But I do blame council and staff for not supporting the residents' vision.

Seems to me that the Measure M folks want what was requested by the community. They want to hold the city to that, and Yes on M is the only way left.

Borrowing from the restaurant analogy: Residents designed and are funding a restaurant that was to serve healthy, well-balanced meals that would nourish children and adults. New managers took over and decided to serve high-calorie, nutrient-low food. They are upset that the original owners (residents) want them to serve nourishing well-balanced meals.


7 people like this
Posted by old timer
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 24, 2014 at 9:14 am

Curious:

Your posting right above, is absolutely a reflection of the true situation. What became the Specific Plan fails in so many ways to reflect what was the conclusion of the Visioning Process. This after spending $1.8 million and another $165,000 to defend the plan via the "Wise report".

Why did this happen?

Well the City changed consultants after the Visioning process. The new consultant was at the same time working for Stanford; talk about a conflict of interest.

Then Councilman Cline, who was asked repeatedly about having a public meeting before the plan went out to EIR, flat out refused to hold such a meeting. Now he is asking voters to elect him to a 3rd term, after his dismal performance in office. And to top it off, he announces, the big reason he is running is because he wanted to oppose Kelly Fergusson, when she decided to run. It is too bad MP doesn't have a two term limit, but such is not the case. Menlo Park Voters should not vote for Cline.

We will now see if Menlo Park voters can be "bought off" by the big money interests of Greenheart. We don't know if Stanford has also been putting funds into the attempt to defeat Measure M, because it is quite possible Stanford, has been pouring money into Greenheart LLC, whose membership and funding are unknown.

Vote Yes on Measure M

We need a new council. Do not vote for the incumbents.


Like this comment
Posted by wcs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2014 at 10:50 am

Dear Peter and Menlo Voter,

Actually, I've been watching the conversation so closely that it's clear neither of you have ever answered the question. Again.
Please document the benefits of the Specific Plan to the residents of Menlo Park. Thank you.


3 people like this
Posted by wcs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2014 at 10:55 am

Reelect the same people. Get the same results.


1 person likes this
Posted by XYiVP
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2014 at 11:02 am

Still waiting for the consultant that was to be hired to do an impact study on the Specific Plan.


3 people like this
Posted by TK
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 24, 2014 at 11:53 am

Feel bad for Mueller. He is true a moderate getting smushed in the middle. Appreciate what he is trying to do.
He is quietly moving the needle towards reasonableness while everyone fights, calls names and draws lines in the sand.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm

WCS:

how's this for just one benefit, a huge increase in property taxes collected on the Stanford and Greenheart properties after they're developed? That's one Peter and I have put out there multiple times before. Just goes to show you HAVEN'T been paying attention or you would have seen that one. Along with many others that have been posted. Do a search and read the threads.


Like this comment
Posted by video
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm

TK wrote, "everyone fights, calls names and draws lines in the sand"

That meeting was recorded, and nothing you describe happened.


Like this comment
Posted by Gern
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Oct 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Gern is a registered user.

"That meeting was recorded, and nothing you describe happened."

@video, I don't know believe TK was referring to any meeting but rather to the rancor found in this forum and elsewhere online. I could be wrong, but what makes you think a specific meeting is the context of TK's comment?

Gern


Like this comment
Posted by video
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 24, 2014 at 1:22 pm

Gern, the story we are all commenting on is written about a meeting. Contrary to TK's comment, the meeting was uneventful.


Like this comment
Posted by Morris Brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Video and others:

You can view the Council's discussion on this subject at:

Web Link

(about 15 minute discussion)

I wouldn't call the meeting uneventful. They have set to have a study session on Public Benefits for Jan or at the latest Feb.


Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 24, 2014 at 3:19 pm

It's obvious TK meant the environment in the City and not in one specific meeting.

@video is trying to make TK into a liar for making a kind comment.

That's ironic given the substance of TK's statement, isn't it?


1 person likes this
Posted by curious
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 24, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Isn't it true that the property taxes are about the same for new buildings regardless of their use, but that offices don't produce sales or hotel taxes? The city is counting on the tax revenue forecast in the plan. Offices don't even pay for their costs to the city. The Plan is supposed to produce <$2 million/yr.


Like this comment
Posted by No Easy Solutions
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 24, 2014 at 4:32 pm

@curious: Revenue from retail is not going to work without people. Building retail and hoping people will come is a pie in the sky business strategy. Retail chases foot traffic. The retails in MP are having a difficult time already and adding more retail without people is not going to work. Office and residential will add more consumers.

Hotels are great for generating additional revenue and has a multiplier effect. However, hotels needs steady revenue from business travelers. What encourages business travel? Companies that are growing and needing office space.

The by-product of all this economic activity is traffic. Revenue, traffic, residential, office, hotel, are interconnected issues and complex. Zoning is a complex subject.

I don't see how Yes on M helps with this as it does not change the public benefit threshold, improve traffic, and requires city wide votes for future changes to the language.


Like this comment
Posted by video
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Jack, I was only pointing out that TK, comment, "everyone fights, calls names and draws lines in the sand", is not relevant to this meeting.


Like this comment
Posted by curious
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 24, 2014 at 5:35 pm

I've been persuaded that less office means less commuter traffic, means less rush hour traffic when problems are the worst.

If projects have housing, which both the Stanford, Greenehart, Roger Reynolds projects do, then there will be new people. Offices don't have people in the evenings and weekends. In fact, they are dead space. Offices for startups have people who don't have money (they're startups, remember). Hotels downtown can serve Sand Hill Rd and Stanford, and are a nicer place to be than on a freeway.
City consultants have confirmed the financial impacts. Offices don't provide city revenue like retail and hotel do.


Like this comment
Posted by wcs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2014 at 6:03 pm

Dear Menlo Voter,

Enough with the rudeness and bullying.

We already have a very nice tax base. And what has that done for us lately?
Oh right, we've got some new plants downtown and a lot of parking signage and traffic cameras to collect revenue. (BTW, who decided we wanted those cameras?) We're looking so much more welcoming and "vibrant."

If you can, please document the LIST of benefits of the SP. Measure M exists only because residents who participated in the process in good faith experienced bait and switch.

At this point, I have no idea what the impact of the Specific Plan or Measure M will have on all of us. And I know I'm not alone.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

wcs:

I'm tired of doing others' homework for them. If you want to know the benefits spend some time researching and reading. It's been posted multiple times all over these blogs. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Good citizenship takes effort. Try expending some.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 24, 2014 at 6:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Measure M exists only because a few residents did not get what THEY wanted.

So now the taxpayers are paying for an expensive election to give them the same result.

And in the meantime important projects and needed improvements have been put on hold.


Like this comment
Posted by wcs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2014 at 6:15 pm

Gosh, you guys say that to everyone who challenges you. And yet you're not tired of contributing to the endless, circular speculation, bullying and fear mongering.


Like this comment
Posted by wcs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm

"Measure M exists only because a few residents did not get what THEY wanted.

So now the taxpayers are paying for an expensive election to give them the same result.

And in the meantime important projects and needed improvements have been put on hold."

Bait and switch.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Tokyo ramen shop to open first U.S. outpost in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 22 comments | 4,113 views

It’s Not Someone Else’s Responsibility to Honor My Marriage . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 782 views

Babywearing
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 764 views

 

Meet the winners!

The results are in. Check out The Almanac readers' favorite foods, services and fun stuff in the area.

View Winners