Wow. Steph, who has done a masterful job endearing himself to the public, is an undeniably superb athlete, and I have no doubt that he is a generous philanthropist; but entitlement is not a good look for anybody.

I plan to quote and use this with regards to all housing issues in the next town over from now on.

"We hesitate to add to the 'not in our backyard' (literally) rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today's meeting." (insert issue to stop development) "Thanks and God Bless"

also, the lot in question seems to be the only buffer from the (less rich) people in the town to the North. also, the family just purchased this property and the realtor should have told them regarding plans for the adjoining property.

also, the rich need to live somewhere... but with more privacy and safety of course.

Steph is right to question why the State of CA should enforce their standards over the local communities. The issue here is not NIMBY but property rights & the ability of a State bureaucracy to shove their desires down the throats of the citizens. The "bad guy" here is not Steph, not even the local town governments, but it is the zealots that run California and decide what is good for everyone else. There is a reason why ~ 350,000 CA residents are moving away each year. And they are the middle class exiting the tyranny of the zealots in CA Gov't.

Let's rethink our housing goals and really create housing for lower-income, not just make real estate developers rich!

"Let's rethink our housing goals and really create housing for lower-income"

This is exactly it. The state is supposedly trying to do this, however, they are doing it with zero thought as to how the market works and the actual cost involved in making it happen. "Affordable" housing in this area is a lie. It isn't doable by simply increasing the density. The land and construction cost is too high. The only way truly affordable housing can be built in this area is with government subsidies. If the legislature actually wants to do something as opposed to appearing to "do something" to create affordable housing, they will have to figure out a way to subsidize it without raising taxes. The highest taxes in the nation is one of the reasons many in the middle class are fleeing this state.

The true problem is that the legislature isn't actually interested in solving problems, they're only interested in appearing to "do something" to solve problems. Whether they actually achieve anything or not.

I read the Curry's comments and I am appalled. As an Atherton resident, I have always found town residents to be very warm and accepting. With their attitude, maybe Atherton is not the right town for them.
They bought a house two blocks from El Camino. To me, that was foolish on their part. If you are highly concerned about privacy, which many town residents are, their are areas where you can achieve that easily.
I live off of Walsh Road. Their are no thru streets in our neighborhood, which means we have a lot of privacy. The areas near the Circus club and Lindenwood also have a lot of privacy.
As a Warriors fan, I was shocked to read what the Curries had written and said. I never would have thought that these two individuals would have such an elitist point of view. I find this occurence very sad and dissappointing - for them and for our town.

The law that Atherton is trying to obey is insane. This is not a communist country, where everyone has the right to live in whatever neighborhood they want. Hard work and talent (both there in Mr. Curry's case) have always played a role in the American system. If they don't continue to, this country (and state) will sink fast.

Moreover, the problem is self-correcting through the free market. If the area becomes so unaffordable that the people who need to work here can't live here, or close enough, the demand for those scant services will increase the pricing.

What I really don't get is how this has become an issue NOW when the city council should have been WAY AHEAD OF IT. Instead of spending $40M on a Taj Mahal town center, at least a good portion of those monies could have gone to creative solutions to this problem (while still allowing for a "serviceable" town center) that would not have disenfranchised residents. For example, purchasing land from East Palo Alto and making it part of Atherton. For example, doing a deal with Menlo Park to transfer the apartment buildings/condos ON EL CAMINO REAL that are really in Atherton yet have a Menlo Park address. For example, trying to cut some sort of deal with Stanford (who allegedly gets the park land if it's developed) to retain that land, in exchange for donations, etc.

Now it's a last minute rush to a solution that is bound to leave anyone it affects unhappy.

Atherton should also have been joining with other affected cities to challenge the laws, way in advance.

It has been amateur hour. If the council members were in over their head, they should have called upon a lot of the business and real estate minds in the area to come up with the right solution. I guarantee, if it were a private sector issue affecting money, it would have been solved in a much better way. 100% guaranteed. A top-notch private law firm should have been used. This involves millions, tens of millions, of value.

Egg on the faces of the Currys. They’ve embarrassed themselves.

"Thoughtful" - Your comments & analysis are "Right on"! The Town Council members are more interested in their personal agendas (outlawing all fossil fuels, having a "French Patisserie" available for the Town Staff, spending >$51M (not $40M) on their legacy Town Center (used only by the staff!) than on what the residents really want! They settle for an overpaid set of mediocre outside consultants to do their work & actually run the Town.
Atherton residents (taxpayers) deserve better. Please attend the Council meetings on Tue (31st) & Wed (the 1st) to see for yourselves. If we do not stand up, every Zip Code in CA will look the same! Welcome to "Utopia" ! Atherton, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto will be indistinguishable.

NIMY has some merits. Do you want a garbage dump on the other side of your fence?
Atherton should just pay some big bucks to an adjourning city to (with the state's permission) transfer their building requirement.

I don't understand the vitriol. First, I am interested to see if people with way, way more money and influence than myself can budge this state government, or perhaps rally Californians to force the government to budge by shoving the politicians out or at least to the side. Second, it honestly seems like a "no duh" response from anybody who is faced with the prospect of being looked at through every window of their own house once a tall building is built next door, let alone one of the most famous people in the country. With children, no less. I have no idea if they have a pool in the back yard, but I'm sure they didn't buy it with the idea that they would be on display. Whether a wealthy famous person or a regular-Joe - can we all at least agree that this situation stinks, no matter who it's happening to?

PA Resident!

If it is ok for an an entertainer to have no threat of multistory buildings in their backyard, then I demand the same "justice" for my home and property. I have children as well (and can put a pool in if I have to, to justify further) the same demand for privacy. But I only live in Menlo Park, so I am a NIMBY for stating this.

Thanks and God Bless!

Thanks to Steph and Ayesha for putting this issue in the spotlight.

We all -- even the non-famous among us -- need to have our property rights respected. More towns and cities should be pushing back against the state's heavy-handed efforts at social engineering. Residents should not have the value of our property and our quality of life diminished because of a poorly-conceived bandaid to longstanding social problems.

It seems unjust to me that the Almanac is calling out one specific family who opposes this development because they are celebrities. I fully acknowledge that it is an enormously complex issue-- balancing the concerns of existing residents versus the need the develop more housing overall. It is stated in the article that other neighbors have expressed concern (but they are not named). Why doesn't the article simply state that "some local Atherton residents oppose multifamily housing"... Sensationalism from the Almanac (with the names and a picture) directed at the most prominent neighbors is pretty low-brow journalism.

If the Currys were white the town council would have voted quite differently.

sigh. Someone always has to play the race card. It's time to make it like Godwin's law.