There are far more people against L than your article mentions.

And there is no way that $6,100 listed as being in the Yes on L kitty as of Oct 1 will still be there at the end of the campaign. The CItywide slick mailers that came out recently did not appear to be reported in the Oct 1 report. And they will have to do more mailers once the No on L starts to come out with its mailers.

No on L may have been slower out of the blocks, but it is gaining ground once people realize that the City will be on the hook for the legal costs if it passes, the City could be kicked out of CalPers which would cause additional costs, and its selective nature is disporportionately affective women and minority positions.

The Council did it the RIGHT way, and there is really no need for L at all. It's not fair and it's not smart. No on L.

Easy to say there's a lot more people, when everything's done anonymously. At least the Yes on L people are out in the open.

Just so we are clear. The city will only have to defend itself in a lawsuit if it's employees sue them. So if the employees want to bite the hand tha feeds them, we will have to defend our right to not pay them $60,000+ per year in pension.

Are you kidding me? The city already gave them $6,800,000 in 2007 when we raised their pensions by 35%.

Also, Roy Sardina clearly pointed out on another post (se link below) that the City Attorney told the city council, that we woould not be thrown out of CalPERS, since the issue could be fixed with the Yes on Measure L committees approval in a court appearance.

How is this against minority and women? the highest paid employee in Menlo Park is minority, and half of our employees are women (much higher than the US private workforce). Every NEW employee will be getting 60% of their pay as a pension (our current employees will still get 81% of their final pay as pension), as opposed to the MUCH LOWER social security they would get in the private world. How is that hardship?

[Portion removed. Please avoid attacking other posters.]

Web Link

That is the link to the other thread with the comments by Roy

I've met some of the Yes on L backers, including that ex-council member who I voted against when she was ousted. Let me just say these aren't the kind of people I enjoy drinking a cup of coffee with. They have so much animosity that it seems nothing will ever make them happy or content; the core of their argument is anger-driven. This past weekend, I was visited by a volunteer for the No on L folks, who explained that L is at its core an attack on the City Council. I believe that the City Council should make these complicated decisions...and if they do something that I don't like, I'll vote them out, just like Menlo Park voters voted out Duboc and Winkler.