I find Ms. Johnck's (Mrs. Steve Schmidt) remarks to be quite candid and refreshing. For too long the other side has been marching in lock-step to a former mayor's (Not Steve)direction. Now we are having independent rational thinking and this is good for the city. I heartily endorse Ms. Johnck's remarks. She speaks the truth.

Having been an observer of Menlo Park politics for 20+ years now, this latest crew that is in office, in our town, is extremely one-sided, and polarizing. There is just no way for this crew to compromise, or even consider another opinion. We have seen this physically with the problems on El Camino Real, "if it ain't green, it ain't gettin' built", the Derry Project, the pool,
the recent "no compromising, give them everything they ask for" pay of the police officers, the Bayfront Park issue, where citizens wanted to use a VERY small part of the park for ball fields, but alas, no compromising, the new BulletTrain proposal - nope, let's not discuss with the 57% of the people that want it in Menlo Park, let's just sue them! Something has to give Mr. Robinson, let's start working together, and respect other people's opinions.

By this logic, Boyle should be on every subcommittee. I am not sure if that is Brielle's position, but the logic of the argument makes that underlying commitment. I think that is poor logic or, to be more kind, over simplifying the issue. To my knowledge, Boyle has a seat on the visioning subcommittee and the finance subcommittee (there may be others I don't know) and there has been a fair representation.

Brielle may argue the point here that since Kelly and Rich have supported litigation, it means they are anti-HSR. That is another poor representation or over-simplification.

I think Brielle has selective memory to be honest. I can remember when her boy Steve was on council and he voted to have Paul Collacchi and Mary Jo Borak represent Menlo Park to talk with Stanford about Sand Hill Road widening and both Paul and Mary were voiciferous in their opposition.

I happened to agree that those two should represent us against Stanford to make sure we are standing firm. And I see no reason why that logic doesn't fit here.

Let's at least try to be consistent, Brielle. Flipping and flopping gets us nowhere.

"..Bayfront Park issue, where citizens wanted to use a VERY small part of the park for ball fields, but alas, no compromising..."

The voters stomped all over Measure J, realizing it was just a ploy. How about respecting their opinions.

Truthfully, "stomped all over Measure J" was a classic example of marketing gone wild! I have to hand it to that crew that passed out literature with open leaking oil drums claiming to "protect our children". That was a great 5th Avenue Scam. Now we sit here, 2 years later, with a very limited number of ballfields, and an old dump for our dogs to dump in. Nice.

Not Straight At All:

You conveniently forgot something else there - the Bayfront golf course proposal fiasco, when even the DEVELOPER had to admit that ballfields at Bayfront were a pipe dream.

Ms. Johnck's letter gets it right, well said! Times are changing and Mayor Robinson needs to face reality and accept that the majority of people in Menlo Park voted Yes for High Speed Rail.

I disagree with truth's statements about logic of the letter and that Ms. Johnck (Brielle) is guilty of an oversimplification regarding Ms. Fergusson's and Mr. Cline's positions on HSR. She did not say they were anti-HSR, she stated the fact that they voted to join a lawsuit challenging the environmental review of the train's route between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. I myself interpret this to mean that while Councilmembers Fergusson and Cline may or may not support HSR in theory, they are not supportive of HSR as it has been agreed to and voted yes to by the public. Personally, I want to have access to the high speed rail system from Menlo Park when it is built, and I want it built as soon as possible. So having a Menlo Park sub-committee that is going to cooperate with the other HSR partners to bring about a successful project is important. I hope our sub-committee will put their personal opinions aside and work towards this goal, and I believe they will. As President Obama said in is inaugeration, we must now set aside childish things and work for the good of all, not just special interests. (As for the logic comment truth, Mr. Cline is on the El Camino visioning committee I think, so I didn't get your point).

I also disagree with (and find somewhat offensive) truth's comments regarding the past council actions during negotiations with Stanford over Sand Hill Road. The situations are not analogous. Menlo Park voters had elected the City Council members who openly opposed Stanford's plans, but once the road deal was final the city council members put that aside, rolled up their sleeves and worked with engineers to make sure we had a working intersection at Santa Cruz and Sand Hill. This is not flip flopping, truth quit flipping out flop.

Good Lord. Why waste time debating crazy.

[Portion removed]
Brielle's hubby Schmidt couldn't get Collachi and Borak to roll over for Stanford on Sand Hill widening (they voted against it!).
They knew that SS had sold out to Stanford, and the so called widening of Santa Cruz/Sand Hill would only facilitate Stanford's expansionist plans. Have you tried driving from ECR to Santa Cruz on SH, note the dozen uncoordinated signals that have NOT diverted cut through traffic from West Menlo streets (as the SH EIR so aptly predicted).
Now, we see the expansion of that "regionalism" theme with SS's undying advocacy of the HSR.
Easy for you and Brielle to chastise Mayor Robinson when you don't have to suffer from aggressive cut through drivers, and the upcoming devastating impact on homeowners adjoining the HSR corridor.

Lest we forget, Jellins was the only council member who expressed concern about the cut through traffic impact on West Menlo neighborhoods in the final council discussion of the SH widening project. Schmidt casually dismissed it as so much "cut through traffic" fears by a few inconsequential residents . SH has not proven to divert "cut through" traffic from West Menlo streets. It has only facilitated Stanford's SH development ambitions in the corridor.

Cooperative spirit! Are you kidding me? Cooperative spirit! Don't talk to me about cooperative spirit. This is Menlo Park--cooperative spirit? When, ever?