|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When in doubt, vote no on “V”
The original motivation propelling Menlo Park’s Measure V was concern about a housing proposal for the Flood School site. With a new state law regulating school site housing, the Flood School site is now exempt from the provisions of Measure V.
Yet Measure V is still on the ballot. What should we do?
Measure V was drafted quickly in response to an urgent situation. Apparently there was no time for community meetings or public hearings that could have informed the drafting of the measure. While written by an attorney, the measure was not crafted by a specialist in land use law.
Thus, Measure V faces a greater risk of running up against another law; commonly known as the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” As voters, we need to stop and ponder: Do we really want to be voting on zoning matters – on top of all the other ballot initiatives – at every regular election, forever?
If people do not trust their City Council members, they typically support other candidates. That’s what is happening right now in Portola Valley. Yet, in Menlo Park, two of the three incumbents are running unopposed for reelection – including the council member representing the Flood School site neighborhood.
When it comes to ballot measures, my brother-in-law has always advised, “When in doubt, vote no.” To me, a conservative decision would be to preserve the status quo by voting “No” on Measure V.
Gordon Lewin
Former board member of the Menlo Park City and Sequoia Union High school districts
Support Mary Hufty for Portola Valley Town Council
In the Almanac’s recent editorial comments about Mary Hufty, you missed the mark. Her skills as a family physician make her a valuable candidate for Portola Valley Town council. What you failed to explore is her skill as a great listener, and her abilities to probe all sides of an issue, a skill necessary to become a successful family physician. Her style is to carefully and quietly use a steady hand with a goal for reconciliation. Mary is spot-on in recognizing Town problems. There is concern that the town staff and leadership are reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and advice of volunteer committees and residents. Volunteers are a great resource. Many can provide professional expertise at no expense to the town. Mary knows that resident volunteerism has been the soul and strength of Portola Valley’s successful government.
For many years I have been a volunteer donating my time and knowledge to work on geology problems in the town, and I am an original member of the town’s Geologic Safety Committee. I have stayed out of town politics. Several years ago, my son and I corrected the location of the 1906 trace of the San Andreas fault in the town and corrected the geology of Coal Mine Ridge. We worked with the town’s geologist at the time. Our work resulted in updating part of the town’s geologic map in 2017 and a report that was published in a major peer-reviewed journal. That project was a good experience, even though it consumed a great deal of time.
Times have changed. Recently, after starting to study geology of the Wedge project site, in a phone conversation from a town lawyer, we were aggressively requested to not study the site. That was discouraging, and an odd request when geologic safety is involved. There was a reluctant admission that individuals of the town can do their own studies. The town should find ways to make the wheels of government work to utilize the benefits that volunteers can provide.
Yes, problems do exist between volunteers, town staff and leadership. The town needs a council member who is willing to listen and work in tandem with residents and town staff. Mary Hufty has these skills, and her gentle and patient demeanor will provide reconciliation and a civil government.
Chester Wrucke
Cima Way, Portola Valley
Former opponents support Mueller for supervisor
We were on the campaign trail with Ray Mueller and his current opponent and believe he is the best candidate to represent us in District 3 on the Board of Supervisors. In fact, we have both endorsed him because he is much more experienced than his opponent to ensure that government works for all of us.
Ray shared our stance of being against the Supervisors’ proposed parcel tax. His opponent didn’t. Voting your pocketbook is not something to sneeze at now when there is continued economic uncertainty and working families must do more to make ends meet when the cost of goods like groceries and gas continue to increase.
Ray has leadership skills that are gained from experience. Being in public office for a decade, versus his opponent’s not even serving one term on her city council, shows Ray’s commitment to his community. Making tough decisions and doing the people’s work means that not everyone will like or agree with you. Communicating directly with constituents and stakeholders, instead of through fake polls and identity politics, means being directly in touch with communities and understanding their needs. Gaining the respect of constituents for finding common ground to solve problems comes from doing the work. Ray has the experience to represent us and deserves our vote to be our next Supervisor. Please vote for Ray Mueller for Supervisor.
Virginia Chang Kiraly and Steven Booker
Laura Parmer-Lohan leads on campaign funding
She’s done it again! Councilwoman Laura Parmer-Lohan has outraised her opponent for
San Mateo County supervisor this year in the latest campaign finance reports. Not only has Laura been the leading fundraiser in this race this year, but she has also been up and down the district listening to residents’ concerns, identifying unique community needs and leading in the fight to address the devastating effects of drought and to protect women’s health and reproductive rights.
The fundraising reports show that Laura has broad-based grassroots support with more total contributions this year. Unlike the evidence in her opponent’s report, she does not have heavy special interest funding. And in contrast to her opponent who appears to be in the pocket of big developers pushing huge traffic-worsening and water-wasting projects that we don’t need, Laura’s financial support derives from neighbors across the district. I urge you to read the reports.
Laura will not be bought and is leading this race. We need a proven leader like Laura who understands and values the interests of our diverse and unique communities. Her priorities include:
• Reducing the impacts of drought
• Investing in wildfire prevention
• Protecting our coastline, beaches, open spaces, and water resources
• Fighting for reproductive freedom
Laura is the only candidate endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and CAL FIRE – she deserves your vote.
Sandra Schatz
San Carlos
All I have to do is look at who’s financing each side to know which one has my interests in mind as a home owner and tax payer in Menlo Park. The NO side is backed by big developers, a wealthy woman who doesn’t even live in Menlo Park (what’s her interest???), and housing advocates from elsewhere in California. The YES side is funded by small donations from families in Menlo Park.
I would encourage people to offset the NO organizers votes, but they can’t even vote in Menlo Park!
The way to vote is really very clear. When in doubt, vote with your neighbors and not with wealthy corporations and special interests.
I hope San Mateo County will take it from a long-time resident of Ray Mueller’s city, Menlo Park. The only thing Ray has been consistent about is changing his mind. He changes positions as often as he changes socks, and always calculating what will get him “more” politically. The people of Menlo Park can’t count on him. The people of San Mateo won’t be able to either. Vote Laura Parmer-Lohan
@Menlo Lifestyle,
A lot of your Menlo Park neighbors seem to have decided, for various reasons, that Measure V is a bad idea. When I last checked, the No on V campaign had support from close to 200 donors, representing just about every neighborhood in Menlo Park (including D5 resident, voter, and former Housing Commissioner Karen Grove).
Menlo Lifestyle:
If choosing how you vote is based on who is backing a particular side, I’d say that’s a pretty ignorant and uninformed way of picking a side. If this is how little effort you put into understanding an issue as complex as planning and zoning, perhaps you can understand how people might think putting those kinds of decisions in the hands of people like you that can’t be bothered to make an informed decision is a bad idea.
Menlo Lifestyle, please don’t mislead people into thinking Laura Parmer-Lohan supports Measure V.
Laura Parmer-Lohan has officially endorsed No On Measure V and appears in the No On V campaign literature.
https://www.protectteacherhousing.org/endorsements
Yes Sobrato Construction gave $50,000 for the No on V campaign (they want to make as much money off Menlo Park high density development as they can) and Karen Gvore also donated a huge sum of money (I believe $50,000). Keep in Mind that she advocated for developing High Density housing in our city parks (Sharon Heights and Burgess). So I think the funding says a lot.
What is not obvious is that Measure V is not against Teacher Housing, and the No on V is not in favor of teacher housing, they just like to try and press that hot button. The development that set off Measure V in Flood Park has 0 units set aside for teachers. The Yes on V backers were open to negotiating a smaller development with dedicated teacher housing and they were turned down. This development, that has not been submitted to the city, could have up to 300 units of housing. It is being developed by a developer for profit, not for teachers.
Read the information about the measure in the voter guide and look into the developer and the project that they want to build in a small neighborhood with one way in and out (Bay Road). People need to step in and stop our current city council from approving rezoning over the objections of the neighbors. Vote Yes on Measure V
Brian:
This project hasn’t even been submitted. The issue of access can be addressed after it is as can all of the other issues. The fire department has a big say about access, especially for a project of this density. If the access doesn’t meet their requirements and can’t be met, the project is dead. It doesn’t take measure V to address these issues. It takes the normal planning process.
NO on V.
Menlo Voter,
you are right, this project has not been submitted yet, so why is it being called “Pro Teacher” when it has not committed to being for teacher housing? Also they can come back and submit plans for up to 300 units which is the number they can get by offering “low income” housing. And while you want to depend on the fire department and the city council I am not so confident they will do the right thing. This measure is about protecting neighborhoods and who better to do that than the resident of Menlo Park. I know you don’t trust the voters in Menlo to make good decisions, however I do. I trust them more that I trust 3 people with an agenda.
Brian,
1) Why wouldn’t it be for teachers? The project RCSD wants to submit is for below-market-rate housing. Teachers and staff qualify, they’ve expressed interest, and Ravenswood teacher turnover rates are high. A recent analysis found that the mismatch between teacher salaries and local housing costs in the Ravenswood District is the worst in the entire state of California (which is saying something). And Ravenswood has guaranteed that teachers and staff will get first dibs, not just when the development initially opens, but for the life of the ground lease (90 years). http://www.ravenswoodschools.org/Choose-Ravenswood/Facilities/Facilities-Planning/Additional-Information-About-the-Former-Flood-School-Site-/index.html
2) No, it can’t be 300 units. Given the zoning that council put forward in the draft housing element update, the max that Ravenswood could develop at that site (even counting all the bonus densities for affordable housing) is 90 units, if and only if they are all deed-restricted below-market-rate housing.
3) The Sobratos don’t develop small-scale housing a la Flood. They’ve never shown interest in developing R1 land. Their company has plenty of projects with the city that are proceeding and would be unaffected by Measure V. And the individual family members who contributed to the No on V campaign are significant philanthropists. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2022/3/17/the-personal-and-the-collective-how-three-generations-of-the-billionaire-sobrato-family-give
4) Big developers probably don’t care much about Measure V but they are likely to care about whether or not we have a compliant housing element. Here’s what they can do if we don’t: https://smdp.com/2022/10/12/new-15-story-project-automatically-approved-due-to-late-housing-element/
Katie,
It is for Profit and being developed by a For Profit developer. If it is for teacher housing then why won’t they specifically set aside units for teachers. There was a compromise proposed where it was limited to 60 units with 50% set aside for teachers, this was rejected by the district and the developer, Why?
Ravenswood just got a parcel tax passed, maybe they should give raises to the teachers? In the past the district mismanaged funds and spent money hiring family members and building laundry facilities, maybe it would be better to give the teachers a living wage?
The council is very pro high density housing, including keeping the development of high density housing in our parks as an option until outrage by residents forced them to back off (while keeping a lot of loopholes in their resolution). I do not trust the current council to not approve a massive development at Flood, that is why we need to pass Measure V.
Sobrato has donated over $50,000 to the No on V campaign. They do development around Menlo Park and there are other properties affected by V that they could be interested in. I am sure they did not give that money out of the kindness of their hearts, they want to build and make profits.
Join me in Voting for Measure V.
Why? Because this is about preserving Daylight Plane – and angle at which sunlight reaches your property or is blocked by a higher adjacent project.
I’ve encountered these artifacts – and others – often as a former planning commissioner – that affect your quiet enjoyment (legalese) of your home.
I see the No on Measure V is using their war chest provided by the Sobrato’s (a huge for-profit developer) and Karen Grove (who advocated for high density housing in our city parks) to spam mail people in Menlo. I believe it comes down to this: Do you like the neighborhood you live in? Do you oppose high density housing built in your neighborhood? If you answered yes they you should also vote YES on Measure V. Don’t believe the misleading information against Measure V, it is not “Pro-Teacher Housing” as not one unit is set aside for teachers. They say they will give teachers the first opportunity to rent the low income units if they quality. That is no “Pro Teacher” that is just marketing.
Will they commit to to more units of low income dedicated to teachers? Nope, they rejected that. The development that started Measure V is a For Profit high density housing project.
“Do you like the neighborhood you live in? Do you oppose high density housing built in your neighborhood? ”
If you answered yes then vote No on Measure V because the city wide vote requirement in Measure V will ensure that a single high density development in someone else’s neighborhood will be overwhelming approved by voters in all the other neighborhood because it will reduce the need to build such housing in their neighborhood. And under Measure V that decision will not be appealable!
The current due process system of public hearings and decision making by the Planning Commission and the City Council has lots of checks and balances. Measure V has none.
The Flood school site will be rezoned with or without Measure V and under Measure V there will be no limit on the number of units that are built on that site nor any appeal to what might be approved by a city wide vote.
Ps – I would welcome an explanation by the Measure V proponents as to how they think they could win a city wide election to deny the upzoning of the Flood school site.
And what they would do if they lost that vote given that Measure V does not provide for any appeal to such a city wide vote.
Measure V states (..shall not be redesignated or rezoned except by a vote of the people of the City of Menlo Park at a regular election”.)
Note Measure V does not state that only the city can place such a measure on the ballot but it does take away the city’s right to do such a rezoning and gives that right solely to the voters. Watch out what you wish for!!
So Measure V passes and then the widely supported and well funded effort by Menlo Balance places on the ballot a rezoning of the Flood school site that permits 120 units on the site. There is no way that the impacted Suburban Park residents could effectively counter the Menlo Balance advocates and resources and there would be no way for them to appeal the outcome of such an election.
I am against Measure V because it is poorly written and not well thought out. It will result in numerous unintended consequences. And governing by measure and proposition is a stupid way to govern.
It is those unintended consequences that the schadenfreude in me has me wanting it to pass, just so the people that wrote it can suffer the consequences when a citywide vote approves up zoning for 90 units. 4/5 of the city will vote for it because it isn’t in their neighborhood and they will get to pat themselves on the back for helping with the housing shortage AND not having it in their neighborhoods. The authors of this measure will have no recourse because they wrote it so they don’t. Effectively screwing themselves.
Another very interesting scenario emerges.
1 – Measure V passes
2 – Since the city no longer has rezoning authority it is unable to submit a HCD compliant housing plan
3 – The “builder’s remedy” kicks in. This is a 1990 amendment to the Housing Accountability Act informally called the “builder’s remedy” which says that “noncompliant cities must allow housing at any density and any height, anywhere in the city, as long as at least 20% of the new homes are affordable.”
“All Bay Area cities have until Jan. 31, 2023, to certify a compliant housing element. Until last week, many cities, including San Francisco, incorrectly assumed they had a “grace period“ of a further 120 days before penalties started.
They don’t.
These cities will likely be unprepared to submit a compliant plan before Jan. 31. If that happens, builder’s remedy applications would open on Feb. 1.”
4 – RCSD submits a plan for 150 units in a 5 story complex on the Flood site with 20% being affordable.
5 – the fun begins
Correction:
So Measure V passes and then the widely supported and well funded effort by Menlo Park Neighbors for Affordable Homes (MPNAH) places on the ballot a rezoning of the Flood school site that permits 120 units on the site. There is no way that the impacted Suburban Park residents could effectively counter the Menlo Park Neighbors for Affordable Homes (MPNAH) advocates and resources and there would be no way for them to appeal the outcome of such an election.
I have come out many times opposing Measure V, It takes away our time-honored traditions and the well-thought-out practice that got us to where we are today, With City Council and Planning Commission representation and all the processes that go along with that. If they don’t do a good job vote them out. Also, just play it out if canceling Representative Government was applied to all things we face as a community. It would be ugly.
For the record I would support a reduced number of units on the Flood School Site, I think you would get much more support through our current process than a city-wide vote. If it goes to a city-wide vote. you’re on your own,
well we know how Peter, Brian and Menlo Voter are voting. (well not Peter since he is not an affected resident, just an interloper on this one)
they’ve posted over 2/3 of the comments here (and many more elsewhere on the subject). perhaps you should all meet for coffee (except Menlo Voter, since he always hides, as he fears being outed as he is always pointing out) and talk about this.
it appears as if you all have lots to say….and give the rest of us a break.
Roy Thiele-Sardina
“well not Peter since he is not an affected resident, just an interloper on this one)”
Hardly. I live in Menlo Park (Park Forest) and have lived in Suburban Park. Park Forest was annexed into Menlo Park in the last century.
Roy – It is always useful to get your facts right before you post.
Roy:
if you don’t like reading what we post, don’t. Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or just more ad hominems?