Sandy,
What kind of committee does Save Menlo claim to be in their latest filing?

Did Menlo Park Deserves Bigger change its status? The latest filing shows it as General Purpose Committee?
Or was that a simple mistake like SaveMenlo's volunteer made in the first filing - and corrected?
Just asking...

I hope that voters notice who the deep pockets are on the "No on M" Campaign...a developer (Greenheart) who will gain financially if the Measure is defeated. Those of us who want a more respectful growth in our city would prefer a path that honors our past and prepares for our future. "No on M" does not do that. Greenheart does not do that. Let's not end up like Redwood City with so much development, woefully inadequate parking, and an infrastructure (schools and services)that cannot support such poorly planned growth.

"Did Menlo Park Deserves Better change its status? The latest filing shows it as General Purpose Committee?"

No, it has always been a General Purpose Committee and files its reports accordingly.
This is noted on EVERY MPDB web page (as required by law):

Paid for by Menlo Park Deserves Better - A General Purpose Committee
FPPC# 1370283

Strangely there is no such disclosure on the Save Menlo web site( in violation of the law).

how is it that MPDB is general purpose when it is opposing a measure?

I looked at the SaveMenlo website. The disclosure is at the bottom of the first screen. Carpenter needs to be truthful

The Save Menlo web site disclosure has JUST been added.

I am glad they finally decided to comply with the disclosure law after months of ignoring it.

I have archive copies of their previous pages that have not included this disclosure.

And the web page disclosure states that they are a ballot measure committee so they should have been filing 24 hour reports - Have they?

just asking:

the disclosure didn't used to be on Savemenlo's website. It wasn't added until Peter pointed out it was missing and that Savemenlo was in violation because it was missing. Of course that was AFTER Patty Fry came on the blogs and said they weren't in violation. Guess they figured out they were wrong.

"how is it that MPDB is general purpose when it is opposing a measure?"

Didn't Peter Carpenter make a stink about this before Measure M became a measure? How can MPDB get away with this? Or does he just care about one side?

"how is it that MPDB is general purpose when it is opposing a measure?"

Because MPDB has broader interests and activities than just its opposition to Measure M. Ir really wants Menlo Park to be Better in all ways.

FPPC:
"A general purpose committee is a type of recipient committee—an individual or group that receives contributions totaling $1,000 or more during a calendar year for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more state or local candidates or ballot measures."
"General purpose committees are usually ongoing in nature and support (or oppose) a variety of candidates and ballot measures. Most committees share a common affiliation among the contributors and make political expenditures over several years to further the group’s goals."

but doesn't the FPPC also have a requirement that if over a particular percent devoted to an issue, the committee can no longer be a general purpose committee? I recall something along these lines when Carpenter accused SaveMenlo of inappropriately being a general purpose committee. SaveMenlo also has broader, longer term interests but refiled appropriately.

Almanac - can you investigate?

@just asking

Here is the link to the FPPC rules....read them and decide for yourself.

Web Link

And remember if you PLAN to do other things with the committee your are general purpose.

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Roy - not so. The FPPC looks at where the money is going real time.

see FPPC rules about where 70% or more of donations or expenditures go
Web Link
Carpenter railed against Save Menlo for being a general purpose committee even though it was formed well before an initiative was in the works. Save Menlo apparently changed its status when the initiative was put on the ballot by the council.
Menlo Park Deserves Bigger formed to fight Measure M but its report says it is a general purpose committee. Just curious - why isn't Carpenter holding their feet to the fire?

My wife and I dropped our ballots in the mail yesterday. After very careful consideration, we voted YES on M. I woke up this morning happy about that decision. This town is wonderful; it's character should not be compromised by money-hungry developers and politicians. At least we did our part, and will have a clear conscience even if it does not pass.

Already Voted:

and how will you feel if M passes and Stanford decides it's not in their best financial interest to develop there properties? So, they just continue to sit there as blighted lots. In that case, enjoy the view.

"and how will you feel if M passes and Stanford decides it's not in their best financial interest to develop there properties?"

I, for one, will lose no sleep over this because I know, as do most rational people, that the chances of this happening are nil to zero -- that the opportunity cost to Stanford of letting those properties lie fallow another 3-5 years is so great that they will build whatever Measure M and our council allow them to, especially now that their long-term leases have expired. Ridiculous concerns about long-term "blight" and "enjoy the view" are so much FUD in the wind, far as I can tell.

Gern

Gern:

we'll see if measure M passes won't we? If it does not we'll never know. Hopefully, it won't so the council can go about doing it's job regarding the projects.

" especially now that their long-term leases have expired"

These leases expired years ago and some were replaced with short term leases while the Specific Plan was being developed, reviewed and adopted. Then and only then did Stanford starting getting serious.

If Measure M changes the rules I predict that they will once again let these properties lie fallow. Did you notice that their chain link fence is put in concrete?

Carpenter, the Atherton resident, [portion removed; stick to the topic and don't attack other posters] writes:

"If Measure M changes the rules I predict that they will once again let these properties lie fallow. Did you notice that their chain link fence is put in concrete?"

Your predictions mean nothing. Does it serve either Stanford or Menlo Park to have these parcels vacant? It certainly doesn't serve Stanford well. Menlo Park would benefit from no traffic being created, but at the expense of higher property taxes and any generated sales taxes (under present scheme, very very low sales tax generated).

Who:

Stanford looks long term. If in the long term they think the benefits will outweigh the opportunity cost they will let them sit. Menlo Park will lose.

That's why M is a HUGE MISTAKE

Vote NO on M

Stanford's ECR properties are a rounding error in their portfolio.

Why develop a hotel that would compete with the Stanford Park so that both would have lower occupancies, why build retail on ECR when people can easily go to Stanford Shopping Center, why build free parks for Save Menlo?

Yes, I am speculating but I provide a rationale for my speculations.

And you? Did you go out and check the concrete mountings on the chain link fences? Have you ever seen that on a construction site?

Carpenter, the Atherton resident writes:

"Stanford's ECR properties are a rounding error in their portfolio. "

I fully agree with that statement. (finally a statement from you I find truthful and can agree with)

So why doesn't Stanford give back to Menlo Park, a community whose residents contribute hundreds of millions to their endowment, just lease these parcels, for say at least 25 years, at $1 dollar a year, and have the Menlo Park convert them into parks and soccer fields as a suggestion.

I'm sure this would please everyone except possibly City Staff, which can only think about bringing in more revenues, to pay their salaries, bonuses and pensions.

At last the REAL Save Menlo agenda comes out:

"So why doesn't Stanford give back to Menlo Park, a community whose residents contribute hundreds of millions to their endowment, just lease these parcels, for say at least 25 years, at $1 dollar a year, and have the Menlo Park convert them into parks and soccer fields as a suggestion."

Who:

how about you give me YOUR property to use for 25 years? Do you realize how absurd your notion of Stanford essentially giving away their property is?

Ms. Fry: Once again... will you please substantiate your assertion that: "Yes on M leaves nearly all the [specific] plan's rules in council hands."

And confirm -- in writing -- that you and Measure M's supporters are willing to abide by this "interpretation" in the event that Measure M passes?

You posted this assertion a week ago -- without any reference to the actual language of Measure M. It is high time either to properly support your assertion or withdraw it. It really is misleading to voters still undecided on Measure M.

observer - I've read replies on your subject from Fry - something along the lines of measure m only changing a few elements of a very large document, and that initiatives can only enact what they say they do (I may have the quote wording wrong).
I don't blame her for ignoring you.

"replies on your subject from Fry - something along the lines of measure m only changing a few elements of a very large document, and that initiatives can only enact what they say they do (I may have the quote wording wrong). "

And, as usual, Fry is wrong and to prove it she fails to cite a single word from Measure M which supports her position.

Measure M freezes TEN definitions and THREE limits FOREVER.

Initiatives enact EXACTLY what they say and Fry refuses to say what Measure M actually says.

Why is Fry so embarrassed by what the Davis California environmental lawyer author of Measure M wrote?

@ "just asking"

Ms. Fry, to my knowledge, has never replied. If I have missed her reply, please post it here.

And it is very important for you to be clear and quote the actual language of Measure M. That is what will be controlling.

Ms. Fry appears to be proffering an interpretation of Measure M which is not accurate in order to obtain votes for those who have not actually read and reflected upon Measure M.

If that is not the case, it is easy for her to respond and support her position with appropriate substantiation.

May I politely ask why are you "answering" for her?

For everyone who is undecided, do yourself a favor and read Measure M. You will immediately filter through all the nonsense that both sides have claimed. You will probably have a "what the heck???" moment as I did when you realize that the provisions of M have no direct bearing on traffic or balanced development. You will wonder how capping office space at 200,000 sf or redefining outdoor space is really going to make our lives better. You will probably think it is an incomplete document and really seems like a work in progress. Then you'll wonder why the authors didn't try to do a better job at writing this.

You will have a vague fleeting feeling that maybe what the authors really want to do is stall further development. Then you'll think "nahhh, they can't be that disingenuous." But you'll still wonder what is all the fuss about M, it's nothing what it people say it is.