|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
League of Women Voters encourages ‘No’ vote on Measure V
The League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County opposes Menlo Park Measure V.
The mission of the League of Women Voters is to make democracy work and to support effective representative democracy. In eliminating a function of elected City Council representatives to make zoning changes and instead put zoning changes to a public vote, Measure V reduces the effectiveness of city government.
Our league has adopted a full range of housing positions. We oppose Measure V for the following specific reasons, which are based on those positions.
• Election requirements are a barrier to new housing and thereby can increase the cost and uncertainty of housing proposals. Our league believes Menlo Park needs new housing and, therefore, needs to avoid barriers and added costs to housing production.
• The measure does nothing to moderate or otherwise affect the demand for housing. Our league believes there needs to be a balance between job-generating land uses and housing supply. This measure does not provide any means or measures that result in a balance. Our league believes the city of Menlo Park can do better to balance both and believes that there are options to minimize potential negative impacts while meeting housing demand throughout the city.
• The state and pro-housing groups have acted to not only eliminate barriers to housing construction but also to limit local discretionary decision-making. The proposed measure risks such future nullification.
We understand that Measure V came to be out of frustration with the consideration of one housing project. We believe Measure V is not the solution to this frustration. We support higher densities along major transportation routes and believe development should be guided by an adopted general plan and supporting zoning rules that are regularly reviewed for consistency. We believe Menlo Park could do better with its general plan and zoning regulations.
We encourage robust public engagement regarding potential zoning changes as well as related development regulations and design standards that minimize impacts on adjacent uses.
Our league would welcome forums to examine the entire city job production capacity and housing options to create a balance as well as to identify development regulations and design standards that minimize impacts. We would join with the city, other community organizations and neighborhood groups in support of such forums.
Connie Guerrero is president of the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County
Measure V protects residents from high-density development
It’s not surprising when residents, even volunteer council members, misunderstand a zoning issue. The ramifications of a zoning ordinance – like the one that defines single family neighborhoods – seem shrouded in complexity, and it’s hard to know for sure when something isn’t more than it says.
It helps to know that Menlo Park, like other Bay Area cities, is required by the state to identify areas where dense housing (apartments) can be built in the next eight-year cycle. So staff searches the zoning maps looking for something to change. Large lots near the train station or in shuttle-served new development areas are smart. Small lots tucked in more remote neighborhoods get thrown in too, as self-described housing advocates say new apartments need to be spread around the city. The council is under pressure to find as many lots as possible.
Measure V is much simpler than these advocates would have you believe. Foremost, it doesn’t “block” anything, including dense (apartments) housing. It does require a confirming vote if developers or the City Council (or more accurately, three council members) want to upzone a lot without regard for the residents in that neighborhood.
So far, the test case and original trigger for Measure V is that the owners of a lot nestled within Suburban Park want to build a whole lot of apartments, in conflict with long-existing zoning. Ninety, instead of 12 or so, among these typical small, 5,000 square-foot lots. The owners, the Ravenswood School District, asked a developer (Alliant Strategic) to build a money-making project, the biggest they could fit. But they told the press it would be “100% affordable housing.” They also said flatly that the units are not reserved for teachers or staff, and that they have a goal of profiting off the development, which would suggest market rate units. Huh?
The neighbors would have been OK with 60 units crammed in there – hardly a NIMBY reaction, the equivalent of five homes on their typical lot. And these wouldn’t be just two-story buildings, they’d be at least four stories. Oh, and there’s no “minimum size” project to pencil out. Local developers would build any number, 12, 45, 60, 78, 90 – it all works. And now state law says 78 units will fit without a zoning change if it’s for teachers and staff.
So what kind of project, affordable or revenue? It can’t be both. I’ve managed just such projects, I know the math. But three council members – all part of Karen Grove’s Menlo Together clique – already signaled they would push through this zoning change for 90 units.
This is why neighbors need Measure V. Peter Ohtaki understands this because he served on council back when neighbors were heard (he’s running again for council). Our town should not be a dictatorship by clique. That’s why you deserve to vote before a hamfisted “housing solution” is wedged into your neighborhood.
When you read an expensive campaign flyer saying Measure V is “aimed at teachers,” don’t buy the Menlo Together clique spin. Measure V is your chance to vote, nothing more or less.
Henry Riggs is a Menlo Park resident, an architect and construction manager, and has served on the Menlo Park Planning Commission since 2005.
Dictatorship by clique?
That is offensive and condescending. If I didn’t already have a list of reasons why I’m voting No, that comment alone would push me to vote against whatever that commenter was supporting. That article was full of petty, versus the one from LWV which matched their opposition to clear long held positions. Housing is a basic human need and it is incumbent on those of us fortunate enough to have comfortable, stable housing to help ensure others can have something better than unstable or non-existant. Our councilmembers, one and all, are thoughtful, diligent and seek the best path forward for ALL the residents of our city – even the ones without the loudest voices.
Dawn,
I don’t think it is the City Councils right to change the character of the neighborhoods that so many people have invested in and spent time building. Putting high density housing in the middle of single family homes without the input of those living there is wrong. I personally also find it very offensive that some people are calling Measure V racist. Using that term is sure to get attention and to make some upset but it is also completely wrong. I feel sorry for people that need to resort to that name calling to get attention. This is about giving the residents a voice where the City Council does not seem to have their best interests at heart.
Even if V passes it may not matter that much. Ravenswood can build 78 units as of 2024 by State law. And how many relevant R1 sites will be looking to convert? And if V doesn’t pass, this CC now knows what to expect if a project comes forward. What’s good is the debate that has ensued, with serious concerns raised over our current CC and dysfunctional district voting.
” I personally also find it very offensive that some people are calling Measure V racist.”
Well here are the proponents arguments in their own words:
“Menlo Park can meet it’s housing needs through this land, while preserving our safe, low-traffic, family-friendly neighborhoods!”
“Vote YES on Measure V ✅ A YES for protecting low-density neighborhoods from overdevelopment ”
How many dog whistles do we need to hear before we accept that they want to keep “them” out of their otherwise “safe” neighborhood?
You may object to calling this racist but certainly you cannot object to calling it exclusionary. And the very people who are being excluded are, because they are less well off economically, primarily people of color. So what do you call that?
Interesting how Peter Carpenter constructs his argument. He selects two small pieces of what he defines as representative content and then applies his personal interpretation of these points and comes to the conclusion that V is racist… the implication is of course, that those who support V are themselves racist.
This reminds me of the arguments made by many in the pro 2nd amendment camp – they take 27 words and boil them down to “shall not be infringed”.
The point? You cannot reasonably take a tiny portion of someone’s argument and call it representative. You certainly can’t then attack their motivations.
The instinct for name calling – especially online – is quite powerful. Here is what that feels like Peter:
For attacking the league of women voters you are clearly a misogynist. Your Marxist training & inclinations are obvious from the position you have taken. You focus in on identity arguments even though this is one of the most progressive and liberal areas in America.
I could go on… I really want to… but hopefully you see how annoying and offensive your argument is.
-Jeff
” the implication is of course, that those who support V are themselves racist.”
That is your implication, but it is not mine.
I lived in Suburban Park and I never met a single Suburban Park resident who was a racist. That does not change the fact that the fundamental exclusionary purpose of Measure V is racist. I have posted numerous thoughtful studies that show the racial impact of R-1 zoning and of the history of R-1 zoning which was created to keep certain people out.
Good people can take bad positions – that does not make them bad people but it also does not excuse them for being called to account for their bad decisions.
@Peter.
We can disagree with the research methodology & conclusions made by the authors of your ‘thoughtful studies’. That is a separate issue.
You offer no specific facts, arguments or evidence – other than generic studies – accusing people of being racist by calling their support for a particular measure you deem “racist”.
By hiding behind the syntax (“that is your implication… not mine”) you sound like Dinesh D’Souza building an assumption laden case behind ridiculous conclusions.
How about you make factual arguments without the name calling? Otherwise, I don’t debate misogynistic hate mongers trying to peddle tired, old socialist ideas.
“accusing people of being racist by calling their support for a particular measure you deem “racist”.”
I always try to chose my words carefully.
I believe, by virtue of its inherently exclusionary purpose, that Measure V is racist.
I have never “called” the individual supporters of Measure V racist.
The studies that I have cited are not generic but very specific studies which show the racially discriminating impact of R-1 zoning. Please feel free to present studies that refute these findings or refute them with facts and arguments of your own.
@Peter.
You just cannot bring yourself to provide specific facts, arguments or evidence to oppose V other than identity politics. I will post 100 studies showing the opposite conclusions of your studies and you can go through and analyze all of them if you wish. That is not a useful argument on this specific measure.
You are making generic, sweeping statements. All I am doing is pointing out how terribly weak your attempts to smear supporters of V are.
Narcissistic character flaws are starting to emerge as you hold yourself up as judge. I am not calling you narcissistic… just pointing out some generic things as evidence… perhaps you would like to now debate why you are not narcissistic? See how it works?
You didn’t get my other examples, you surely won’t get this.
“Vote YES on V if you are tired of bullying & name calling” just became a factor to influence how people vote.
Well done Peter. Your false flag effort is working to rally support for V.
Lash:
perhaps you haven’t read the other posts regarding Measure V. If you want specifics, I suggest you look at those as the specifics from Peter, me and others are numerous.
“ I will post 100 studies showing the opposite conclusions of your studies and you can go through and analyze all of them if you wish.”
Please do so as the purpose of this forum is to share opinions and information. And also please critique the studies which I have posted.
I think the problem here is that some people do not know the definition of racism. Let me share it with you:
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
Please show me anywhere in Measure V that it mentions race in any way? I didn’t think you could. The building being proposed on the Flood site, that triggered measure V, is a for profit building of between 90 but up to around 300 units. As far as I understand it, no plans have been submitted yet and with bonuses for adding more low income units the developer could add additional units to the building (up to near 300 units). This is for profit, with the “teacher housing” being preferential selection of the existing low income units for teachers who qualify for low income units based on their housing. No units set aside just for teachers and no mention of race anywhere. The market rate units will likely be very expensive and will preclude teachers that quality for low income housing.
Given that Ravenswood just got a parcel tax passed maybe they should raise teachers pay so that none of them qualify for “Low Income”, I think that would be a better solution…
I again say that people calling Measure V racist are wrong and just trying to stir up emotions.
Brian – Do not confuse Measure V with the Flood site. Measure V would apply across the city and it would, as its supporters proudly claim “preserving our safe, low-traffic, family-friendly neighborhoods!”
Such protection would come by excluding less financially well off people from those “family-friendly neighborhoods.” And those who are less financially well off are predominately people of color, ie Measure V is “directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
I understand that supporters of Measure V would like to think their “”preserving our safe, low-traffic, family-friendly neighborhoods!” will not be harmful to people of color but the facts are that, as many studies have shown, R-1 zoning is both exclusionary and discriminatory with a disproportionate impact on people of color.
Just look at the dozens of our local religious leaders who have spoken out against Measure V -” Our faith reminds us that society is responsible for ensuring everyone can access the vital conditions for well being, not just some” and they note that Measure V “maintains a status quo that is unfair, unhealthy, unsustainable and inconsistent with our faith traditions.”
@Menlo Voter.
I have seen the posts. I am pointing to the process by which Peter came to engage in name calling and assuming people’s motivations.
All of my posts are focused on the ridiculous logic leading to the conclusion that V is racist. My examples were all around pointing out that this type of accusation does nothing to further the debate. I could care less about leftist studies with pre-constructed outcomes.
The problem is not whether or not there are studies. My problem is with Peter’s attempt to smear V and its supporters with the “racist” accusation.
-Jeff
“ I will post 100 studies showing the opposite conclusions of your studies and you can go through and analyze all of them if you wish.”
Please do so as the purpose of this forum is to share opinions and information. And also please critique the studies which I have posted.
Brian, unfortunately, your understanding of the Flood School proposal is deficient.
–Under the zoning that CM Combs proposed – which council agreed to unanimously, and which was then codified in the draft housing element that we sent to the state – no developer (neither Tim Yaeger nor John Sobrato) can build more than 90 units of housing at Flood Park (even with all bonus densities included). And there can only be 90 units if every single unit is deed-restricted, below-market-rate housing. Ravenswood intends this housing to be used first and foremost by teachers and staff, and if there’s space left over, others in our community who also qualify for BMR housing can benefit.
–Of course the developer hopes to profit, because that is how capitalism works. Companies don’t tend to build and sell things unless they can make money. (I’d wager that every school and municipal building in the city was constructed by a for-profit developer too.)
–I think it’s super weird that people who want local public schools to be fiscally conservative/less dependent on foundation donations and parcel taxes are also criticizing Ravenswood for wanting to generate revenue. A lot of these same people were deeply distressed when council discussed tenant protection ordinances back in 2019, howling about rent control and how it would hurt mom-and-pop landlords. This strikes me as inconsistent. Mom and Pop landlords need to eat, and school districts need revenue to make payroll. How is this bad?
–The 2018 parcel tax is already part of that “somewhere” but the thing they most recently passed was a bond measure to rebuild their crumbling facilities.
And even with the recent Ravenswood pay raise (which brings teachers close to parity w/ MPCSD), the overwhelming majority of district employees qualify for below-market-rate housing. I don’t think our society has demonstrated much appetite for the level of taxation that would pay teachers enough to afford market-rate housing.
Katie,
I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Until plans are submitted and approved anything can happen. We have a city council with a majority that wants to build high density housing. That is evident by allowing the housing element plan to be released that included building high density housing in our parks. And yes they finally agreed to not do that but only after getting a lot of pressure from the public after first refusing to vote against high density housing in parks. What they finally approved has many loopholes in it so really doesn’t stop anything. That said, your point about being limited to 90 units is not a good argument. Yes, the city council voted to limit the units per acre which would allow the max of 90, however what the council does can be undone by 3 members of the council. If Measure V does not pass there is nothing that prevents 3 members of City Council from passing a motion to increase the density of that property up to almost 300 units.
If you were to believe the No on V campaign (emails, flyers, online advertising) Measure V is trying to stop Teacher Housing and No on Measure V is “Pro Teacher Housing” and I think everyone who understands Measure V would know that is very misleading. This development in Flood Park is not for teachers, it is not “teacher housing” at all. What it really is is forprofit housing and if teachers apply for the low income units whey will get preferential treatment. No units set aside for teachers at all. If a teacher rents it and moves out is that unit guaranteed for another teacher? If there is such a need to teacher housing why won’t they set aside units only for teachers?
Yes capitalisms provides for companies to make a profit, but they should also be upfront in that being their goal instead of hiding behind a false veil of altruism like “Housing for teachers”.
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