Thank you, Heather, for calling our community to communicate with more civility on matters where we may disagree.

Not just sexist stereotypes, but the word “cabal” is blatantly antisemitic as well. For those of us in the Jewish community, this kind of coded language is alarming to say the least.

Can we stick to the issues? It's irrelevant to me that Menlo Together is a female-run organization (I had not been aware of that before this opinion piece.) What is relevant is that we have a small cabal of people, some elected, some not, who seem determined to impose their view of what Menlo Park should be on the rest of us.

They attempt to shut down or disparage dissenting voices with epithets such as "NIMBY" and accusations of being anti-family and anti-teacher. No. Those of us who support V -- and you're failing to acknowledge that the main driver of the V effort is herself female -- are doing so because we love our city and we don't want to see developers, who are funding the massive NO effort, destroy the quality of life for residents. Now you're layering on another insult by insisting we're sexist.

I am a woman who has been dealing with outdated attitudes toward women my entire life. I first became actively involved in efforts promoting inclusion of women when I was in my teens. I spent my 20s having my competence constantly challenged because of my gender. So stop your pointless and erroneous rhetoric -- I have been in the trenches and have the scars to show it.

So sure, you all have no honest arguments to make against V. All you have are ad hominem attacks, and your efforts to shut down opposition by calling us "disrespectful" and "sexist" reflect more on you than on V supporters. You want to exclude all voices that aren't yours, and that seems to be the Menlo Together mindset. No wonder we don't buy what you're peddling.

This guest opinion is very insightful. There seems to be a breakdown in community. The article about theft Measure V signs, the amount of money spent for and against Measure V and the fact that Measure V even is on the ballot added to Heather's observations shows me a troubling trend away from caring about our collective community. Since I am a male who is supportive of Menlo Together, Heather's observations strike me as an attack against people (male and female) that are sincerely working toward inclusion and community in Menlo Park.

Oh, and as a lifelong Jew, former synagogue president, and child of a Holocaust survivor, I'm pretty disgusted to see you play the anti-Semitic card. How low are you going to go?

The American Jewish Committee has called cabal an anti-semitic dogwhistle. While it seems unlikely that Frozen has intended to use it in that way (given her own identity), I think perhaps it's time to consign that word to the dustheap along with "gyp", "uppity", etc.

Web Link

Anyway, as Peter Carpenter pointed out earlier, it seems inaccurately deployed. There's nothing secretive or controlling about either Menlo Together or the subset of city council that has attracted so much astonishing vitriol of late. Frozen maintains that they are out of step with the values and ideals of Menlo Park residents – are you sure about that? I know a lot of Menlo Park residents who deeply appreciate their service to the community and value the ways in which they show up for residents. Maybe we're more diverse in our needs and desires than you imagine.

I wholeheartedly concur with this opinion piece. The negative rhetoric based on "a policy disagreement" has been disturbing, blatantly sexist, and harmful for our community. I deeply respect the women who have been targets of these hateful comments and admire what they have done, and continue to do, to improve our community.

If a fellow Jew is saying the word “cabal” is an antisemetic trope that offends her, I would respectfully ask that people stop using it. From the American Jewish Committee:

cabal
noun \ kə'bäl \
: a small, powerful group that seeks to establish control
WHEN IT’S ANTISEMITIC:
Jews have long been accused of being part of a secret group that controls the economic and political world order. The term cabal originates from the word kabbalah, the Jewish mystical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Its sinister use was popularized in A Child’s History of England by Charles Dickens when it was used as an acronym for five English government ministers during the reign of King Charles II. Today, often denoted as “Jewish cabal” on social media, it is a dog whistle for Jewish control.

One of the most positive and remarkable aspects of these attacks is that neither Betsy Nash, Cecilia Taylor or Jen Wolosin have taken the bait and responded to these attacks.

I wish that I had the same self-discipline.

Nothing wrong with the word 'cabal' -- I've seen it used in Jewish publications, and I expect I've read more of them that Katie has. I doubt most people in Menlo Park, including V supporters, know the religious identity of any Menlo Together members

Measure V is designed to keep our city livable; the deep-pocketed opponents would much rather throw mud at residents than present a viable alternative. Ironic that they are pretending to want to nurture civic cohesion -- while every substantive comment is simply another attack on V supporters.

I dread to think what our future will be like if Menlo Together calls the shots.

"Measure V is designed to keep our city livable" by excluding people who are not like "us" - i.e. financially well off, generally college educated, usually not people of color and on and on.

Why should single family neighborhoods be exempt from sharing the responsibility of providing housing for all the diverse people who work in and would like to live in our community?

So Frozen, your premise is that some shadowy body is controlling council/calling the shots? Sounds like something out of the Weekly World News. Forgive me, but that's far-fetched and insulting to the independent and highly thoughtful and intelligent members of our council.

Let's be fair here. It has appeared to me that the pro-V and pro-Measure M folks (probably not the same people by the way) have been vilified, too. Attributing motives to others is unwise and often unfair. Debating conclusions about facts is preferable to targeting individuals.

I appreciate Heather's column too and her courage in writing it. I also deeply admire and respect our three female council members. They are hard-working, thoughtful and motivated. I also usually appreciate their votes. I especially appreciate their consistent civility towards others. I think they have done much good to improve Menlo Park.

"Measure V is designed to keep our city livable"

It is absolutely NOT designed to keep it "liveable". It is designed so that it is impossible for anything to change in the city. Never mind the one constant in the world is change. They got theirs so screw everyone else. Never mind that only 25% of registered voters even bother to vote on local issues and you have tyranny of the minority. And lastly, governing by measure is stupid. It is full of unintended consequences that are difficult if not impossible to undo once done.

or maybe, you actually bike/drive over to suburban park, and see that the streets are narrow, the lots are small, there are many young families (who probably borrowed and spent every penny they had to buy a 'small' house there), then think of the impact of over 400 car trips a day would look like... then your would.......... maybe.... understand their position. if you don't want to do even that, then open any map and look at the neighborhood, you will see the same.....

also... end this virtue signaling language, "strong no", "absolutely no".... a no means no right? how about a "hard no",,,,, means the same thing as "no"...

sorry, this town is not filled with racists, sexists, or whatever Heather seems to think is going on. the people mentioned in her story all were all aligned for "putting housing in our limited park spaces". I have a mailing stating this, happy to show you all if necessary... when confronted by another council member, those three refused to acknowledge the issue... wonder why?

also, how many perfectly worded essays have people written for the No campaign. so many now, wonder why?

"then your would.......... maybe.... understand their position."

I have lived in Suburban Park on Greenwood Place ( a wonderful neighborhood with lovely neighbors) and walked up the road which led to the abandon school many times. It is not a narrow road and when the school was still there that road carried a lot of traffic. Nobody with any sense bought a home in Suburban Park without realizing that that site was either a school or later on that it would not stay vacant forever.


Why should any single family neighborhood be exempt from sharing the responsibility of providing housing for all the diverse people who work in and would like to live in our community?

Why is it Menlo Park single family home owners responsibility to make sure that other people can afford to live in single family zoning districts in Menlo Park.

Property rights are the bedrock principle of our society and they are inherently based on the principle of excluding people who don't own the property.

Shaming people into relinquishing property rights and taking away property rights via legislation is destructive to society in general.

Zoning is a property right. And you can be sure that developers understand this. Every time the city gifts upzoning (SRI, Willow Village etal), that is a direct monetary benefit, a new property right given to the owner of said property.

If the City Council does not like the housing imbalance, then it is high time that they stop gifting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to commercial development interests via their changes to zoning.

City Council incompetency is driving Measure V.

Money and property rights drive all of this and people who are driven by blind ideology are just tools of that system.

@Peter,
"Why should any single family neighborhood be exempt from sharing the responsibility of providing housing for all the diverse people who work in and would like to live in our community?"

"While I oppose Measure V for different reasons Peter, You have brought up the issue of equity, diversity, "Redlining" and Racism, specifically, Which has nothing to do with this modern-day exercise,"

My question to you is since you live in the area on Buckthorne of Menlo Park, Would you support a high-density, low-income development based on financial and racial equity in the green, open space behind your home and many of your neighbors' homes, Say 90 apartments, for example, I suggest you poll the neighbors before responding.
As you said no neighborhood should be exempt,

There is no " green, open space behind your home and many of your neighbors' homes" because we already live in one of the more densely populated areas in Menlo Park. We have over 90 townhomes with zero side yards. And we recently had the former adjacent Roger Reynolds property converted to a similarly dense townhome development without any objection from Park Forest so there is no need to poll my neighbors.

I suggest that Menlo Park should adopt the Portland Plan and allow individual property owners in Suburban Park to exercise their property rights and develop multiple homes on their lots.

"City Council voted to include several technical amendments, as well as add provisions for a “deep affordability bonus” to allow up to 6 units on a site when half of those units are affordable to households earning up to 60% of the median family income, as well as density restrictions on sites in historic conservation districts where demolition had not been approved through a land use review. On August 12, 2020, Council voted 3-1 to pass the Residential Infill Project. The changes go into effect on August 1, 2021."

Web Link

Maybe I'm mistaken but when I looked at buying one of those Townhomes years ago, on Stonepine. I could have sworn that behind the units on Stonepine and Buckthorne there was a very large open space in between the back of those units,

No?

The ninety units in Park Forest (on just over 3 acres of land) are divided into 3 homeowners' association and each HOA shares a common space that abuts the back side of the townhouses. Quite dense but a very sensible use of the land.

Westbrook:

if you are referring to the common area between the back side of the Stonepine development, there is no way to actually build anything there without tearing down the surrounding townhomes and starting over, so what you are suggesting is a nonstarter.

I personally find the comments in this article to be a gross misrepresentation of what has been said. I find it sad that the author has to lie to try to make her point. And I would call for her to back what she has said with the exact and complete quotes by the people who said them. I do believe the position by the supporters of Menlo together and the no on V campaign which are essentially one in the same is wrong. I could care less if these were women or men I disagree with their position and I advocate using facts against the no on measure V campaign
If you can show me any place where I have actually "attacked" any individual without citing facts of what they have publicly done or what they have publicly supported please do so otherwise please retract your statements.

I would like to respond directly to the misinformation presented in this opinion piece. First off I have never called anyone "corrupt" and I do not believe I have used the term "silliness" and certainly not to attack anyone. I have called the No on V campaign a front for Menlo Together and I am happy to explain why.

First No on V (or the group behind it "MPNAH" is co-lead by Karen Grove (Web Link who is also the co-founder of Menlo Together (right there on her LinkedIn profile). The Menlo Together website promotes the group behind No on V.(Web Link

The co-leader of the MPNAH (the group behind the No on V is a member of Menlo Together and has written to the planning commission on behalf of Menlo Together) Web Link

Let's also discuss the funding for No on V. Menlo Together donated $9,600 to "Rev Penny Nixon
services to engage
and mobilize faith
communities to
defeat Measure V"

Karen Grove has donated at least $50,000 to the No on V campaign and the Grove Action Fund has donated another $20,000 (Web Link That totals just about the total funding of Menlo Balance and it does not begin to account for the No on V donations by big developers like the Sobrato's who donated a combined amount of at least $100,000. Just to be perfectly transparent here is a link to the funding for and against Measure V Web Link

So with the support of Menlo Together, the leadership being from Menlo Together and the No on V group being founded by the co-founder of Menlo Together please tell me where I am wrong...

BTW I included weblinks to back up each of my statements. If you wish to dispute them please do the same.

Brian:

I am not, nor have I ever been a member of Menlo Together. I also disagree with many if not all of their positions. I am not against Measure V because I agree with them, I am against it because, as I have repeatedly said, governing by measure or proposition is stupid and full of unintended consequences. One only need look at this state to see the proof. There are many other people in this city just like me, with no association with Menlo Together and not agreeing with any of their positions. They just happen to agree this is a poorly written and unnecessary measure and that governing by measure is stupid.

Peter,

Just for argument's sake, How much open space is there behind each of the complexes?

What I am trying to get at is if a development could be coordinated with the associations how much land is there?
It appears quite large, and if 90 units can be allowed on the small RCSD plot then....

The density of Park Forest already equals the density proposed for the Flood site which will also have to have a minimal amount of open space.
Park Forest simply places its shared open space behind the townhouses rather on the sides or in front of them.

If Suburban Park were built, perhaps under the Portland Plan, to the same density as Park Forest it would triple the number of homes in Suburban Park.

Peter,

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but since it's been discussed and everyone is concerned about how many units can be built and if Park Forest is less than 30 units per acre and the RCSD site is 90 units per?

Have fun with your dead horse.

Menlo Voter,

I don't think I am implied that you were part of Menlo Together or that everybody who is against measure V is aligned with Menlo Together that's certainly not the case. What I was pointing out is that the organization behind the "No on V" campaign is pretty much Menlo Together under a different name. And you can see my reasoning above. That was my rebuttal to the misinformation presented in the opinion above.

I would like to ask those who are against measure V to explain to me, if they can, how the no on measure V is a pro teacher housing stance? Explain how this proposed development is pro-teacher housing? Because the way I understand it there are no units set aside for teachers. There are no additional below market rate housing being built for teachers and when asked by the neighbors around this project to dedicate half the units specifically for teachers that suggestion was shot down by the developers and the school district. From what I can tell this is simply a case where they will build the number of below Market units required by law and they will allow teachers the first opportunity to rent those units. Is that what constitutes pro-teacher housing?

"Because the way I understand it there are no units set aside for teachers. etc etc etc"

There is no developer and NO plan has been submitted for the Flood site so how do you "understand" anything?

This is simply speculation and fear mongering.

Please stick to the facts.

Instead of the Portland plan maybe they should adopt the Park Forest model and allow less than 30 units per acre.

I could be wrong but I think the residents of suburban Park would be comfortable with that.

Suburban Park is 4-6 units per acre - why not permit each property owner to build 4 units per parcel? That would still be lower density than the Flood site or even Park Forest.

Actually spot zoning is never a good idea. The Flood site and Suburban Park should be combined into a single zone and the entire zone should be zoned for 30 units per acre.

Just to clean up some facts.

The GP designation for Park Forest is "medium density" residential (<30). The existing GP designation for the Flood School site is "low density residential." To move to 37du/acre (90 units) would require a GP designation of "high density residential".

You can argue about whether that matters and whether Park Forest density is God's choice for suburban land densities, and/or whether R-1 is the density of a lesser God. Peter seems to think so. I note that surrounding infrastructure and amenities (e.g. access, bus routes) is relevant, and is traditionally considered a prerequisite for higher densities.

A "developer", Alliant Strategic, has been selected by RFP and is or was in negotiation with RCSD over "the project."

No "project" has been submitted, but RCSD has made numerous announcements describing the parameters of the "non-project" conveniently stoking expectations.

Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Since there is no project, describing the "non-project" as "teacher housing" should also be considered "hope mongering."

I half agree with Peter. In cases where there is no project application, anything goes. Everyone is playing the game. It's the silly season.

Factually, the RFP makes clear that the developer is responsible and liable for getting the entitlements, yet during the election season, RCSD is PR "fronting" the non-project to the community on behalf of for-profit developer Alliant Strategic. The reverse is normal (See:SRI) Clearly RCSD paints a better PR front.

RCSD says its "open" to profit sharing, and expects the developer may "flip" the project approvals to an operator. Everybody gets a cut. Surely this would impact rents or unit densities.

BTW, I forgot to mention that the primary stated goal of the RFP is revenue.

"First and foremost, RCSD is looking for a reliable revenue source"

"Second, the district is looking for a long term partner who we can trust to responsibly build and manage the Flood Site over the long term. It is understood that the original developer may monetize its position, resulting in a different operating partner."

"There is no developer and NO plan has been submitted for the Flood site so how do you "understand" anything?

This is simply speculation and fear mongering."

Fear mongering? interesting term, but you are correct that there have been no plans submitted as of yet, however when the neighbors were asked to negotiate and suggested dedicated units for teachers they were shot down. Have you heard any commitment by the developer or the district to dedicate units for teachers? I certainly have not, not have I heard them say that more than the minimum number of units will be set aside as "Low Income". If anyone has heard differently please share and cite a source.

Since no plans have been submitted it is also possible for the developer to submit plans for more than 90 units on the property. I believe that with the bonus offered for adding additional low income units they could close to 300 units. Now before anyone jumps in with the current city regulations keep in mind that those were created by the city council and a simple vote of 3 council member can reverse those regulations and allow a plan to build more than 90 units. No fear mongering, just stating facts.

Brian:

yes, the CC "could" approve something that would allow 300 units. If they want to commit political suicide. I "could" drive 150 mph on the freeway, but I'm not going to because I don't like the potential consequences. Those are also facts.

Menlo Voter,

If Measure V fails it could very well signal the current majority of City Council that they have the support of their constituents to build massive housing projects. And if you believe what you have said in the past about residents in the city not caring about other neighborhoods, well none of the 3 likely to vote to overturn the limit on units lives in district 2 so they not elected by those neighborhoods so where is the "Political Suicide"?

"where is the "Political Suicide"?"

In doing things that are neither reasonable nor supported by the majority of the voters - ie. being stupid.

Brian:

Peter beat me to it. See his answer to your question.

I voted NO on V because this town needs more development, more housing, less elitism, and more equality regardless of weath.

V undermines our democratically elected representatives. Citizens elect these reps to vote on things like zoning on our behalf. That's the point.

Just because you are a landowner doesn't mean you have infinite rights to decide what to do with your property.

Sorry, pro-V advocates: It's not all about you.

After V fails, I hope the Council takes steps to ensure elitist, dishonest, anti-democratic antics don't waste more time, money or energy for the rest of us trying to live in a modern community.

Welcome to district elections, you no longer need the support of the majority of the voters, just the majority in your district. I do find it funny that you argued over and over again (both of you) that voters would not care about the other neighborhoods and would vote in favor of big developments in other districts as long as it was not their own. Now you are switching up and saying that voters in say district 3 would voter out someone who approved a very high density housing development in another district, say District 2. By your logic since no one in district 2 votes for the representative in District 3 and the residents of District 3 don't care about big developments in district 2, how would this be political suicide?

Menlo Voter, I believe your exact words were "What will happen if V passes is that any zoning change that comes up for a vote will be approved by the majority of voters that DON'T live in the area where the zoning change is requested." So again why would it be political suicide for a council member not from that district to approve a massive housing development?

“ So again why would it be political suicide for a council member not from that district to approve a massive housing development?”

You answered your own question. Massive is the operative term.

Nothing being discussed for the Flood site is massive.

Brian:

If the council were to approve a "massive" project they we be done. The Flood project is not "massive". Not even close. If you want to see massive, I suggest you go up the road to Redwood City and see what they've been doing with development the last few years. That is actually massive development.

Representative government operates as a moderating influence in any society. Officials elected in free democratic elections will not have fringe positions and will work in such a way as to find positions that satisfy the majority of their constituents.

Measure V proponents would have you believe that the majority of Menlo Park voters (who do not themselves reside in a single family neighborhood) would vote to perpetuate the favoritism that such neighborhoods currently enjoy because of exclusionary zoning that keeps their neighborhoods "safe" from "them".

I have to say they arguments you are presenting negate your previous comments.

Peter: "There is no developer and NO plan has been submitted for the Flood site so how do you "understand" anything?" and yet you go on to say "Nothing being discussed for the Flood site is massive."

How do you know? as you pointed out no plans have been submitted. The developer could easily come in and say "we decided to go bigger and max out the number of units allowed by law which is around 300" Since four council members do not live in or are elected by District 2 where Flood is located they don't really need to worry about voter wrath (as Menlo seems to believe Voters only care about their neighborhood and would, I believe you used the term "screw" other neighborhoods). So no "Political Suicide" in fact the voters in their district, going by the logic previously put forth, might be happy that another neighborhood got "screwed" and they don't need to have something like that in their neighborhood (though a short sighted view if your beliefs are correct).

Peter,

The opponents of Measure V would have you believe that this is about Teacher Housing and not about huge profits for the school district and developers. Many of us live in Menlo Park because we like our neighborhoods and communities.

Brian - Please review your postings while you still can. They are incoherent.