Town Square

Post a New Topic

CFPPC dismisses ridiculuous Peter Carpenter complaint.

Original post made by old timer, Menlo Park: Downtown, on Jun 3, 2014

Nice to see that the California Fair Political Practices commission has quickly dismissed the complaint that Atherton resident Peter Carpenter made against SaveMeno.

Mr. Carpenter has been constantly trolling against the SaveMenlo initiative and advocating for letting Stanford and other developers build higher and denser projects, which is certainly what the visioning process for the Specific Plan did not intend.

Maybe this ruling, issued in a very short period of about 2 weeks will do something to silence him a bit.

(article in the just out print edition of the Almanac June 4 2014 page 7)

Comments (4)

Like this comment
Posted by Gern
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:41 pm

I note that the Almanac staff appear to have arbitrarily disabled anonymous comments midstream on the related "State commission declines to investigate Save Menlo classification" thread, likely at Peter Carpenter's urging. If that practice continues this forum will grow very quiet, save for the inexorable thrumming of Peter's own efforts, of course. Sad,


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:45 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"likely at Peter Carpenter's urging."

No, the editors do not consult with me on their decisions.

"his forum will grow very quiet" primarily because the Lanza/Fry initiative supporters REFUSE to answer any questions.

Like this comment
Posted by old timer
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jun 5, 2014 at 5:56 pm

In a related thread, Peter Carpenter wrote:

"Sadly I think I understand the Lanza/Fry initiative even better than do its authors."

My my what an EGO and what arrogance from Peter Carpenter.

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 5, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Old timer - why don't YOU answer these questions:

1 – They say it is wrong to use up most of the office capacity allowed by the Specifc Plan in the first two years and that instead it should be spread out over a 30-year period. If you owned a parcel and wanted to build a totally conforming ten-room home should you be forced to build it one room each year for the next ten years ?

2 – Save Menlo got everything they asked for in its original petition and Stanford agreed to almost all of their demands. So why are you now asking for even more and how much will be enough to satisfy you?

3 – Would Save Menlo Park members be willing to say who they really are? How many members they actually have?

4 – Do you really believe that definitions written today:

""Financial institutions providing retail banking services.This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on site circulation of money,including credit unions."The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters"

""Offices of firms or organizations providing professional,executive,management,or administrative services,such as accounting,advertising,architectural,computer software design,engineering,graphic design, insurance, interior design,investment,and legal offices. This classification excludes hospitals, banks,and savings and loan associations."The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

will still be appropriate even five years from now and if they are not that there should be an election to change even one word of such definitions? What about digital age banks that do not engage in the on site circulation of money? What about a firm that wants to design robots?

5 – Who is the lawyer who helped draft this initiative and what other interests does he represent?

6 – Who is funding this effort?

7 – Do Menlo Park citizens realize that under the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative small property owners on ECR will be restricted to 70% of their current footprint for any new/replacement construction and that the currently permitted construction to their the side lot lines would not be permitted?

8 – Do MP citizens realize that the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative will prevent the construction of a new fire station serving the downtown area?

9 – Do MP citizens know that signatures are being obtained using paid solicitors?

10 – Do MP citizens know that claims of 6 story buildings being either permitted or proposed under the Specific Plan are simply untrue and that the tallest building proposed by Stanford is only FOUR feet taller than the existing building at the corner of ECR and Live Oak Drive?

11 – Do MP citizens know that a major new hotel project decided not to locate in Menlo Park because of the uncertainties created by the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative?

12 – What are the other unknown and unintended (or perhaps deliberately intended) consequences of the totally unvetted Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative?

13 – Do MP citizens believe that Mike Lanza, Patti Fry and their anonymous lawyer, without any public comment, without multiple drafts, without a Draft and a Final EIR and without numerous public hearings, are really better able to define the future of your city than are your five elected city council members and your seven appointed planning commissioners and the superb city planning and transportation staff that have all worked diligently and totally in the open to produce the existing Specific Plan?

14 – Do MP citizens know that the traffic levels on ECR were significantly reduced from those permitted by the prior zoning when the Specific Plan was adopted?

15 – Do the MP citizens know that the original Stanford proposal would have produced less traffic than was was permitted by the Specific Plan?

16 – Do the MP citizens know that, as a consequence of the work of the Keith/Carlton subcommittee, that the traffic that would have been produced by the revised Stanford plan was even less than that of the original Stanford plan?

17 – What was the date and the time of the ECR traffic photo being used by Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative campaign?

18- What authority does the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative campaign have to use the City of Menlo Park's copyrighted logo?

19 – The Planning Commission and the City Council did a review of the Specific Plan last Fall so this raises the question: Which of the 20+ changes to the Specific Plan that are included in the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their public consideration during the 2013 review of the Specific Plan?

20 - Is this initiative process simply being used to gather names, support and name recognition for Lanza and/or Fry to run for the City Council this year? If it is, will Lanza and Fry reimburse the City for the cost of putting this issue on the ballot.?

I welcome answers to these questions from Lanza and Fry – or others.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 4,017 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,281 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 904 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 320 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 280 views