Thank you Almanac for these revealing interviews. Knowing all six candidates - and they are indeed different from each other - I can say these are excellent windows into who they are.

Thanks to the Almanac for this review of the candidates and where they stand.

To anyone concerned about development, zoning or land use in Menlo Park - please vote for the candidates that represent your views! But please vote NO on MEASURE M.

Measure M will lock in zoning that has not gone through the full review process and was not created with the input from the wider Menlo Park community. Worse yet, it will hamper the City Council (whoever is elected) to make changes and to effectively negotiate with developers.

Respect the democratic process. Vote for the candidates that represent your views, and let representative government work the way it is supposed to work.

M is a Mistake. Please vote NO on Measure M.

Kelly's write up is hilarious. If nothing else, enjoy these nuggets:

[almanac]Although she said she initiated the specific plan process, Ms. Fergusson's recollection of the details was a bit hazy. For instance, she told the Almanac that a subcommittee composed of John Boyle and Rich Cline knowingly selected Perkins + Will while the consultant worked on a Stanford project in Redwood City "unbeknownst to me."

However, the subcommittee also consisted of planning commissioners Henry Riggs and Vince Bressler, then-City Manager Glen Rojas, Community Development Director Arlinda Heineck, and then-Community Services Manager Cherise Brandell.

The city held a series of five public meetings to choose the consultant. And in the end, Mr. Cline did not support choosing Perkins + Will; the majority of the subcommittee did.

The recommendation then went to the City Council, which unanimously approved the selection of Perkins + Will on Dec. 16, 2008, with Ms. Fergusson making the motion and Heyward Robinson seconding.

She also did not remember that the consultants had disclosed their work for Stanford on the first page of the cover letter to their proposal:

"We are also currently engaged with Stanford University for the development of their campus in Redwood City. We have been closely working with the University, the city, community groups and the large consultant team through Specific Plan and Design Guidelines process for entitlement," wrote SMWM (which shortly became Perkins + Will.)

Ms. Fergusson claimed she remained unaware of the Stanford connection until after the specific plan was approved.[/almanac]

Kelly, we don't need you trying to rewrite history again.

Kelly Fergusson is "ethically challenged." That is more than enough reason no to vote for her.

@Skip, there's a lot more going on when voting for candidates than land use and development. I plan to vote No on M, but I also think the current council was asleep at the wheel or just going through the motions. The problem with measure M is that, as written, it doesn't effectively address where the SP fails.

Ultimately, one should vote for the candidates who appear to have the ethics and intellectual/organizational wherewithal to ask difficult questions and make good decisions while not expending valuable city dollars in CYA maneuvers.

@Menlo Voter, I can't speak for Ferguson, but you think Keith is without her issues? She's an aspiring career politician who took money from a developer and whose husband was caught tampering with evidence stemming from an election misconduct issue -- and all of this in the name of a small town city council election mind you. If one can be so unethical in what is ultimately a petty election in the grand scheme of things, I can only imagine how they might behave otherwise. NO THANKS.

I agree with the post above to a certain degree. I don't know if the Council was asleep at the wheel or were they just misleading the public.. Either way, the incumbents do not deserve to be re elected. I am confident that the developer will be funding their future bids for higher office. Money buys developer friendly re zoning and money buys elections.

not-just:

I agree with you as regards Keith.

The infamous Peter Carpenter has posted elsewhere that one of the landmark achievements of the Specific Plan was to obtain public benefit concessions from the developers citing Stanford "committing to supporting a bicycle pedestrian underpass". Stanford has not committed to build this $3M underpass on their dime. That is factually incorrect.

Which brings me to one of the biggest flaws in the SP. How in the heck did this thing get written without setting a better threshold for public benefit? Palo Alto gets an entire Page Mill sports complex in return for development rights from Stanford. We get ... what ?? Anyone?? Bueller? Bueller?

I will vote no on M because it really doesn't effectively address the deficiencies of the SP (see one such deficiency above). That horse has left the barn and corralling it requires a council that is more adept at decision analysis and detailed scrutiny than the current one.

Ohtaki says "he's a numbers guy". He seems like a genuine and nice guy, but I do not see ANY evidence of decision making deserving of the moniker "a numbers guy".

Why is Cline running? "[To see this through]" he states. Okay ... is that a euphemism for "to protect my legacy"? Hopefully there are more compelling reasons. Yeah, he's a nice guy too.

Keith ... the less said the better. See above.

Keith is very popular. She has more key endorsements than we've ever seen before, and she raised much more money than any other candidate. Keith has the anonymous detractors because people feel empowered if they can destroy someone that has spent rheir life helping people.

"Keith has the anonymous detractors because" on this Forum anyone can attack an elected official without regard to the Forum's Terms of Use and anonymous people relish this special privilege.

@Peter Carpenter and @popular,

Cry me a river.

Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ... or don't have questionable ethics.

It's pretty simple.

It is always great to see ALL of the local journalists agree on Ballot Measures. That both The Almanac and The Daily Post are recommending voting NO on Measure M shows that independent journalists can look beyond the hyperbole that both sides have spewed and get to the "meat" of the issue.

Measure M is a flawed initiative with MANY consequences that were NOT thought out by the authors. Many of these consequences would not only not fulfill their primary reason for doing the initiative in the first place "reduce traffic" it might actually make it worse. The Almanac's analysis shows the flaws.

While many people agree that the Specific Plan is not perfect, the process for it's review and change through public input and review is paramount in a democratic society. That our city council can correct it is PRECISELY what the citizens of Menlo Park expected when we went to the meetings.

Again, I congratulate and commend the Almanac for their balanced view. And urge everyone in Menlo Park to vote NO on Measure M.

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M
Roy Thiele-Sardina

yes, No on M and No on Kelly

In endorsing the incumbents in their bid for another term, we are in no way linking those choices to Measure M... we believe that the incumbents have many strengths, and can point to a number of achievements during their tenure so far that justify returning them to office for another four years. Among the council's accomplishments over the last two years are Belle Haven neighborhood projects, including the opening of a police substation and the launch of a visioning project that engaged a significant number of residents; beginning the process to change the binding arbitration procedure after examples surfaced that police officers' job protection might trump the public's interest when binding arbitration is called upon; and paying down the city's pension obligation. And Ms. Keith, along with current Vice Mayor Cat Carlton, successfully negotiated with Stanford to remove medical office space from its proposed development on El Camino Real and pay for a substantial portion of the cost for a bicycle pedestrian tunnel; she continues to work with Stanford to improve the project. Web Link

Also just in: the incompetence and corruption we see in Sacramento and D.C. didn't just come about in a vacuum. It has been and continues to be aided and abetted by major media outlets that just "look the other way". The more elected officials are allowed to get away with their transgressions, the more they will transgress.

The era of "we report, you decide" is long gone. It's up to the informed voter to both investigate and decide. The uninformed voter just stays with the establishment -- which is how the establishment becomes the establishment.

The almanac and some of the writers in this thread have drunk koolaid of developers. Wake up!

The elements of measure m were what was studied during the specific plan Process. The exact same amounts of office and nonresidential development were studied extensively. These huge proposed projects still have not been studied. It is simply a lie to suggest otherwise.

Stanford has made no formal commitments to any changes to their project or to funding any significant benefits. They are too savvy to do that with a subcommittee of a bigger body that is the only body that can decide, with a subcommittee when the council majority could change,.. The council subcommittee and almanac are incredibly naive to think otherwise.

The incumbents seem to be bending over backwards to give even more away. Why??? These projects provide almost no benefit to Menlo park. At the same time they will bring more negative impacts., and that's why each is undergoing more environmental review. Why is this being glossed over?

These huge proposed projects are the vision of developers and the pro-developer council. Not anything like the community's vision. Where is the hotel, the senior housing, the big increase in retail? NONE of these expected benefits is coming. Why is that viewed as acceptable by the almanac and our council??? This is just crazy.. Please vote Yes on M

Tonight
the San Jose Mercury News
joined
the Almanac
and the Daily Post
in endorsing No on M.

The San Jose Mercury News wrote:

"Menlo Park Measure M is a disaster...Menlo Park's Measure M is a sour-grapes anti-growth measure that will keep the city's stretch of El Camino Real -- the Royal Road -- a royal dump. Vote no."

The endorsements for No on M keep growing..

Thank you Another Paper Endorses No on M.

To read the Mercury News Editorial entitled Menlo Park Measure M is a disaster just click on the link below.

Web Link

Kidding wrote, "...the council majority could change,.."

With respect to Stanford, no. Two of the challengers have a conflict and cannot even be in council chambers when the Stanford project is discussed. The third, has stated that he will not defend the goals of the people that contributed thousands of dollars to his campaign, if M fails. If M passes, those offices will be replace by uses that generate more car trips. Measure M is a Mistake.