Sandy Brundage: Excellent article, thank you for writing such a great summary. I remain convinced to vote NO on M. My reasoning goes like this:
- No plan, whether it's the plan we have, or the plan that the M supporters would prefer, is ideal to everyone including me.
- The plan that we have now (the "DSP") is ready to go, after years of work.
- If we adopt Measure M we'll only add more delays (measured in years) and cost.

I'd like to see Menlo Park move off of top dead center into the twenty-first century. Let's get moving, folks.

This is an excellent analysis of Measure M but it fails to point out that this poorly worded and unvetted initiative contains and FREEZES FOREVER no less than TEN definitions and standards that are "hereby adopted by the voters".

These definitions include the 2008 map of the Specific Plan area and such oddities as "“Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money, including credit unions.” Who honestly thinks that banks will still be " engaged in the on-site circulation of money" in ten or twenty years? And to change ONE word of that definition would require a city wide vote.

The freezing of the 2008 Specific Plan map means that the two parcels, one inside the DSP area and an immediately adjacent one outside the DSP area, owned by the Fire District cannot be merged to build a new downtown fire station without a $95k+ city wide vote.

These are just two examples of the unintended and unpredicted outcomes of Measure M.

Zoning ordinances are properly created by a long iterative process with lots of public, staff and legal input and they need to be constantly tweaked in the same way to respond to changing economic conditions and the desires of the community. Measure M was written by two individuals and an unnamed lawyer without any public input or vetting.

What is most clear is that the Greenheart Land Co. has funneled $200,000 into the No on M campaign to essentially buy this election. Measure M places a modest bit of restraint on two aggressive, deep-pocketed developers--Greenheart and Stanford--that plan to convert our downtown into one of those big, ugly office parks that have infested Redwood City and Sunnyvale, to name just a few.
This does not serve Menlo Park residents.

Furthermore, under Measure M, the City Council can still modify the Specific Plan in numerous ways--if only they would.

Menlo Park residents should vote Yes on Measure M, which, like Palo Alto residents' rejection of a big housing project in their neighborhoods, will result in projects that better fit the character of our community.

"Measure M places a modest bit of restraint on two aggressive, deep-pocketed developers--Greenheart and Stanford-"

Sadly Measure M does much more than that - it is a bizarre collection of voter adopted definitions and limits that last FOREVER.

IF Save Menlo really wanted to limit just these two projects then two ONE SENTENCE initiatives could have been proposed to reduce the FARs for ECR NE-R and ECR SE. They did not do that because they intend for Measure M to be much more than a limit on these two projects - it is a poorly disguised effort to bring any development in the Downtown ECR are to a slow grinding, halt and to require constant courtroom battles.

My opinion on Measure M is colored by the comments of supporters such as Dan Dippery, who authored the guest editorial. These people seem to be living in a fantasy of a semi-rural village of Menlo Park from 50 years ago. Menlo Park is not a village -- it is in the heart of a bay area megalopolis -- and it is futile to pretend you can build a wall around it, keeping out traffic and density while still enjoying the benefits of a high-tech economy. Infill is inevitable -- the idea is to make sure that infill density is well-planned and leverages public transportation. I think the specific plan does a good job of defining priorities, and I can't agree with those who seek to "save" the city by fossilizing it. As Mr. Gray said above, time to join the 21st century.

All the definitions in Measure M are straight from the specific plan!

@peter is wrong

You are wrong. Their "re-definition" of open space iscontrary to EVERY other city in the Bay Area.IT would have a detrimental effect on small land owners in the DSP since they don't have ground space to put private open space (which is why you get to use patios and balconies for housing).

Do you understand that? It is NOT from the specific plan.

Measure M is a MIstake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

EasyDoesIt, the thought that a developer could buy an election should give you serious pause before you vote for Measure M, which will probably lead to many more elections about obscure zoning details. Imagine how many more flyers we'd get in the mail each year!

Measure M would establish new laws that could severely hamper and undermine the process of governing.

What will happen if Measure M fails to pass? Stanford and Greenheart and our elected officials continue to negotiate, with the input of planning commissioners, consultants, and the public. This doesn't mean that Menlo Park will stay a village, doesn't mean traffic won't increase, and doesn't mean that everything everyone wants will survive the negotiation process. Passing Measure M wouldn't change these outcomes. That land was never going to be turned into a park.

If M does pass, it is possible that we will be distracted for years to come with elections about confusing, arcane, and obscure zoning practices which the average citizen would probably not take the time to understand. Development would be delayed, I suppose, which is a great short-term outcome for your neighborhood's anticipated traffic problem but maybe not so great for future city revenues or long-term property values.

When in doubt, it's probably better not to vote to enact laws that we don't fully understand, or which have potential long-ranging consequences. (Prop 13) Those who truly care about our community as a whole--and not just their own backyards--will, I hope, exercise more prudence.

Lots of self righteous vitriol and fear mongering here. You'd think that limiting office along El Camino would set us back to the stone age. We have tons of office out by the freeways, where it belongs.

The public was not sold a vision of office parks along El Camino. This huge backlash simply makes the case that something like measure M is required.

"All the definitions in Measure M are straight from the specific plan!"

WRONG.

The poster claiming "Peter is Wrong" exemplifies the supporters of Measure M - they haven't even read their own Measure. The clue to their ignorance is that they NEVER quote from the Measure to support their claims - because if they did they would realize that their claims are false.

First, three of the TEN definitions were changed by Measure M.
"3.2.1 The foregoing definition is hereby AMENDED, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read: “The portion of the building site that is open, unobstructed and unoccupied, and otherwise preserved from development, and used for public or private use, including plazas, parks, walkways, landscaping, patios, balconies, and roof decks. It is inclusive of Common Outdoor Open Space, Private Open Space and Public Open Space as defined in this glossary. Open space up to 4 feet in height associated with ground floor level development or atop a podium up to 4 feet high, if provided, shall count toward the minimum open space requirement for proposed development. Open space greater than 4 feet in height, whether associated with upper story balconies, patios or roof decks, or atop a podium, if provided, shall not count toward the minimum open space requirement for proposed development. Open space is also land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to the conservation of natural resources.”

"3.2.5 .” The foregoing Standard is hereby AMENDED, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read: “Ground floor open space up to 4 feet high (whether in common or private areas) and accessible open space above parking podiums up to 4 feet high shall count towards the minimum open space requirement for the development. Open space exceeding 4 feet in height (regardless of whether in common or private areas or associated with podiums) shall not count towards the minimum open space requirement for the development.”

"6. 3.2.6. After this measure becomes effective, Tables E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, E13, E14, E15, in the ECR Specific Plan, which, as adopted on July 12, 2012, state that “residential open space, whether in common or private areas, shall count toward the minimum open space requirement for the development” are each hereby amended, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read at the places where the foregoing statement appears: “only ground floor level residential open space in common or private areas up to 4 feet high and accessible open space above parking podiums up to 4 feet high shall count toward the minimum open space requirement for the development; residential open space in common or private areas exceeding 4 feet in height and open space above parking podiums exceeding 4 feet in height shall not.”


Second, all TEN definitions are "hereby adopted by the voters" and therefore are FOREVER definitions unless changed by a city wide vote.

"4.1.
NO AMENDMENTS OR REPEAL WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.
Except for as provided at Section 3.4.4 above regarding the City’s ability to approve without voter ratification an amendment to the Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals that would call for an increase in the allowable number of residential units under the Specific Plan, the voter- adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, above, may be repealed or amended only by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Menlo Park voting “YES” on a ballot measure proposing such repeal or amendment at a regular or special election. "

Please do your homework before posting false claims.

And a false claim which is proven to be false and then is repeated becomes an intentional lie.

[Post removed. Discuss Measure M. Don't make this about other posters.]

I recently converted from Yes to No on Measure M using the same principles I use everyday in the office... Measure M, while well-intentioned, is restrictive with no definitive net benefit. If the project plans proceed as-is, progress is made in the form of new, privately-owned development. After the project completes, the city can always measure effect and reevaluate impact.

While I'm concerned & hesitant about the impact being negative, I don't want to hold the plans hostage ambiguously in doing so. This will be an issue I'll personally revisit once a project is underway/complete, and I expect my local gov't representative to do the same. I'd urge proponents of Measure M to make similar considerations.

On a side note, I've always wondered why plans as large as these don't have consequences for having negative impact that exceeds certain thresholds, thereby incentivizing utilitarian behavior. I realize this introduces many complications, but so does oversight and preventative measures like M.

MP resident - Please point out any factual errors in my postings.

[Post removed. Discuss the topic, not other posters.]

Isn't it fun when you make words mean whatever you want them to mean?

Roy, you used to be a referee. Do you think our kids will be able to play soccer on balconies? The plan included open space as a public benefit in exchange for extra density. The developers are making a joke out of that open space requirement. Hence the need for M to add clarity. I haven't studied the open space definition of other cities, but I do know that Palo Alto negotiated with Stanford for a big soccer complex on El Camino. And Stanford gives us...rooftops!

M is not a fossil measure. John Boyle acknowledges this, though you anonymous detractors may refuse to do so. M supports a mix of resident-serving uses, like retail, rather than 99% office which does not serve the residents at all!

How many of you have seen the new Facebook office building on the far side of 101? Go over there, take a look, and then insist that one of those belongs on each end of El Camino, and that their presence will serve the residents. It won't. No retail, no restaurants, no hotel, and El Camino is going to become a wall straight down the middle of our city. So much for east-west connectivity.

"Isn't it fun when you make words mean whatever you want them to mean?"

No, I just quote the actual words from Measure M.

Why don't you do that rather than claiming, erroneously, that ""All the definitions in Measure M are straight from the specific plan!" ?

And then when you are caught making a false statement then you simply move on to another issue. Strange but telling.

Redwood City is doing some very exciting things (with Stanford, and Music, naming two) contrasted with sluggish staid MP. RWC is happening. MP is boring.

"How many of you have seen the new Facebook office building on the far side of 101? Go over there, take a look, and then insist that one of those belongs on each end of El Camino, "

Clearly "peter is wrong" refuses to do her homework.

The Facebook West Campus project is an approximately 433,555 square foot 100% office building.
Web Link

Neither the Stanford or Greenheart projects have even half that much office space.

In response to "Scholar", let me point out that the geography of Redwood City differs radically from that of Menlo Park. Redwood City's "downtown" is along Broadway, close to their civic center, and east of El Camino. Palo Alto's two "downtowns" (University Ave. and California Ave.) are likewise east of El Camino. So our problems are quite different from those of our nearest neighbors (excluding Mr. Carpenter's home town of Atherton, which has neither commerce nor offices).

In Redwood City, Stanford has already taken over a lot of office space in the old @Home building, now part of the Stanford Medical Center empire. But they've done it in a sensible manner--that building is close to the freeway, not right downtown!

I agree that Menlo Park doesn't compare to Redwood City in terms of special events, but that's because there's no large open plaza area (hint, hint) comparable to R.C.'s Courthouse Square where events open to the public can be mounted. Oh gee golly gosh: either of the two sites currently slated for mega-office developments along ECR in M.P. could be converted to that purpose, but that wouldn't make any money for those who plan to collect the rents on all that office space.

Peter Carpenter of Atherton wrote:

>> The Facebook West Campus project is an approximately 433,555 square foot >> 100% office building.
>> Web Link
>>
>> Neither the Stanford or Greenheart projects have even half that much
>> office space.

Of course. And that's entirely beside the point. It's not the amount of office space that matters, it's the location thereof. When the Facebook West Campus is completed, commuters will get there via Dumbarton Bridge, just as they now do to the East Campus. There will be no impact on the intersections that those of us who live in Menlo Park have to traverse every day.

If the extra traffic overburdens Dumbarton Bridge, Caltrans has the resources to widen that bridge and/or its approaches. Menlo Park has no resources to cope with the gridlock that will inevitably result from more office space along ECR, whether it's built by Stanford/Arrillaga, Greenheart Land Company or developers to be named later.

And even if the long-underused railway bridge parallel to Dumbarton is some day put to use for commute trains, notice where those trains would end up. Not in downtown Menlo, but right out by the Facebook campuses on their way to downtown Redwood City!

Please note that Peter Carpenter has not argued with my three main points.

1) The present law would allow big box retailers like Walmart to open stores in downtown Menlo Park. He does not dispute this.

[Portion removed. Comment on the issue, but not on other posters, please. ]

The bottom line is that a lot of these opponents of M don't have to live in Menlo Park or are "scholars" who will leave when they've completed their studies at our local universities and consequently don't worry about destroying the character of our town. [Portion removed.]

I have no objection to developing vacant property in downtown Menlo Park. But I think we have every bit as much reason to preserve the style of our community--and the open space--[ portion removed.]

MP resident - feel free to both attack me and to lie about my stated positions and motives. But do spend at least a little of your time posting facts.

One more point on "traffic". This is a favorite gambit of those opposed to Measure M. Yes, retail stores and medical offices generate traffic, measured by number of cars arriving and leaving the premises each day. But those arrivals and departures are distributed throughout the day.

What matters is the peak traffic, which occurs exactly at rush hours. Like any other flow system, our streets are sensitive to peak loads. The two huge projects that "the people who run Menlo Park" want to build on ECR constitute what, in Internet terms, would be a denial-of-service attack on our roadways, twice a day, every Monday through Friday except holidays.

Oh, and nothing is FOREVER. People who object to Measure M's wording can put up their own proposition and have the people of Menlo Park vote on it. We are tired of being taken advantage of by "the people who run Menlo Park".

Allow me to express my gratitude to Kirsten Keith for that succinct definition of who she works for, as quoted in today's Daily Post.

I have a question for Mr. Syrett and all the other Measure M supporters. What, pray tell, is your solution to the traffic woes? If you think the passage of Measure M will "stop" traffic in our area, you are either misinformed or not in touch with reality. It is important to point out that almost every community in California, including Menlo Park, collects a transportation (or traffic) impact fee from new development that is used to fund improvements and/or to fix existing problems. In addition to paying the City's traffic fee, development in the Specific Plan area is also required to fund thirteen additional intersection improvements. That particular fact is never addressed by the Save Menlo/Measure M supporters. They seem to think that existing traffic will magically disappear if you adopt Measure M.

If you think the passage of Measure M will "stop" traffic in our area, you are either misinformed or not in touch with reality. Supporters of Measure M have no idea or alternative vision on how the City will fund the necessary improvements in our community. If we cant get developers to pay for these improvements, be prepared to sit in traffic without a prayer of new improvements AND see the blighted conditions along El Camino Real.

[Post removed. Discuss the topic, not other posters.]

MP Resident:

it's really funny reading your comments attacking Peter because he's not from our town. Guess what? Neither was the guy that supplied 65% of the funding to get Measure M on the ballot. Where is your outrage at THAT outsider meddling in our town's business? Hypocrite.

Do you deny that you would personally profit from the rejection of Measure M?

Yes, I have no financial interest in any property located within the Specific Plan area.

Are you working to open Atherton to big box retailers?

No, and I never claimed that I was.

Mr. Tyler,

I don't think anyone believes that the passage of Measure M would improve the traffic situation from where it stands now. What it WOULD do is to prevent the situation from getting worse.

The way the present law is defined, big box retailers and other people-intensive businesses could, and will, open shop in downtown Menlo Park. That will do several things, including bringing in copious additional traffic, rendering it even more dangerous for our kids to walk to school, stroll downtown after school, or ride their bikes. It will also, as presently interpreted, result in fewer parks and other open places for our families to enjoy. When you next get a chance, drive down Santa Cruz Avenue and ask how many of those shops will survive if Walmart opened up across the street from Safeway. If you care about our downtown, parks, and quality of life, Measure M is a no-brainer.

A large number of those who would reject Measure M fall into two categories. The first is people like Carpenter who would benefit financially from the opening of people- and traffic-intensive businesses in Menlo Park but would never consider it for their own communities. The second is young people who want to live in "happening" places like Redwood City. Neither of these groups have much interest in preserving our children's interests here in MP.

Again, Measure M won't make things better than they are today. It probably will, however, stop them from getting markedly worse. There is no reason that we in Menlo Park should be less vigilant in protecting our quality of life than people in Atherton are about using zoning laws to keep the poor and minorities out of their neighborhood.

[post removed. comment on another post that has been removed. ]

[post removed.]

"What I said was that anything that brings more business and more people looking for homes into Menlo Park will have a spillover effect and drive up real estate values in Atherton and that you personally will benefit from that."

Speculation, not fact. If all the traffic claims made by Measure M are correct then the effect would be to make living in this area less attractive and property values would go down - both mine and YOURS.

"You are not a resident of Menlo Park and yet are urging us to take a step--rejecting Measure M--that would increase your net worth." a LIE and repeating it does not change the fact that it is a LIE.

[post removed.]

MP Resident - You are engaging in a baseless attack on my motives and refuse to provide facts for or against Measure M. This is a sad attempt to distract from the issue at hand - like asking when did you stop beating your wife.

We ALL have an interest in the vitality and economic soundness of OUR community and downtown Menlo Park is as much MY community as it is yours. I cannot vote on Measure M but I have every right to speak out on the issue. It would be helpful if you would address your self to Measure M rather than continuing to attack me.

Peter Carpenter of Atherton wrote:

>> If all the traffic claims made by Measure M are correct then the
>> effect would be to make living in this area less attractive and
>> property values would go down - both mine and YOURS.

This is backwards. If Measure M passes, the horrible traffic impacts of the Stanford/Arrillaga and Greenheart developments would not occur because those project would go back to the drawing boards. If Measure M FAILS, THEN we get the [commute!!] traffic which would make living in this area less attractive. Whether that would be enough to actually cause our property values to fall is speculation. After all, around here, as the signs over Broadway in Redwood City assert, we have "Climate Best by Government Test". Ah for the good old days, when government tests weren't all ghost-written by the industries the agencies supposedly regulate...

Since I don't have time to attend meetings of the Sierra Club's Loma Prieta chapter, any more than I have time to hang around City Hall hobnobbing with "the people who run Menlo Park" (the most influential of whom don't reside in Menlo Park!), I don't know exactly why that chapter's newsletter recommends "Yes on M". But as a long-time environmentalist, I have some understanding.

What's going on with these mega-projects is classic capitalist exploitation of the environment (in this case, the surface streets and parking capacity of Menlo Park) and indigenous people (in this case, the residents AND current workers in Menlo Park who already have to cope with an overload every rush hour). Absentee landlords get the gravy from the rents on these offices. Commute-traffic pollution is every bit as real as the pollution of groundwater by fracking chemicals and pollution of the air by coal-fired power plants.

We've seen this pattern replicated around the world and over centuries. Now we have it right here in our town! (Sorry, Mr. Carpenter, not your town.)

As an elected (three time by the voters of Menlo Park as well as those in East Palo Alto and Atherton) Director of the Fire District I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayers of the Fire District. Measure M has already cost the taxpayers of the Fire District and, if it passes, will cost them much more. This alone gives me every right to speak out against this poorly written and unvetted initiative.

Carpenter,

No one questions your right to voice your opinions on this topic. What we reject are your indignant responses to our arguments and your assertion that you do not have mixed motives in this situation.

Edward Syrett is correct about both the substance of the matter and the need to restrict the franchise to people who live in the community. Outsiders are always welcome to express their views, and we are always free to consider those views in light of the speakers' various interests.

It is curious that an elected official would find that offensive. . . or maybe not that curious.

You vote as you wish and I will continue to express my opposition to Measure M.

Start putting facts on the table and quit trying to discredit others.

I've been listening to both sides for many months now, ever since I was asked by a neighbor to sign the Measure M petition and declined until I learned more. Since then, I've been quietly reviewing these boards, talking to each of the City Council candidates (there are only two with whom I have not spoken directly, but their positions are very well known), reviewing and reading the City Council library of materials, watching the Robinson/Boyle debate posted by the Almanac, and reviewing all types of published materials (pro/con and independent endorsements/editorials). As a result of all of this, I have also signed up to receive emails from both SaveMenlo and Menlo Deserves Better.

After considerable personal time and effort, I have decided to VOTE NO ON MEASURE M.

I am a 15-year resident. I am not a developer. I do not work for a developer, get money from a developer or have any personal or financial ties to the outcome of this race, other than as a resident.

I offer these thoughts:

No More Traffic: A recent email I received from Heyward Robinson, posed the following question: "How can 'No on Measure M' claim no more traffic on their signs? It must have been what consultants told them to say in order to confuse voters."

Actually, both sides say they don't want more traffic. And while that seems like a very nice goal (after all, who wants MORE traffic), I am sympathetic to the prior posts that characterize such a view as fantastical.

I have spoken to some proponents of the measure who are really in the fight to stop commercial development in Menlo Park's downtown area altogether. Even with that goal, however, I hardly believe there would be NO increase in traffic over the next several years, so long as the Bay Area continues to grow economically.

So, in an absolute sense, the proponents of Measure M are incorrect that there would be no more traffic, even if the extremists who want no more development win. Traffic along El Camino and in other parts of Menlo Park will increase over the next decade. That's a fact most of us took on board when we moved here.

In contrast, I believe the opponents to Measure M make a valid point about the traffic: office space (or a larger proportion of office space) seems likely to cause smaller increases in traffic (thanks to the positions of the developments near the train) than retail (where no one uses public transportation) or other uses (such as Stanford's original plan for medical office space).

So, thinking about this point clearly, I assume and appreciate the idea that Menlo Park will experience development, particularly with such large parcels owned by a few. It seems prudent to force concessions (as the City Council, Planning Board and others have been doing through the existing process) in order to mitigate traffic increases.

I know from talking to friends who live in the Allied Arts area, that increased cut-through traffic is a big concern on Middle Road. But Measure M does not seem to address that point (unless the "No to Development" people are using it as a vehicle for their goal). Instead, smart development and traffic restrictions seem a much more prudent way to deal with the inevitable growth and development.

Specific Plan vs. Measure M (The Mix): The proponents of Measure M make the point (worth considering) that the original vision statements and goals of the Specific Plan were to achieve a non-residential mix of the downtown area (about half of which would be office space). For me, the fact that the two proposed developments would significantly alter that mix in favor of office space, is somewhat problematic. (Although, I appreciate that a greater mix of office space might keep traffic increases more moderate.) I have incredible sympathy for the goal of getting that mix back to more of a 50% office level.

But having read Measure M in its entirety, I can't find any text that achieves that goal. Rather, many negative unintended consequences seem possible, if Measure M passes and Stanford (for example) is required to slice its one 400,000 sf development into four 100,000 sf developments (including increased traffic problems resulting from four entrances on El Camino rather than one).

And, the two projects that are on the drawing board are in just that place -- on the drawing board. There have been no final approvals of either, there are on-going negotiations, and the opportunity exists for the entire community to weigh in with the City Council and its committees to seek a better result than what is currently proposed.

In this respect, I think the drafters and proponents of Measure M lost an opportunity. But even so, I think the current process is moving in the right direction, even if it needs more input and community involvement.

Specific Plan vs. Measure M (Governance): Perhaps my deepest concern with Measure M has to do with the impact on our representative democratic form of government in Menlo Park. (To be clear, I am using "representative democratic form," as opposed to using "pure democracy" where everything would come to a popular vote, because I do know the difference.) As both sides of this measure have made amply clear, when detailed legal and arcane zoning issues are before the general electorate, obfuscation and fear-baiting pervades, as has become our normal campaign style in this country. That's why we elect competent citizens to represent us. And our recourse is to "throw the bums out" if they get it wrong.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the prior post that worries about how many more fliers and emails we might get in the future over zoning matters, how many more petitions for changes, and just what our community devolves into, should Measure M pass and require voter participation (as it does) for changes or variances. In my humble experience as a lawyer for 26 years, these parts of Measure M are the worst part about it, and will likely lead to fights about interpretation, variances, and powers, ultimately landing in courts. Governance by litigation is absurd. Not to mention a gross waste of our tax dollars.

Behavior: I've not been impressed by the behavior of certain folks on either side of the question. Every time I visit these boards, I encounter someone taking a shot at the fact that Peter Carpenter lives in Atherton.

Really? This is your best argument for Measure M?

At least Peter has the forthrightness to use his name in making posts. And those who would attack him should do the same. We are neighbors, after all, and while you might not like some of what Peter says, he has certainly earned a right to express his personal views over many years through his personal involvement in our collective communities (including being on the Fire Protection Board). Mostly, I find Peter's comments thoughtful and helpful (even if a bit snarky at times). Importantly, when this issue was first surfacing on these boards, I found him to be one of the few people willing to post content, rather than hyperbole.

My greatest challenge are with those (on both sides) who are using fear-based phrases like "Office Canyons" and "Perpetual Blight." Neither is true and neither side distinguishes itself when using such terms.

Finally, the repeated refrain by the proponents of Measure M about "open space," has (for the most part) been the worst type of obfuscation and fear-baiting. Open space includes public and private open space. Unfortunately, most who use this open space argument, never mention this fact, leading the general voter to believe that somehow, the Menlo Park City Council has embarked on a conspiracy to include upper floor balconies as PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. (One non-incumbent City Council candidate does this repeatedly, notwithstanding being personally and now publicly corrected.)

In many, many parts of California (not all, mind you), OPEN SPACE is defined just the way the Specific Plan defines it -- to include such things as balconies and rooftop terraces. Why? Because in addition to PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, they are trying to also promote other forms of PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. Why should you care? Well, when the proponents of Measure M talk about "Office Canyons", you should understand that balconies help with set-back from the curb, thereby curbing the canyon effect.

I mailed in my ballot yesterday and voted NO on MEASURE M.

R.Todd - thoughtful posting, thank you.
Re "I have incredible sympathy for the goal of getting that mix back to more of a 50% office level." Note that the Specific Plan DOES limit offices in the Greenheart and Stanford zone to 50% of the FAR:


"Maximum FAR for Offices, inclusive
of Medical and Dental Offices One half of the Base or Public Benefit Bonus FAR, whichever is applicable


Actually both of these PROPOSED developments are MIXED USE of residential, retail and offices with offices being less than 50% of each - Exactly as the Specific Plan requires.

Web Link

Web Link

Carpenter,

For an elected official you have some strange ideas about democracy. You call me a liar without any evidence of either 1) factual mistakes about your financial position, or 2) intent to deceive. You assure me that your being thrice elected to the directorate of the Fire District proves that your motives are beyond question and also gives you instant credibility as an expert on, of all things, zoning laws. You also claim that it is illegitimate of us to question your motives or to suggest that your willingness to interfere in our election is presumptuous.

Now you instruct me to "quit trying to discredit others." You've clearly been in office too long--assuming, for the moment, that a man of your intemperance should ever have been there in the first place. You have no authority in our election and no expertise in zoning. Conversely, you have a financial interest in the course of action you urge us to adopt and which you do not advocate for your own community. At the risk of sending you into apoplexy, your position is hypocritical.

Carpenter, your status as a politician and the quality of your arguments are not sufficient to render you immune from democratic questioning. We owe you and your opinions no reverence.

MP Resident:

your hypocrisy is breath taking. You castigate Peter for voicing his opinion as an outsider yet you say nothing about the fact an outsider was the primary funding source for the initiative. In addition, all you do is attack the messenger. Care to actual put some facts on the table? Or do you just want to continue a la FOX news trying to trash the messenger?

MPR - You just keep putting your foot deeper in your mouth - "You no expertise in zoning. "

As frequently noted in the Forum I served 4 1/2 years as a Palo Alto Planning Commissioner during which time we rewrote the entire Palo Alto General Plan.

And your experience in such matters is ?????

Menlo Voter,

Carpenter is free to say whatever he wants. And I am free to indicate that he is not the disinterested sage king that he purports to be. It is, frankly, relevant that he does not live in Menlo Park and that the stands to gain financially from what he wants us to do. It is not "Fox News" to insist on disclosure of an advocate's interests.

On your more substantial point, I agree. It is a huge source of concern that the Measure M funding was largely from outside of Menlo Park. But that means that we should subject the "yes" arguments to the same scrutiny as the "no" contentions. It does not mean that Carpenter or anyone else should get a free pass.

MP Resident:

so where is your "we should subject the "yes" arguments to the same scrutiny as the "no" contentions. " I certainly haven't seen it here.

It's "FOX News" to continually attack the messenger and not address the actual issues with facts. And that is exactly what you have been doing.

MPR - you did not answer the question:

As frequently noted in the Forum I served 4 1/2 years as a Palo Alto Planning Commissioner during which time we rewrote the entire Palo Alto General Plan.

And your experience in such matters is ?????

And:
Have you read the Specific Plan?

Have you read the two volume EIR?

Have you read the Wise report?

Carpenter,

I claim no expertise in zoning. I only claim that people should know that you are an outsider who will make money if we do what you want in our community but which you are not proposing for your own community.

Why don't you use your zoning expertise to change the laws in Atherton to allow smaller lots and, equivalently, the entry of poorer residents and minorities? Why don't you urge your neighbors to allow Walmart into Atherton?

Can you at least explain why it is inappropriate for Atherton to do what you want us to do?

MPR claims - "you are an outsider who will make money if we do what you want in our community"

Just exactly how will I make more or less money if Measure M passes or fails?

Is that the best shot you can take?

Have you read the Specific Plan?

Have you read the two volume EIR?

Have you read the Wise report?

Carpenter,

Perhaps you should go back and reread what we've already said. Obviously your home value would rise if a large office complex were added to downtown Menlo Park, especially if some of that were for medical services, since there would be more demand for homes in Lindenwood. It follows that the easier the entry of such complexes, the sooner and greater the appreciation of your real estate. So if Measure M makes it more difficult to develop large projects and requires more open space, its rejection serves your pecuniary interests.

Do you understand yet?

MPR - My financial interest in the outcome is no different than any other local homeowner. Are you suggesting that anyone who owns a home has a conflict of interest and therefore should not have an opinion on this issue?

And you did not answer the questions:


Have you read the Specific Plan?

Have you read the two volume EIR?

Have you read the Wise report?

Yes, your financial interest is identical to mine and to those of every other homeowner in the area. That is the upside.

The problem arises because you do not share our downside. If traffic increases near Safeway and Middle Avenue, that's a problem for us but not for you. If riding bikes home from school becomes more dangerous or there are fewer parks to play soccer in, that is a problem for us but not for you denizens of Atherton.

Residents of Menlo Park must consider the upside and the downside and make a decision on that basis. Outsiders like you have a much easier decision. Heads, you win; tails, we lose. That is why you have a conflict of interest that we MP residents do not.

That is why people in OUR town should understand that YOU are not a disinterested observer.

And yes, I have read the specific plan and the Wise report but not the EIR. I guess that for you the fact that that latter document is "two volumes" is significant, since you keep repeating that phrase as if it was an achievement to read so much. Perhaps congratulations are in order.

I suspect you liked the Wise report. Its decision to ignore critical problems and focus on easily digested subjects bears a strong resemblance to your argumentative technique.

Sadly, we residents of Menlo Park have to live with the consequences of this decision. We have to figure out the total impact on our lives, not just the financial upside (your asymmetric incentives) or the easily-treatable topics (Wise report).

I think that we can all agree that there are no disinterested observers on Measure M.

But you are certainly proving that there are uninformed observers.

Have you read the Specific Plan?

Have you read the two volume EIR?

Have you read the Wise report?

Now MPR has resorted to changing his name in violation of the Terms of Service. Why?

Attack the messenger - that is the Measure M MO. But never deal in facts or quote your horribly written initiative. And don't acknowledge that if Measure M passes there will probably be more medical offices.

Have you read the Specific Plan?

Have you read the two volume EIR?

Have you read the Wise report?


Editor's note: I'm closing this topic. It's going nowhere.