Well that would be a pretty damning opinion against M. The shop keepers that we love and frequent don't favor M.

Thanks to all the shop owners and merchants of Menlo Park that chose to state their perspectives. I have a lot of respect for your viewpoint.

The Flegel and Draeger letter represent over a century of investment in and business in Menlo Park. They are experts in what it takes for a business to succeed in Menlo Park. And we should all be thankful for both their investments and their sound advice.

It is all so simple.

Just follow the money. Who is supporting the No on Measure M campaign? It is the developers; the developers who want to control the development in Menlo Park, and don't give a damn about the quality of life for the Menlo Park residents.

Look at the funding of the 3 incumbents, Keith, Ohtaki and Cline. The developers are just pouring funds into their coffers. David Bohannon even sponsored Keith's "kick off" party. If re-elected we surely know how she will vote don't we?

It is so simple.

Vote Yes on Measure M... keep our quality of life in Menlo Park

Do not vote for any of the incumbents.. they are all influenced greatly by all the developer funding for their campaigns.

@Its all so simple....

You posted the SAME posting on another thread. no original thoughts today?

For the record Yes on M has outspent No on M (Menlo Park Deserves Better) 10 to 1 ($90,000 for Y and $9,000 on NO)

And the MAJORITY of that money comes from out of town donors. What are those donors expecting in return? What are the out of town interlopers doing meddling in Menlo Park?

Follow the money indeed....and SaveMenlo money seems to be DIRTY!

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

@Thiele-Sardina

Nobody cares about the half dozen development advocates who are "Menlo Park deserves better". Typical representation of the group is Henry Riggs, about to be retired from the Planning commission after 8 years, and who has never voted against a major project in his whole tenure.

The concern is Greenheart, with its $200,000 of pure greedy funding, trying to protect its current ridiculous project on the Derry and old Cadillac sites.

That Greenheart project is about 3 times the density of projects that were previously approved for those sites, but were never built due to the recession.

To have Greenheart, with its obnoxious billboards say "No to More Traffic" is an insult to the voters of Menlo Park. The Greenheart project will generate so much MORE traffic that it is subject to a "traffic scoped" EIR.

A partial solution is Measure M.

It is so Simple

Vote Yes on Measure M.

Do not vote for the incumbents... they are responsible for the Specific Plan, which is such a disaster, that private Menlo Park citizen had to start the Measure M Initiative.

Again make it Simple

Vote Yes on Measure M.

Simple - You dismiss Henry Riggs exemplary service out of hand.

Just exactly what is your public service experience and your city planning expertise?

It's all so simple:

clearly you have no planning experience or knowledge. It's not simple.

Measure M is all so stupid.

Vote NO on M

Mr. Flegel and Mr Draeger -

I understand that you want more customer foot-traffic.

But adding 400,000 square feet of office is not the answer.

Look at downtown Los Altos - it's flourishing and has a lot of foot traffic. It is super cute, with a village character. And it hasn't added massive offices.

@respectandtruth

your unjustified posting handle not withstanding, Los Altos may be nice, but it's downtown is nowhere near a Caltrain station. Office workers DO use mass transit and plenty of experience proves it. My first office gig oh so many years ago was such. BTW, they could be a few years behind us, but change is coming to Los Altos too.
Web Link (awesome name for a council member, 'King Lear')

Moreover, if building mass and area was your concern, M does NOTHING to alter that. The loss of about 100,000 square feet in each of the el camino east projects will simply force the developers to shift that footage to other uses, such as housing. Major retail and hotel use are not happening. We already a have a weak retail corridor on Santa Cruz and enough hotel space on el camino. Ever notice how empty the parking lot is at the Stanford Park? The newly built Red Cottage Inn and the renovating Mermaid are anticipating customers that M will deny entry into this town.

I'm going to have to break it to you - the existing downtown plan was carefully crafted by experts in planning, transportation, environment to anticipate the needs, desires and future of this town. No one got everything they wanted, but it is already carefully balanced between the concerns of today and the needs of the future. If it seems odd that two years after, the El Camino east projects take up almost sixty percent of the allocation created by the EIR, that's because those 15 acres represent eighty percent of the available development potential. Addressing the blight of those 15 acres was the primary mission, both in scope and in timing, of the DSP. We get the vibrancy, business investment and tax revenues on El Camino, but we've largely retained the 'village' character of the Santa Cruz, Oak Grove, and Menlo Ave. The zoning changes in our downtown are actually rather minimal. I know, I own property there. I don't have any retail, but I have a small office where several workers come in to work from SF on the Caltrain.

@It is all so Simple

Say it three times, knock your shoes together and maybe you'll be transported to Kansas! We'd all be happy with that as it would spare us your inanity. Your posts are utterly lacking in content, facts, or even mildly interesting trivia. Such a brilliant conversationalist, NOT.

I'll direct you to the website of the Menlo Park Deserves Better to look for all the citizens, friends and neighbors who signed on their support of the No on M. Well beyond the "half dozen" you derided. Look carefully, you will find some that you know. Ex-mayors, council members, commissioners, county elected officials, business leaders, professional groups, and EVERY local newspaper have carefully examined the issue and have all publicly endorsed No on M. NONE of these people are in the pocket of any developer in any scenario past, present or future.

Maybe you are partly right, M IS a simple solution for simpletons such as yourself.

simple:

Perla is that you?

Draegers put the kibosh on a whole foods that was going to built where the empty car lots now sit empty. Had they not actively petitioned against that development, residents would have a nice little shopping plaza. Self serving businesses would rather have large office buildings than more retail. perhaps good for them to keep the competition out, but not good for the community. But vote NO on M if you support the business owners who don't want any competition in town and don't care about the residents here or the horrible rush hour traffic that the massive office complex will bring. So bad, that they won't even be able to drive to Draegers and will just have to walk across the street to buy their food at Safeway.