I am happy to see these new council members taking office and I wish them well. It was time for a change in direction.

However, to one of the points the writer made above, cut-through traffic was NOT "effectively curbed" in the lower half of the Willows. We live on Woodland and frequently have traffic backed up in front of our house from 1 hour to as much as 3 hours at night. This problem started in the lower Willows area due to WAZE and well before the 101 project. Nothing was done to alleviate the problem on our end of the Willows, except for "No Thru Traffic" signs, which can't really be enforced. Hopefully, when the Willow/101 interchange is finished, this problem will go away. If not, the new council members will be hearing from some of us again.

Yes, traffic was probably the issue, esp in the Willows. : to quote MenloFuture

Traffic-causing decisions
1. The City Council has approved millions of square feet of development in Belle Haven. It is bringing 35,000 workers to Menlo Park. All with no traffic mitigations placed on development. It will be years (if not decades) before mitigations can be implemented.

And Council ignored recommendations by Menlo Future and Planning-Commission members to include traffic mitigations in the developments it approved.

2. Furthermore the Council ignored Gary Lauder's presentations on why the new 101 interchange will not benefit Menlo Park. Two plus years of construction, which this project entails, causes life-changing interruptions in the lives of residents and commuters. And when this disruption is (1) unnecessary and (2) will intensify traffic problems even after completion, we have a right to be angry.

Ethics was another big concern.

Having been watching the Menlo Park Council change seats for decades, the standard theme is that incumbents get blamed for every problem in the city. This is compared to the fresh, innocent candidates who are angels, pure as snow. They haven't done anything wrong. It is the negative campaigning that kills the incumbents leaving the open seat to any candidate who wants it.
Contrast this with the Town of Atherton where a councilperson is elected for life, practically, regardless how outrageous, uninformed, they may be. Atherton voters generally don't care. Most can't name the current council members. Many don't even know how to find Town Hall.
It the way it is.
Just sayin'

"It is the negative campaigning that kills the incumbents leaving the open seat to any candidate who wants it"

I have to disagree. District 2 did not see much in the way of negative campaigning and nothing in the way of personal attacks. Keith and many supporters focused on Combs working at Facebook while Combs focused on decisions Keith made while in office. I think the main issue with voters was that council members voted for projects that had a negative impact on peoples day to day lives. the 101/Willow interchange, massive Facebook expansion, a Stanford project that will use city resources and contribute very little (particularly to the School District), and the list goes on. I also think that the previous council was not responsive to these issues when they were brought up. Willows traffic did not just pop up when the interchange work started, it has been a problem that has been discussed for many years with nothing ever happening. The 101/Willow interchange was just the straw that broke the camels back.

Brian;
I usually don’t agree with him but, you hit a home run!!!! I wish the current elected members good luck, they will need it... after4 years, it will be their fault.....

Brian, who asdked you to collect 500 signatures? Was council ever made aware of these signatures?

Urban Legend:

You just wake up? You haven't been paying attention have you? OF COURSE council was made aware of the "500 Signatures". Duh.

Urban,

First off, I did not collect 500 signatures. I was part of a group that was fed up with the traffic issues and the inactivity of the council. As a team we collected over 500 signatures by going door to door, talking to people at the Willows Food Truck night and having an event at the Pope Street Island. The signature collection was suggested by a person familiar with the council, as a way to get their attention and actually take some action. Of course these were presented to the council by the group, many of us also spoke to the council at that meeting about the problem. It was this "movement" that got action from the council. It is available on video from the Menlo Park City Government site if you care to review it.

It's obvious why you won't reveal the "person familiar with the council" that suggested the signature collection. We understand this was simply a prop the upcoming election.