Kristen Keith accepted a $250 political donation from PG&E?
Why is PG&E making political donations in this local election campaign?

Lo and behold - Thanks to the Almanac's posting of the FPPC filings we discover that Save Menlo filed as a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee, not a General Purpose or , strangely, a Ballot Measure Committee (even though its filing name is Save Menlo, A Committee for Measure M.)


Web Link

Two problems:
1 - They previously claimed to be a General Purpose Committee as an excuse for not filing earlier reports
2 - The disclaimer on there lawn signs does not comply with the law for a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee.

How can we trust these folks to write a complex zoning ordinance when they do not even know what kind of a committee they are?

M provides a huge disincentive to office park architecture right at the entrance of Menlo Park.

The real issue here is traffic. Today El Camino right in front of the Stanford project site already has 6,500 more car trips per day than when the Specific Plan was passed (April 2014 traffic counts). This explains the frequent congestion on El Camino. The Stanford project alone will put 138%(!) more cars on Middle Ave. than the Specific Plan had envisioned for its entire 25+ year time horizon. Over 70% of office workers don't live in Menlo Park and need to get to 280 or 101. Traffic is like water: When El Camino, Middle, Sand Hill, Santa Cruz, Ravenswood and Willow are congested, cars will be cutting through everybody's street.

And: Under M Stanford won't replace lost office space with a Walmart - like some anti-M scare tactics would like you to believe. They build their retail at the Stanford Shopping Center. If they decide not to merge their parcels they will lose a lot of building space to the required setbacks between lots.

"Under M Stanford won't replace lost office space with a Walmart "

Probably right but the reasons listed do not apply to the Greenheart property.

Peter,
I'm looking for info on how much money Greenheart has put towards defeating Measure M. I see their name on all of the mailers I receive, and I'm assuming they paid for the sign on their property on ECR, but I can't find their name attached to dollars. Can you help?
Thanks.

Greenheart is conducting its own independent, uncoordinated campaign and as such is not, may not, and should not be included in Menlo Park Deserves Better financial reports.

Greenheart’s PAC, which is called “Committee for a vibrant downtown”, submitted their Form 460 today, a day after the deadline. Given that their campaign headquarters, 68 Willow Road, is within walking distance of City Hall, one would have thought that they could have gotten this in on time, especially since their treasurer signed it on Saturday, Oct. 4th.

I received a copy from the City Clerk this afternoon. Their form shows a single contribution of $200,000 from Greenheart Land Company. Their expenses, which total $82,860.95, include payments to Keith, Ohtaki, and Cline for several slate mailers, including “California Republican Taxpayers Guide”, “Californian’s Vote Green”, “COPS Voter Guide”. They also show an expense for $2156 to HelloStartups for office rental. Their largest expenses are for campaign literature and mailings, newspaper ads, printing. They report salaries for two employees.

The takeaway: LOT of and LOTS of mail is headed our way.

Note that Greenheart complied with all the FPPC disclosure requirements on their signs and mailings.

Save Menlo continues to violate those requirements - even Robinson cannot hide that.

Save menlo first claimed it was a General Purpose Committee ignored to justify its failure to timely report contributions.

Now Save Menlo claims to be a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee.

ALL of its money is being used to support Measure M.

Here is how the FPPC defines a Ballot Measure Committee:
"A ballot measure committee is any person or group receiving contributions of $1,000 or more in a calendar year for the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot measure."

Why does Save Menlo continue to violate the law?

Why trust someone to rewrite the zoning laws if they refuse to obey other laws?

Peter, the FPPC heard your complaint and told you to get over it and move on. You don't get to decide who is breaking the law and who isn't. Doesn't the Atherton government need you to point out the town's inadequacies?

Greenheart thinks it can buy the votes of residents with glossy brochures showing confused people. $200,000 is a lot of money, and that's just this round of disclosures. Nice way to gauge the amount of pain they plan to inflict on our city by constructing an oversized office complex. But what do they care? They just collect the windfall profits; they don't live here.

"Peter, the FPPC heard your complaint and told you to get over it and move on."

I complained that they should have been reporting as a Ballot Measure Committee. Based on statements FROM Save Menlo that they were a General Purpose Committee the FPPC dismissed my claim. NOW Save Menlo files as a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee.which proves that they are NOT a General Purpose Committee. Since all of their funds have been expended in support of Measure M it is difficult to understand their current claim to be a General Purpose Committee rather than a Ballot Measure Committee BUT they are clearly NOT a General Purpose Committee.

I am confident that the FPPC will establish the truth about this as well as about their failure to use proper disclosures on their campaign material.

We should all care when a political campaign ignores the law.

Peter,

SaveMenlo is a ballot formed committee. SaveMenlo changed from a general purpose committee to a ballot committee in August when Measure M was officially put on the ballot. The Menlo Park City Clerk has the FPPC filing if you want to confirm this. SaveMenlo’s volunteer treasurer checked the wrong box on the latest Form 460. Thanks for pointing out this error. An amended 460 will be filed today. Please don't waste more taxpayer dollars with another FPPC complaint.

FYI, Menlo Park Deserves Better originally formed as a general purpose committee on August 5th with a stated description as a “Committee to oppose an initiative measure...” . They refiled as a ballot committee about the same time that SaveMenlo did.

Its also worth noting that mistakes appear in FPPC filing all the time. Most are minor and easily corrected. For example, Peter Ohtaki’s current Form 460 fails to report a contribution from Greenheart for $250 “for carrying campaign literature from door to door”. Kirsten Keith and Rich Cline both report this contribution (although Keith's amount ,$125, is half that of Ohtaki’s and Cline’s - gender discrimination?). I’m sure that Peter, who serves as his own treasurer, will amend his Form 460 when this error is made known to him. There is no need to call the FPPC or to question Peter’s qualifications to handle Menlo Park’s finances because he made a small error in his own.

If you are contacting the FPPC, please let them know that expenditures for the polling related to Measure M, conducted last July, do not appear on any Committee financial filings. This poling was likely conducted by Greenheart before they filed any paperwork with the FPPC. This is a big deal and should be thoroughly investigated.

Thank you for the clarification, Heyward. Most residents don't read TownSquare so aren't aware of the level of dirty tricks. Greenheart doesn't care a whit about their project's imapact on our city. If you watched their presentation to the Planning Commission, that disdain came through clearly. It's about their profits, not about what residents want or need.

Very well stated, Heyward. Your response deserves its own forum post so that it is less easily buried by the lorem ipsum which is certain to follow from Peter and company. Thank you for taking the time to share this information.

Gern

Save Menlo has spent almost $10k on a specialty law firm that deals with election law and then they blame the filing error on a volunteer?

Is this the same volunteer who wrote Measure M?

And now I see they have replaced their sign at CalTrain and added one at the cemetery - their new target audience???

These folks have zero respect for the law, for public property and for private cemetery property.

Peter,
For someone who purports to stick to the facts, it appears that you are starting to get a little hot under the collar. The following statement is unsubstantiated and inflammatory.

"These folks have zero respect for the law, for public property and for private cemetery property."

I think you owe "these folks" an apology.

Fact - Save Menlo filed its financial disclosure report claiming to be a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee when it is Ballot Measure Committee.

Fact - Save Menlo sign repeatedly placed on CalTrain property

Fact - Save Menlo sign placed on private cemetery property.

The apology should come from Save Menlo.

Fact:

Greenheart claiming No More Blight, posts obnoxious billboard sized signs on its property along El Camino (old Cadillac site). Talk about production of blight, this "out of town", secret developer (try and find who are the principals of Greenheart), produces blight. Look at their site --- overgrown with weeds --- really a good neighbor, hardly.

"Fact - Save Menlo sign repeatedly placed on CalTrain property"

Fact: At this very moment a No on M sign and a Yes on M sign are illegally cohabiting the Caltrain right of way at its intersection with Glenwood Avenue in Menlo Park, with the No on M sign the more blatant transgressor, situated as it is just a few feet from the crossing gate.

Per Peter's reasoning must we therefore deduce that every opponent of Measure M is a liar and lawbreaker?

Honestly, Peter, you are the only person in all of San Mateo County who gives a damn about the various filing foibles and follies, intentional and otherwise, which amount to nothing in the lesser or grander scheme of this local election.

Gern

Gern - I am very confident that I am not the only citizen in San Mateo County who believes that campaign disclosure laws are both in the best interest of democracy and should religiously be observed. The world is rife with elections which are routinely corrupted because those elections do not benefit from the existence, observance and enforcement of such campaign disclosure laws.

So Gern should feel free to break the law as long as he recognizes the damage his actions will do to the integrity of our elections and the penalties that he may incur.

"Fact: At this very moment a No on M sign and a Yes on M sign are illegally cohabiting the Caltrain right of way at its intersection with Glenwood Avenue in Menlo Park,"

I have removed the NO on M sign at that location.

Peter, were you the one who originally put the sign on the Caltrain ROW? If not, do you know who did?

I'd venture a guess that if you do not know, then chances are the Measure M people don't know who is responsible for placing each of its signs.

Again, I take issue with your comment that: "These folks have zero respect for the law, for public property and for private cemetery property."

There is enough here to debate without the slanderous statements.

"Peter, were you the one who originally put the sign on the Caltrain ROW? If not, do you know who did?" No, but I have removed it.

Those of us involved with No on Measure M have a collective responsibility to ensure that we play by the rules. Post any sign violations by NO on Measure M and we will remove those signs.

Gern has articulated the alternate view "you are the only person in all of San Mateo County who gives a damn about the various filing foibles and follies"