Morris - Would you have preferred that they did nothing ?

And you still have some important unanswered questions:
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
3 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Morris - For historical clarity would you please describe your role in the private agreement with Derry and also post a copy of that agreement.

Still waiting.

Thank you.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
4 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Morris - How would YOU feel if the City demanded that you agree to a reappraisal of your land value as a condition for allowing you to build a new home?

Still waiting for your answer.

As ex-Mayor Steve Schmidt pointed out in his public comment last night:

Web Link

all of this was simply political propaganda. The City Council has pulled out all stops to prevent passage of Measure M. Here after doing nothing for years to amend the plan, suddenly in face of Measure M, they put up these amendments, which are not affected by Measure M, but they rush to get them passed before the election, claiming Measure M might keep such changes from taking place.

Shame on the Council and shame of the City Manager and City staff.

Ignore all of this.

Vote Yes on Measure M.

We need a new Council. Do not vote for any of the incumbents, Keith, Ohtaki or Cline. They are all pawns of the development organizations -- they are all having their campaigns funded by development money.

Simple - Do you not support these specific changes?

Or would you prefer to have seen the council do nothing just so that Measure M will look better?

Cat Carlton should not have upbraided Steve Schmidt. Now she has earned the wrath of Virginia.

Last night, Steve Schmidt publicly accused Council of being "committed to misinformation." It's disappointing to hear him make that inaccurate claim about our entire elected City Council. But perhaps not too surprising to hear that kind of mudslinging from one of the "Save Menlo" supporters. Let's see: they have claimed that the newspapers (all) apparently endorsed NO on M because they were bought by advertisers (Lanza), and that our city staff and their reports can't be believed because they apparently only care about generating revenue for their salaries, that the independent consultants can't be trusted because they either once worked for Stanford or because they're just incompetent, that the Chamber of Commerce and downtown merchants shouldn't count because they have a "self-interest," that the thousands of residents who participated in the Specific Plan process were wrong because they were misled, and that the hundreds of volunteers working for Menlo Park Deserves Better to defeat Measure M have apparently somehow all been "bought" by the evil developers.

Have I got that right? The voters shouldn't trust ALL these people, but instead should trust the small group of people who drafted Measure M behind closed doors with NO public vetting? The same group who sent out fliers with pictures of buildings in Redwood City (that could never be built under the current Specific Plan) and old, rejected renderings of early project proposals by Stanford, and who at various times have said that "M only changes two (or three, or four depending on the occasion) little things..." The same group who is trying to scare the public with completely false statements that "Council is rubber stamping these two big projects?" The same group with major funding from out-of-town donors and who mostly hide behind anonymous postings on these forums?

There has been a lot of confusing rhetoric in this ballot box zoning campaign. It's one of the reasons that M would be a disaster for our city. If it passes, we'll see this kind of campaign again and again, each time anyone claims some new project is "inconsistent with M." It's one of the many reasons that I hope M is defeated.

I think the voters in our city are too smart to fall for Save Menlo's scare tactics and their misinformation. If you push aside all the rhetoric and noise, the facts lead to a clear conclusion: M is a Mistake for Menlo Park. Every local paper and nearly every local or regional group have all come to that conclusion and are encouraging us to Vote NO on M.

John Boyle:

Yes indeed John... it is all so simple. You just have to follow the money and the money is coming from Greenheart and its pawns, and flowing to Council incumbents, Cline, Keith and Ohtaki.


Ex-Mayor Steve Schmidt and 9 other mayors have it right.

Vote Yes on Measure M...


Do not vote for the incumbents... we need a new council

Do not vote for Keith, Ohtaki or Cline.

Correction: resident of Central MP. My apologies, but my mouse must have slipped on pull down menu on prior post.

The Measure M proponents keep perpetuating the lie that 9 former mayors have endorsed Measure M. Only 8 former mayors have endorsed Measure M. The Measure M supporters keep saying that one mayor who never endorsed Measure M is one of their endorsers. Shame on them.

John,

In case you haven’t had a chance to watch the video of former Mayor Schmidt’s comments, you should: Web Link About half way through, Vice-Mayor Carlton, who was chairing the meeting, interrupts Steve’s public comment - never a good idea - and accuses him of being “irreverent”. Its appears that Ms. Carlton’s time up on the dais has gone to her head. Council members are not gods and Council chambers are not places of worship. Note to Cat - next time you chair a meeting, keep quiet when others are speaking. She owes Steve and the entire Menlo Park community an apology. Will one be forthcoming?

And John, its hard to take you and the rest of MPDB seriously when you put “no traffic” on your signs, perpetuate the claim that Measure M supporters opposed Menlo Square (developed in 1988 before most of us ever lived here - and it has a lot more (35%) retail/restaurant space than either Greenheart or Stanford (<10%)), and confuse voters with an endless stream of misinformation about Measure M (school impacts, medical office, big-box retial... - Measure M has NO effect on any of these).

Want to be taken seriously? Start telling the truth. We will be waiting.

Morris - Would you have preferred that they did nothing ?

And you still have some important unanswered questions:
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
3 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Morris - For historical clarity would you please describe your role in the private agreement with Derry and also post a copy of that agreement.

Still waiting.

Thank you.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
4 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Morris - How would YOU feel if the City demanded that you agree to a reappraisal of your land value as a condition for allowing you to build a new home?

Still waiting for your answer.

Want to be taken seriously? Start telling the truth. We will be waiting.

Carlton should not have interrupted Schmidt. Schmidt clearly indicated his speech was his opinion. Public Comment is a 1st amendment forum. "Irreverent" speech and theorizing about motives is allowed, even if Ms. Carlton does not like it. She owes Schmidt an apology.

Underneath this whole issue is the Thomas Rogers Affair. Schmidt stands on a firm fact base that doesn't flatter the City. Let's just leave it at that.

Morris writes above that Cat Carlton used the term "irrelevant". Are you sure she used the term, "irreverent"?

There is a big difference.

Actually very interesting to watch the video - Schmidt states "These three issues have nothing to do with Measure M".

So why are the Measure M supporters so upset that the council is performing its role of continuing to refine and improve the Specific Plan?

Because the Measure M supporters would rather be able to say that the council, in Schmidt's words, was "home watching the baseball game" rather than doing its job.

Too bad, the council was doing its job and not "home watching the baseball game".

It is really nice when Morris Brown keeps providing all of this ammunition about Measure M and its tactics.

@Irreverent or irrelevant?

My bad... I understood Irreverent. In her mind, of course, what ex-Mayor Steve Schmidt had to say would be irrelevant in any case.

"what ex-Mayor Steve Schmidt had to say would be irrelevant in any case."

yep. Pretty much.

Morris - Would you have preferred that they did nothing ?

[Portion removed. Please avoid repetitive posts. Ask your questions once. If a poster chooses not to answer, that's the posters choice. ]