Why preserve Menlo Park's character, prioritize current homeowners, maintain the safety and quality of our schools, preserve trees and open spaces, not crowd our streets, and protect sewers and other infrastructure?

The Menlo Park Planning Commission and City Council are overwhelmingly unbalanced and are prioritizing increased density, changing the character of the city west of 101, and driving city-funded affordable housing at the expense of the city's current homeowners and taxpayers.

Menlo Park's State/ABAG new housing requirement is 2,946 or an 8% increase in the city's current population. The City Council's current Housing Element draft is targeting 7,185 units WHICH IS ALMOST 2.5x MORE THAN THE STATE AND ABAG REQUIREMENT. This amounts to a 20% increase in the population of Menlo Park. I don't believe these figures even account for the additional 1,512 units added through 2021.

The State/ABAG "affordable housing" requirement is 1,662 units (included in the 2,946 above). The Housing Element is targeting 3,518 units and aiming to place those units in the city's most valuable and expensive areas. The CITY COUNCIL'S CURRENT TARGET IS GREATER THAN 2x THE STATE/ABAG REQUIREMENT.

Moreover, NO FISCAL ANALYSIS was conducted for the Housing Element and no study to the impact to Police, Fire, traffic, or Schools.

Lastly, only moderate and above-moderate units are being considered for District 1, east of 101. Has the Planning Commission and City Council given any thought to how this will drive gentrification in District 1 that will eventually price out more low-income residents?

The Housing Element is fiscally irresponsible, does not properly consider the long-term impacts to the city, and has not been properly communicated to current homeowners. We should not be attempting to more than double the new housing requirement and increase the population by 20%.

We need to build, then build some more and then build some more. Increase density, remove R1 and require mixed use for all projects. We have 50 years of NIMBY to reverse. I applaud the Planning Commission. Let's dedicate some roads for multimodal use and remove autos while we're at it.

Michael:

if you like what you describe, I suggest you move to San Francisco. Plenty of dense housing and you don't need a car. Of course, its a crap hole, but hey that's the price you pay for your kind of density right? I for one, don't want that kind of density. If I did, I'd live in SF. Increasing the housing stock is not going to do anything for lower income people. The land values are too high and the cost of construction is too high to build any kind of lower income housing in MP, which is what is supposedly needed and the idea behind the increased density. It will NEVER happen without government subsidies. I pay enough taxes already thank you. We're already the highest taxed state in the nation.

@menlo voter I don’t need any advice on where to live thanks. The density is coming whether you want it or not, NIMBYism is over. You most definitely don’t pay enough taxes already as our density does not cover its costs without massive subsidy. Pretty simple math really.

Michael:

Really? Care to back that up with some actual facts? Or are you just going to go on believing everything you think?

Michael is absolutely right. The days of single family neighborhoods are over in Menlo Park. Our city council has said and is moving forward with up-zoning R1 wherever they can. They’re going to fill in parks and parking lots downtown with “affordable” housing. Menlo Park will be indistinguishable from South San Francisco in short order if the people currently in power get their way. And it’s our own fault. In the last election we could have protected single family home re-zoning but very, very few homeowners took the time to vote. So to all the current homeowners, when this city you invested your life in is trashed you know who to thank. They’re right there in the mirror.

Michael

And how do you propose to pay for this housing? Simply increasing density isn't going to do it as the land and construction costs are too high. Redwood City has hugely increased density around the transit corridor has it brought rents down and made it more "affordable"? Nope. So, instead of spouting "progressive" rhetoric how about coming up with some ideas that might actually achieve the goal you profess?

@Menlo Voter I'll be your Huckleberry ;) Not that anything I can write will convince you, but here is my plan: Repeal Article 34 of the CA constitution. Then acquire and build like our lives and economy depends on it (spoiler: they do). For anyone wishing to preserve their "village character" and "hard earned" R1 density, remove all subsidy for said wishes and make them pay their equitable share of all services at market rates based on density.

Here are some great explanations of density planning. Web Link Web Link

Michael:

Since we both know Article 34 isn't going to be repealed, what do you suggest that can ACTUALLY be done?

@menlo voter we absolutely do not know that. You underestimate that Gen Z is coming for the boomer policies, as a Gen X homeowner I'm joining them. It is in fact up for vote in 2024 and we will see. Like I have stated, repeatedly, R1 urban planning is over. watch the videos I linked above.

Michael:

I'll believe it when I see it. When it doesn't happen then what?

Ten years ago we kept hearing that the millennials would insist on living in tiny boxes over stores. Guess what? They hit age 30, got married, had kids, and wanted the same kind of housing situation that families have preferred for generations, with enough space to run around, a patch of yard, and no shared walls. GenZ, no different from prior generations going back as far as recorded history, are likely to follow that same pattern.

Meanwhile, people are leaving California, and moving out of Menlo Park. Not because there's no place to live around here -- there are plenty of options -- but because they can find better, more affordable housing elsewhere. You think that offering them a $5,000/month studio in a high-rise building -- no parking space included -- will entice them to stay? Pure fantasy.

Frozen:

You don't "get it". They won't be living in $5000 a month apartments. Well, actually they will, but the "government" will be paying most of the bill. If people like Michael have their way. And we know who the government is. US. The state will need to raise taxes even higher than they already are to pay for it and more of us will leave the state. At some point there won't be any "wealthy" people left to pay for it and the whole house of cards will come crashing down.