A group named Menlo Balance formed by residents of Suburban Park has been in the news recently because of a ballot initiative they’ve written titled the Menlo Park Neighborhood Protection and General Plan Consistency Initiative. The group collected sufficient signatures to qualify it for the November ballot and it was subsequently scrutinized by the City Council at two recent meetings during which some Menlo Park residents reported that canvassers had made misleading statements about plans for new housing to induce them to sign the petition.
The council ultimately voted to put it on the ballot as their only other option would have been adopt it immediately, something they were definitely not inclined to do.
The initiative is, at its core, a NIMBY-ish and restrictive measure. Its message is simple: We don’t want any more people living where we do! It is designed to play upon the fear of single-family home owners that their neighborhoods will be flooded with newcomers who will adversely affect their quality of life and, potentially, drag down property values. Unfortunately, this type of appeal to people’s fears is all too common in today’s politics.
Although its backers deny it, the primary motivation for the initiative appears to have been to block the development of multifamily housing for Ravenswood City School District teachers and staff on the Flood School site, which for reasons unknown is inappropriately zoned R-1. Council member Ray Mueller made a proposal to add another access road to the Flood School site to address the concerns of Suburban Park residents about additional traffic, but in the end a compromise could not be reached, leading to the vote to place the initiative on the ballot.
It’s important to recognize that the consequences of the initiative would extend far beyond the Flood School site — it would limit the options the City Council has with respect to affordable housing throughout Menlo Park. While the fear it raises may be an all-too-human reaction, there are two major reasons it is unfounded, namely where new housing is being contemplated and who the people are that are likely to take advantage of it.
The draft housing element update that the city has submitted to the state for review identifies housing opportunity sites in places where they make the most sense, which is close to transportation, jobs, schools and shopping. These include locations in Sharon Heights in proximity to Sand Hill Road and the Sharon Heights Shopping Center, downtown, along the El Camino corridor, along Middlefield and along Willow Road. They are not scattered throughout the City in the midst of areas that are primarily residential.
Many, if not most, of the new residents are likely to be people who work in Menlo Park but can’t afford to live here under the current circumstances. In addition, it has been suggested that many who work at Stanford and can’t afford to live nearby the campus may also take advantage of the opportunity to move closer to where they work. This will cut commutes and take cars off the road, reducing traffic congestion and carbon emissions. It is also likely to add to the vibrancy of the areas where new housing is built.
We all need to recognize that California has a very real affordable housing crisis, as we do here in the Bay Area and in Menlo Park. That’s why so many people who work here can’t afford to live here and have to make lengthy commutes on a daily basis. Cities that don’t respond in good faith to state mandates for affordable housing face the very real risk of losing control over their zoning. Unfortunately, this initiative is a step in exactly the wrong direction. Although not as blatantly egregious as Woodside declaring itself a mountain lion habitat, it is in the same vein, only more sophisticated. When you look under the hood, the Menlo Balance initiative is anything but balanced. I, and I hope others, will be voting against it in November.
Bob Dickinson and his wife Sylvia have lived in Menlo Park since 1983.
