I was so against Measure M. But one thing is certain, and I would hope that we can all agree that something attractive must go in where all those auto dealerships once were. As it stands now, empty, blighted, and dreary looking, it is an embarrassment. When my guests come up from Palo Alto, this is what they see - ugliness where there should be pleasant looking buildings with beautiful landscaping. I'm embarrassed and annoyed having to explain to people when they ask what on Earth is happening there. Let's develop that area into something very attractive, and the sooner the better!

I'm one who voted for Measure M but have many friends who's vote against it was based on the feeling that we could avoid super large developments by trusting our council. I hope their faith is well founded.

Please close this discussion thread. I don't know if I can take it again!

Dear @frugal, 2014's Measure M proposed nothing to limited the size of development projects, only the mix of office to housing and retail. The "super large" building shown in "Yes on M" propaganda is in Redwood City, and nothing like that has been proposed in Downtown Menlo Park.

It is a wonder that a former Menlo Park mayor form the nineties did not get her buddy Tom Steyer to claim that the development will cause the water level in San Francisco Bay to rise so much that Belle Haven will be under water.

This is a classic case of liberals trying to vacate the property rights of others and deprive the city of much needed property tax revenues.

The DSP is about responsible development to enhance the quality of life in Menlo Park. Measure M was about retaining the blight of the empty lots on ECR because, in the minds of the Measure M proponents, no development is far better than responsible development.

The people behind M were acting on impulses that are neither liberal or conservative. M was about interfering with open and inclusive government.