Letter: Plan allows huge tax reduction for Stanford

Proposition 13 amended the California Constitution through a Statewide initiative approved by the voters in the June 1978 California primary and was challenged in a series of legal maneuvers and was finally declared legal by the United States Supreme Court in 1992.

Menlo Park is powerless to get more property taxes from Stanford than is allowed under Proposition 13 unless the California Constitution is amended again. For Morris Brown to suggest otherwise either reflects his ignorance or his disingenuousness. You pick. This is typical of Measure M supporters who continue to mislead the Menlo Park voters in hopes of putting a stop to all future development in Menlo Park.

Vote No on M. M is a Mistake!

to: Nordlinger v. Hahn

As I have written before to others, what you write here is non-sense.

I thought my article was quite clear. What is needed, is when getting projects approved, they have to be approved with a Development agreement, a contract between the City and the developer.

One part of the agreement would be the developer would agree to the re-assessment of the land, otherwise no project approval.

Again, if you still don't believe what I write here, you should contact the Planning Dept of the City, where they will confirm what I have stated.

Just to finish here sir, it is not I who is ignorant, but you.

Mr. Brown,

There is no tax reduction for Stanford. What you say is patently false.

"One part of the agreement would be the developer would agree to the re-assessment of the land, otherwise no project approval."

Requiring such an agreement would be illegal. The city cannot require a property owner to be reassessed - that function lies with the State under Prop 13.

[Portion removed.]

Peter Carpenter, a Atherton resident, who used to be on the PA planning commission, should know better.

Cities have immense power in land use decisions. As part of an approval process, it is certainly within the power of the City to require a Development agreement and within that agreement could well be a requirement that the land be reassessed to full value.

Perfectly legal. Peter, you know City Attorney McClure. Give him a call and just ask him. Then please come back here and report the answer you got.

Morris, you know City Attorney McClure.
So give him a call and ask him if is legal to impose unique conditions on ONE property owner above and beyond what is required for all property owners.
And ask him it would be legal to require you to agree to a reassessment in order to get a permit to add to the sq ft of your home.

[Portion removed.]

Morris does not seem to grasp that the easiest and the legal way to get a higher assessment on Stanford's properties is to let them build something on those parcels. New construction is automatically reassessed without discrimination between different property owners.

Everyone please keep note: [Portion removed] Peter, I have talked to MP planning, I know what I have posted is correct and legal.

New construction on the Stanford parcels will not result in the "land" of the parcels being re-assessed. That must be done through a Development Agree with the City. As I have written, allowing Stanford to develop without such an agreement will result in the loss of about $37,000,000 in property taxes over 40 years.

Leave it to Morris to focus on the wrong things. The reassessment due to new construction on the Stanford parcels would be 50 times the annual value of the land assessment.

Think small and yet get small.

Peter Carpenter, the Atherton resident writes above:

"The reassessment due to new construction on the Stanford parcels would be 50 times the annual value of the land assessment"

Well let us just look at that statement.

The Stanford parcels are a total of 8.4 acres.
Using the land values established at $7.5 million / acre which is what Greenheart paid for the 1300 El Camino site, the true assessed land value for the 8.4 acres of Stanford's parcels is $63,000,000 ($63 million)

Now Carpenter says the developed project would be assessed at 50 times this amount.

Those numbers work out to be the Stanford project would be assessed at 3,150,000,000 ($3.15 billion).

Pure non-sense.

This simple exercise really shows one why everything he writes needs careful review.

Be smart -- protect the quality of life in Menlo Park

Vote Yes on Measure M

Morris keeps dreaming about reassessing land values without a change in ownership - keep dreaming while the rest of us deal with reality. The reality is that increased valuation of Stanford's ECR properties will only come from developing those properties.

I wonder if Morris would agree to have his most reassessed since he is paying taxes on very much less than his property's market value. C'mon Morris help out the city.

Morris - I find it quite hilarious that you are fixated on lost revenue to Menlo Park when it was YOU that was primarily responsible for killing the Derry project. A project that would have generated $3M a year for Menlo Park, much of which would have gone to our schools. That is almost what our private foundation generates each year. Multiply that by 10!years and that is $30 million you have cost our city. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house Mr. Brown. It is YOU that are keeping our city back and YOU are responsible for the blight on el camino. No you are trying to do it again with Measure M. Shame on YOU.

Vote NO on Measure M.
Measure M is a Mistake.

Still no answer -

"I wonder if Morris would agree to have his property reassessed since he is paying taxes on very much less than his property's market value. C'mon Morris help out the city."

Atherton resident Peter Carpenter:

Re: my personal home -- property taxes. I am not in the business of trying to sell my home. There is simply no nexus between my personal property taxes and the tax situation on the Stanford Parcels.

And BTW, your personal home is valued by Zillow at around $4.2 million, and assessed at only around $360,000. Your 1 acre of land is assessed at only $99,000. So come on Peter, please help out your City and get your property re-assessed to current values.

Morris states - " I am not in the business of trying to sell my home. There is simply no nexus between my personal property taxes and the tax situation on the Stanford Parcels."

Stanford is prohibited by law from selling its property and is certainly not trying to sell its ECR property so what is the difference between your property taxes and Stanford's property taxes?



BTW Morris - Your property is assessed:
Total value: $133,422
Total value of the land: $32,274
And Zillow values it at $1,537,927

Again, would you agree to a forever reevaluation of your $32,274 land value as a condition for getting a building permit? Yes or No

Not only the Derry Project, wasn't Mr. Brown helping to lead groups against the recent school renovations too? Along with the husband and wife team of Duriseti? The Duriseti that is running for Council. The same Duriseti that lived across the street from one of the schools, and attended every town hall meeting opposing everything about the projects?(i.e. trees, curb cuts, placement of buildings....etc.) All in the name of NIMBY. The Duriseti's and the Mr. Brown's of our town really paint themselves as saving the environment, or the children, or the world for that matter, but it is ALL about self-interest. I cringe at the fact that we apparently have lost out on over $30M of tax revenue from the proposed Derry Project. Heck, with $30M+ perhaps we could have bought one of the car lots and turned it into a park! :)

To all posters here, claiming that I, Morris Brown, killed the Derry Project back in 2006/2007.

This is a big lie period. This most recently re-started, as far as I can tell, by John Boyle in a recent viewpoint article in the Almanac.

The facts are:

1. I led a referendum against an approved project, named the Derry Project, the developer being the O'Brien group.
2 We gathered much more than the needed 2300 signatures for the referendum to put it on the ballot. (this signature gathering effort succeeded despite over $150,000 being spent to defeat it, and their tactics were nothing short of despicable.
3. City Council pushed hard to have a negotiated compromise project between the O'Brien group and Menlo Park Tomorrow, sponsor of the referendum.
4. After several months of back and forth negotiations, which at times included our City Attorney, a revised project was approved by both sides and a development agreement signed.
A. The revised project eliminated the 4th story on some of the structures, effectively made the project conform to existing zoning, and would have resulted in a payment of $2,000,000 to the City as a public benefit, by the developer.
B. I was accused by some that I would be receiving some cash payment, which is a damn lie.

5. The revised project went before the MP Planning Commission, where it was approved.
6. The revised project was set in 2 weeks to go before the MP Council, where final approval was expected.
7. At this time the O'Brien group decided not to proceed and walked away from the project.
8. The housing market had started to enter a deep decline and this was presumably the reason the project was abandoned. We were never given the reason why they backed out.

So to all those who continue to write this myth / lie, this is the history.

To: Mike Curtis:

I know absolutely nothing about any being involved in any groups against school renovation. I don't know where you got that information. I am not a sponsor of Duriseti; in fact I only met her for the first time about 3 weeks ago.

So please get your facts straight.

Morris - Again, would you agree to a forever reevaluation of your $32,274 land value as a condition for getting a building permit? Yes or No

Morris:

had not you and your cronies held up the Derry project it would have been under construction before the recession hit. My guess is that you and savemenlo would love to do the same to the Stanford and Greenheart projects: hold them up until the point the economy goes into a down cycle (which it will) and at that point there won't be any point in building those projects. Tell me I'm wrong. Your tactics have been used before and are blatantly obvious here.

Vote NO on M

Measure M is a MAJOR MISTAKE

Informed readers will note the blatant lie in Morris' headline -"Plan allows huge tax reduction for Stanford"

Neither the Specific Plan nor Measure M addresses the issue of property tax assessments.

The City has ZERO legal authority to change property tax assessments.

Gadfly Morris Brown gets offended by insinuations that he killed the Derry project! Gadfly Morris Brown will have you know that all he did was DELAY IT UNTIL A GLOBAL RECESSION STOPPED EVERYTHING! Totally different!

Gadfly Morris Brown would probably also like you to forget his advocacy around these losing causes:

-- No on Measure T 2010 (lost almost 2/3 to 1/3)
-- Suing to stop 1600 El Camino Real, that office building everyone loves- thank goodness he lost!
-- Appealing an addition to a downtown building that was all of.... 84 SQUARE FEET! I have no idea what this is about, but funny things happen when you Google "morris brown menlo park": Web Link
-- Recommending these Council race losers: Vince Bressler, Chuck Bernstein, Russ Peterson, Heyward Robinson, Kelly Fergusson

Hope this helps you understand what Gadfly Morris Brown is all about!!!

When approving a project, the area of public benefits comes up; in fact it is the subject of the upcoming MP Council meeting.

As part of negotiations with a developer it is certainly proper and possible that re-assessment of land value be a part of an approved project.

Carpenter, the Atherton resident, keeps writing in circles. Again, inside a development agreement, if agreed to by the developer and the City, a re-assessment of the land value is certainly not illegal.

I have never suggested the City can force such a land owner to re-assess the land. Such re-assessment would have to be agreed to by the land owner, and enforced through a development agreement.

I agree Measure M does not address this issue; I never said it did.

As was duly noted today in the Daily Post, the root issue is not Measure M, but the Specific Plan itself is really the problem; If the Specific Plan had been drafted to conform to the results of the Visioning Process, then Measure M would have never arose.

Instead, the consultant chosen by Staff, was at the same time employed by Stanford, a clear conflict of interest. Instead, the root zoning of the El Camino corridor was up-zoned by a factor of two, and for this huge zoning change, no give back was to be extracted from any developer. It is just plain stupid and it is not working. Hence the voter rebellion, Measure M.

Vote Yes on Measure M

Do no vote for any incumbent --- we need a new council.

"As part of negotiations with a developer it is certainly proper and possible that re-assessment of land value be a part of an approved project. "

Please provide a legal basis for your outrageous statement.

"I have never suggested the City can force such a land owner to re-assess the land. "
But YOUR headline reads "Plan allows huge tax reduction for Stanford".

Just how duplicitous are you willing to be in your quest to destroy other people's property rights?

Again, would you agree to a forever reevaluation of your $32,274 land value as a condition for getting a building permit? Yes or No

Editor's note: This topic has been exhausted by repetition. I'm closing it.