Impartial Analysis of Measure M

Good try Morris. Interested readers will note that the above Impartial Analysis was written for the sole purpose of inclusion in the Official Voter Information Guide and, as such is limited in its length. The required brevity obscures important facts that are NOT addresses in this brief analysis and it is those very facts which make Measure M so defective.

For example the Impartial Analysis simply states : "The City Council cannot amend the definitions and development standards set forth in the Measure as these provisions can be amended only with voter approval". However the Impartial Analysis does not, and cannot in the space allowed, details those standards and definitions. There are in fact TEN such standards and definitions in Measure M which are FOREVER unless amended with a city wide vote. These ten standards and definitions include the 2008 boundaries of the Specific Plan ( an error that would require a city wide vote to changes that boundary to include one immediately adjacent parcel necessary to build a new downtown fire station).

Yes, please read the Impartial Analysis and then read the actual text of Measure M (which none of its supporters ever quote or cite - for the reason that to do so would show how bad it actually is).

In Measure M note things like:

"ECR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEFINED. When referring to the “ECR Specific Plan Area,” this initiative measure is referring to the bounded area within the Vision Plan Area Map located at Page 2, Figure I, of the El Camino Real/Downtown Vision Plan, accepted by the Menlo Park city Council on July 15, 2008, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this measure and hereby adopted by the voters as an integral part of this initiative measure. " This precludes a new downtown fire station without a $95,000 citywide vote.

"the following Commercial Use Classification for “Banks and Other Financial Institutions”: “Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money, including credit unions.” The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters. " Who things that banks will be engaged in the on site circulation of money is 20 years yet this definition lasts FOREVER.

"Consistent with the Planning and Zoning Law and applicable case law, the City shall not adopt any other new provisions or amendments to the Policy Planning Documents that would be inconsistent with or frustrate the implementation of the voter-adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, above, absent voter approval of a conforming amendment to those voter-adopted provisions. " This would allow anybody, anytime to block any project in the Specific Plan area simply by claiming that the project would "frustrate" Measure M and only a court ruling could decide the validity of such a claim.

"After this measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Menlo Park which are inferior to the Planning Policy Documents and in conflict with any provisions of this measure." With this clause why even have an elected City Council?

Do not be distracted by summary comments by Brown and others about how benign Measure M is - they would have you believe that Measure M is a little mouse when it is instead a huge Monster of a Mistake.

So do read the actual documents and note that the mistakes and unintended consequences are hidden in the sloppy wording and careless construction of Measure M.

Morris:

it's very interesting that you and savemenlo make a big deal over the fact that Peter is an Atherton resident, yet NONE of you ever acknowledges you received 65% of your funding to get this disaster on the ballot from an Atherton resident. So, it's ok to take an Atherton resident's money when it suits your needs, but it's not ok for an Atherton resident to comment on your poorly written initiative. You're hypocrites.

No on M

I believe the voters of Menlo Park, are perfectly able to read the impartial analysis and draw their own conclusions from what it states.

Certainly, Menlo Park voters, will not take Peter Carpenter's interpretation, since he is not even a Menlo Park voter and lives in Atherton, and for years and years has advocated for any and all things favorable to Stanford.

Net bottom line.

Read the impartial analysis as printed above and make your own decision.

Vote Yes on Measure M

"I believe the voters of Menlo Park, are perfectly able to read the impartial analysis and draw their own conclusions from what it states."

Morris - Would you sign a contract if you had only read the Executive Summary? Of course not.

Why do you NOT want voters to read all 12 pages of Measure M? What are you hiding?

Simply the fact that Measure M is so poorly written and has so many flaws that its supporters do NOT want anybody to read it. The Measure M supporters never post the actual language from Measure M because it is embarrassing.

Read Measure M page by page and then make your own decision:

Web Link

Don't sign contracts that you have not read.

"also see videos"

As usual Morris only wants you to see one side of the Measure M debate and he only posted links to the two pro M speakers.

If you want the full picture, not just Morris's carefully edited one, here is a link to the entire debate with two pro and two con speakers:

Web Link

Watch the entire video and read the entire 12 pages of Measure M and THEN make an informed decision.

Always great to hear from Morris Brown! The man the Almanac accurately described as "gadfly Morris Brown" (see page 3: Web Link Also the guy who sued on the 1600 El Camino Real project over a decade ago, and thankfully LOST- an example of a quality office development. Oh, and let's not forget that he was a key opponent of 2010 Measure T (Web Link which lost badly 64.5% to 35.5%.

If the pro-M crowd is trotting out Morris as the main spokesman, I like how things look!

Responding to "The Facts Machine" as written above.

Sandy Brundage's labeling me as a "gadfly" is her opinion; you have to be a bit thick skinned if you are put in the public eye. In any case on occasion, she calls looking for information.

Just to be clear: I am not and never have been a member of SaveMeno. They have certainly not "trotted" me out as their mail spokesman for Yes on M.

I fully support their efforts and am glad to post here and in the media, my thoughts. Your idea of "quality office development" and mine are quite different. When a developer like David Bohannon is willing and spends over $400,000 on PR to promote his "Menlo Gateway", it is hardly surprising that Measure T passed and passed big. He also spent a very large sum in a negative ad campaign against Chuck Bernstein, by far and away the best qualified candidate running in 2010, and Chuck did not win. Money, as we all should know, can buy elections.

The pro Measure M sponsor, SaveMenlo has excellent leaders and spokesmen. Again if not already viewed

see:

Web Link
Kevin Sheehan

and

Web Link
Patti Fry

Morris - You keeping pushing one side of a two sided Video debate - why?
What are you afraid of? Informed voters?

And you did not answer the questions:

"I believe the voters of Menlo Park, are perfectly able to read the impartial analysis and draw their own conclusions from what it states."

Morris - Would you sign a contract if you had only read the Executive Summary?

Morris - Why do you NOT want voters to read all 12 pages of Measure M?

Morris - What are you hiding?

Paul Collacchi's emails have the following signature line:

"Any scientist who can't explain to an eight-year old what he is doing is a charlatan." Felix Hoenikker, Cat's Cradle

Perhaps Collacchi can explain Measure M, its ten frozen forever definitions and its "frustrate" clause to an eight-year old.

The impartial analysis is a good place to begin, but voters should read the entire text of Measure M. And they should keep in mind the legal maxim that ambiguity is interpreted against the party who drafted the document. And voters should make sure they understand exactly what Measure M does before they vote. And if they can't understand what Measure M says, they should ask themselves why proponents drafted such a complicated and lengthy ballot measure, and make sure they aren't voting in a Trojan Horse. Measure M proponents may be unhappy with the current city council, but this ballot measure handcuffs not only the current council members but every single city council to be elected by future residents, forever.

If you are confused about what Measure M aims to accomplish, vote no.

The residents of Menlo Park are intelligent. Being critical of an Atherton Resident speaking out against measure m is very sad. How about the money accepted from an Atherton resident in support of measure m. I guess he thinks everyone is stupid in Menlo Park.

SteveC:

no, I don't think the Atherton resident funding Savemenlo and Measure M thinks MP voters are stupid. I think those that drafted the measure think MP voters are stupid. One only need look at the lies they have posted on line and their total lack of response to many questions that have been asked of them. No, Savemenlo would prefer the voter remain in the dark.

fortunately as you not MP voter ARE smart and will see through the BS put out by Savemenlo.

I find it sad that people want to attack the funding for Measure M. Measure M is a grassroots initiative started by residents of Menlo Park to protect the city from over development and gridlock. The impartial analysis was written by "Gregory W. Stepanicich
Special Legal Counsel for the City of Menlo Park" I like that line "Legal council for the city of Menlo Park". Menlo Park has tried to kill Measure M, the City Council and mayor are against it and yet the Impartial Analysis is written by and one can assume approved by the same people. If there were a way to portray it poorly in the analysis it would be safe to assume they would, after all look at how it has been negatively portrayed by other city publications.

Peter and Menlo are certainly not impartial and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt, it only takes reading a few of their posts to see that they play fast and loose with "facts" (most of which they make up on the spot)

Back to the funding. Have the opponents of Measure M released their finding report yet? It seems Greenheart is spending a lot of money on ads in the Almanac, big signs on their properties, etc. How much is being spent by each side?

*as you note MP voters ARE smart

Brian:

how do you honestly call savemenlo's funding "grass roots?" 65% of it came from a single ATHERTON resident? Seriously? That's "grass roots." BS

Brian:

you accuse us of making up facts you have NEVER quoted anything from measure M to support your position. Who's "making up" facts?

Brian, the city hired Stepanicich specifically to review the initiative, as the city's regular counsel was deemed to have a conflict of interest because his office is located within the Downtown area. If you are going to cast aspersions on people hired specifically to produce politically neutral analyses of voter initiatives, then you've clearly decided the outcome before considering all the facts.

Brian states - "Peter and Menlo are certainly not impartial and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt, it only takes reading a few of their posts to see that they play fast and loose with "facts" (most of which they make up on the spot)"


Brian - Please be so kind and honest as to provide specific examples of anything that I have made up on the spot. Almost all of my posts include actual quotes from Measure M and the Specific Plan - you posts never do that.

Peter-"Please be so kind and honest as to provide specific examples of anything that I have made up on the spot."

Back on 9/3/14, you wrote, "680 units averaging 3 bedrooms would be about 3400 people and about 1700 people of school age." You provided nothing to support this, and any publicly available demographics on Menlo Park are completely inconsistent with this. Even your beloved DSP on predicts "Resident Population 1,537 New Residents." That's new residents, not new people of school age.

Where did you get your information, or is it made up?

You frequently claim that the elimination of balconies as open space will force Stanford to build slab sided buildings. This is in direct conflict with the zoning in the DSP. There is a whole section on Massing and Modulation (E.3.4). The DSP zoning for Stanford's ECR-SE includes facade modulation (E.3.4.2) and 45 degree building profile above the facade (E.3.4.3).

Where did you get your information, or is it made up?

Baloney - I postulated the worst case outcome to demonstrate how bad it could be to have large residential units. In worst case analysis you, by definition, use the worst case figures.

On the bizarre Measure M open space definition again I assume that if you force a developer to use sq ft and dollars in one place they will eliminate sq ft and dollars elsewhere. The facade modulation can be accomplished with no balconies and with Measure M open space there is no incentive to provide balconies.

Measure M is carefully written. It re-adopts key provisions and definitions in the specific plan, for clarity about what M counts towards its office limits. The plan area office limit and nonresidential limit come straight from specific plan study documents. M's provisions were studied thoroughly, unlike the two huge projects.
The plan area map was re-adopted to show where M's counting will occur. The plan area is the same now as the date of the map. After passage of M, counting can still occur for the parcels within the plan area.

Carpenter grossly exaggerates and speculates. A future with M's passage is what was expected - balanced growth that supports our residential community, not excessive offices that bring commuter rush hour traffic and no sales tax revenues.

Peter-" I postulated the worst case outcome"

Postulate- To suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

So, as I said, you made it up.
If you have some basis for the numbers in your worst case scenario, then please provide.

Peter-"The facade modulation can be accomplished with no balconies..."

Slab-a broad, flat, somewhat thick piece of stone, wood, or other solid material

Not only CAN facade modulation be accomplished it MUST be accomplished by code. If the facades are modulated, they are not slabs.

So, as I said, you made it up.
If you have some basis for saying that Stanford will propose and successfully push through an architecture specifically prohibited by code, then please provide.

Baloney - When considering MAJOR changes to a carefully developed zoning ordinance it is ESSENTIAL to look at the worst possible outcomes of the proposed changes. Doing such an analysis requires making and stating the assumptions used - I have done that.

The Measure M proponents have done ZERO analysis of their proposal and want to sell a Monster as a Mouse.

Measure M is a Massive Mistake.

Baloney - a modulated building without balconies and plantings will be UGLY - That is what Measure M's bizarre open space definition will produce.

The carefully developed and fully vetted Specific Plan provides INCENTIVES to create more attractive and desirable facades; Measure M provides noting but DISINCENTIVES.

M provides a huge disincentive to office park architecture right at the entrance of Menlo Park.

The real issue here is traffic. Today El Camino right in front of the Stanford project site already has 6,500 more car trips per day than when the Specific Plan was passed (April 2014 traffic counts). This explains the frequent congestion on El Camino. The Stanford project alone will put 138%(!) more cars on Middle Ave. than the Specific Plan had envisioned for its entire 25+ year time horizon. Over 70% of office workers don't live in Menlo Park and need to get to 280 or 101. Traffic is like water: When El Camino, Middle, Sand Hill, Santa Cruz, Ravenswood and Willow are congested, cars will be cutting through everybody's street.

And: Under M Stanford won't replace lost office space with a Walmart - like some anti-M scare tactics would like you to believe. They build their retail at the Stanford Shopping Center. If they decide not to merge their parcels they will lose a lot of building space to the required setbacks between lots.

You've merely proffered more of the same moldy headcheese from your overflowing font of divination, Peter -- you're daring to invent where fact dare not go; you're making it all up.

Gern

"If they decide not to merge their parcels they will lose a lot of building space to the required setbacks between lots."

This is a typical short sighted analysis. If they develop their individual parcels separately then they still get the same total FAR as if they merged the parcels. The result of the setback requirements for the individual parcels is not a loss of sq footage but an INCREASE in building HEIGHT.

Measure M is full of such unintended consequences.

Gern,

Making up things and presenting them as facts is Peters strong point. for example he condisers it a "Fact" that Measure M prevents a new downtown firestation. It most certainly does not, it makes it harder but does not prevent anything. He also nicely neglects the fact that after 7 years of working on the the fire board and City got no where.

Peter has also made up houseing density numbers if the Stanford Property were to be residential. He made numbers that were beyond a worse case scenario and presented them as a fact until he was called on it, then he backed off slightly.

Peter, Let's face it, you make up things, present them as a "Fact", gets called on it and quickly tries changing the subject.

BTW,

Thanks to those who also posted data from Peter proving that he makes up numbers and calls them "facts". Peter floows up with a slight backing off by saying "...definition again I assume that if you force a developer to use sq ft and dollars in one place they will..." then goes on to defend his assumptions as facts.

Peter, You know what they say about "assume", don't you?

Brian

Fact - Measure M prevents building a new downtown fire station on the two parcels owned by the Fire District without a city wide vote.

Fact - Measure M supporters have done ZERO analysis of the impact of any of their forever definitions and limitation. I postulated the worst case outcome to demonstrate how bad it could be to have large residential units. In worst case analysis you, by definition, use the worst case figures. If you don't agree with my assumptions then present your own assumptions along with the result of Measure M using those assumptions.

Fact - Measure M supporters never quote from Measure M - it is like the drunken relative that no one really wants to talk about.



Fact - There has not been one single Measure M response to this almost month old posting:

"Invitation to Measure M supporters to engage in an open dialogue"
Original post made by Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood, on Sep 13, 2014

Democracy demands dialogue and informed voters but Measure M supporters prefer silence and ignorance.

Attack me all you want; the Editors have determined that I am the only Forum poster who is not protected by their Terms of Service from such personal attacks.

But remember that the real issue is the future of Menlo Park and Measure M is a commitment to the past.

Peter,

Where to start...

First I have not seen any personal attacks on you. No one is calling you names, making statements about your race, relicion, lifestyle, etc. They are calling you to task for posting ficticious data and calling it fact, posting misleading information, misquoting people , etc.

Next: "There has not been one single Measure M response to this almost month old posting
'Invitation to Measure M supporters to engage in an open dialogue'"

First off I thought this forum was an open dialog on Measure M? Second who are you proposing they have an open dialog with? I certainly hope not you because that would be impossible. The hundreds of posts you made regarding the initiative and now Measure M prove beyond a resonable doubt that you are not interested in an open dialog. There have been discussions and debates about Measure M and will continue to be over the next month. I feel there has been and continues to be sufficient dialog on this subject.

"Fact - Measure M supporters have done ZERO analysis of the impact of any of their forever definitions and limitation. " - Ridiculous on the face of it. You presume to speak to everything any supporter of Measure M has and has not done. That you present this as a FACT just proves eveyones point that you do not understand what a fact is and contine to make thins up. I guess we should have two terms "fact" and "Peter Fact" because they have completely different meaning.

"Democracy demands dialogue and informed voters but Measure M supporters prefer silence and ignorance." I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately I do not think you are familiar with the definition of the work dialogue. Let me quote the most appropriate definition:

"an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement."

The only agreement you want is acceptance of your point of view and everyone who does not agree with you be damned. You arguments here remind me of Sheldon from the television show Big Bang Theory. You use circular reasoning and ignore anything that does not support your position.

Brian

Brian - 1 -Please post links to ANY impact analysis that Measure M supporters have published.

2 - "who are you proposing they have an open dialog with" - anyone who reads the Town Forum

3 - PLEASE feel free to present counter arguments to my presentations and please include quotations from Measure M and the Specific Plan to support your position.

Peter,

Do you actually read this forum, or do you just post. I see an open dialogue happening in just about every discussion board. If people ask questions they get answered. You however do not ask questions seeking information or clarification, you are basically out to attack anyones opinion that does not match yours. You do not have an open mind and are not open to a legitimate dialogue. You have proven that time and time again so why should anyone take your posts seriously. We are all aware of where you sit: Opposed Measure M at all cost, attack the people who wrote it, the organization behind it and the people who support it.

And I like how you change your "facts" from

"Fact - Measure M supporters have done ZERO analysis of the impact of any of their forever definitions and limitation."

to

"ANY impact analysis that Measure M supporters have published"

Slight difference and a nice back pedal.

Brian states - "You however do not ask questions seeking information or clarification"

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
3 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Brian - 1 -Please post links to ANY impact analysis that Measure M supporters have published.
NO answer
2 - "who are you proposing they have an open dialog with" - anyone who reads the Town Forum
NO answer
3 - PLEASE feel free to present counter arguments to my presentations and please include quotations from Measure M and the Specific Plan to support your position.
NO answer

nvitation to Measure M supporters to engage in an open dialogue
Original post made by Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood, on Sep 13, 2014


The voters of Menlo Park deserve to be fully informed regarding Measure M.

Pick any one of the following issues:
1 - What is the wisdom of Measure M's section 3.3.5 imposition of a 100,000 sq ft cap per project on two property owners that have multiple parcels whereby they can easily avoid that cap?
2 - Compare the public review and vetting of the Specific Plan compared to the pubic review and vetting of Measure M.
3 - Will section 3 of Measure M freeze 9 definitions forever unless they are changed by a city wide vote?
4 - Will section 3.2.1 of Measure M's definition of open space result in slab sided large buildings and economically unviable setbacks for smaller buildings?
5 - Does section 4.1 of Measure M allow anyone to challenge any project in the Specific Plan area if they feel that the project "frustrates" the implementation of Measure M?
6 - Does Measure M preclude the building of a new fire station at the corner of Oak Grove and Hoover utilizing two adjacent parcels - one of which is inside the Measure M section 3.1 defined Specific Plan area and one of which is outside the Measure M section 3.1 defined Specific Plan area?
7 - The specific section of Measure M of your choice.

Take your choice and present your opinion and the facts to support that opinion.


NO answers.

I rest my case.

Brian states - "And I like how you change your "facts" from

"Fact - Measure M supporters have done ZERO analysis of the impact of any of their forever definitions and limitation."

to

"ANY impact analysis that Measure M supporters have published"

Slight difference and a nice back pedal."

No backpedal - do you think secret studies should also be considered? How can you provide a link to such secret studies?

A good test of who is more fact based is to compare how many time the Measure M supporters have quoted the actual language of Measure M - ZERO - versus how many time the opponents of Measure M have quoted the language of Measure M - HUNDREDS.

WHAT are they hiding? The TRUTH.

Peter,

You are being ridiculous. How can anything be hidden? Measure M is publicly available and it up for a city wide vote. It was not passed by a small group of people who had closed meetings and ignored input from others. It is open for the public to read and have their own say by determining to vote for or against it. You keep talking about "secret meetings" and being put together by a small group of people. What you fail to acknowledge is that for this to become law it MUST be voted on by the majority of Menlo Park residents in a general election. The full text of Measure M is available publically for anyone to read and form their own opinion on. It is not a long document nor do I believe it is difficult to read and understand.

Since you don't trust Save Menlo I will provide the menlopark.org link to the text along with impartial analysis. Anyone can read it AND have a say in whether is passes. Tell me how anything can be more open and transparent that that?

Why should I or anyone else quote from Measure M when anyone can read the full text of it in context and come to their own conclusions? You on the other had don't seem to trust people to come to their own conclusions; you feel the need to spin everything. Why is that?

Here is the site with the full text of measure M, an impartial analysis as well as the arguments for and against...

Web Link

Brian states - "It was not passed by a small group of people who had closed meetings and ignored input from others." You are absolutely correct that Measure M has NOT passed.

However, you are also absolutely wrong because Measure M WAS written "by a small group of people who had closed meetings and ignored input from others."

*********
Brian states - "Since you don't trust Save Menlo I will provide the menlopark.org link to the text along with impartial analysis. Anyone can read it AND have a say in whether is passes. Tell me how anything can be more open and transparent that that?"

Providing the full text and the impartial analysis is a good start but informed voters also need to read the Wise report and at least peruse the Specific Plan itself. So here is a much better reading list:

Full Text of Measure M

Ballot Measure M: City of Menlo Park website

El Camino Real and Downtown Vision Plan

El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan

Overview of the Measure’s Intended Changes to the Specific Plan, and How the Specific Plan Currently Addresses Key Issues

Greenheart Project Proposal at 1300 El Camino Real (former Buick dealer)

Stanford Project Proposal at 500 El Camino Real(formerly the Tesla and Mercury dealers)

Lisa Wise Counsultant report - impartial anaylsis commissioned by the city

Dana Hendrickson's informational website

Traffic conformance report: Part 1

Traffic conformance report: Part 2

California Dept of Transportation Traffic Study

Press release on formation of Menlo Park Deserves Better

Highlights of consultant report by Sue Kayton

Official Ballot Argument in Opposition to Measure M

Net Impact Square Footage

The actual links can be found here:

Web Link

Hard work - Yes, but democracy was never meant to be easy or based on ignorance.

Don't feed the trolls!

Most people have decided already!
Give it a rest.

FDR,

I agree and I encourage anyone who has not decided to do so on their own and skip the misinformation and lies that abound in these forums.

Here is a perfect example:

Peter said "you are also absolutely wrong because Measure M WAS written "by a small group of people who had closed meetings and ignored input from others."

He seems to mistake Written and Passed. What I said was "It was not passed by a small group of people who had closed meetings and ignored input from others."

Peter, can you direct me to any document in the history of the United States that was written by the majority of voters? The Constitution was written by a small group of individuals and was passed by a much larger group but maybe a better example would be any of the ammendments to the constitution which are written by a smaller group of people then ratified by voters. Here is the difference, since you like the Specific plan let's use that. It was written and Passed by a small group of people. Measure M was written by a smnall group of people and if it is passed will be done so by the MAJORITY of Menlo Park Residents.

Are you able to understand how that makes Measure M not only more open than the specific plan or anything else Menlo Park has done in regards to Stanford or Greenheart.

Your "reading list" is exactly what is expected, a list of everyone opposed to measure M and nothing from anyone who says anytbhing good about it. At least you are not hiding your bias against Measure M.

Brian asks - "Are you able to understand how that makes Measure M not only more open than the specific plan or anything else Menlo Park has done in regards to Stanford or Greenheart."

No because the Specific Plan was the result of more than 90 public meetings in which the document evolved and it continues to evolve today.

No because the Stanford and Greenheart proposals are both being discuss, deliberated, changed and decided in public with public input.

Measure M was written in secret without public input or vetting and is a true Take it or Leave it document. Measure M's ten definitions and specific limits are FOREVER and cannot be changed at all before the vote and only by a city wide vote to change even one word after the vote.

Hopefully Measure M will not pass and the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission and the elected City Council will be permitted to intelligently guide the future with constant input from the citizens.

Brian makes a valid point -"Your "reading list" is exactly what is expected, a list of everyone opposed to measure M and nothing from anyone who says anytbhing good about it."

I would note that most of my reading list is of official documents which are neither pro or con on Measure M and that I have already posted a link to BOTH side of the Measure M video debate.

Anyway, here are more links - take your choice but be informed before you vote:

Measure M video debate - BOTH sides:

Web Link

No on M web site:

http://menloparkdeservesbetter.nationbuilder.com

Save Menlo web site:

http://www.savemenlo.org

Legal opinion on Measure M impact on proposed changes to DSP:

Web Link

Anytime a bucket of money is spent on something someone wants to make money( few exceptions)

Has anyone taken a step back and looked at the cluster today's Menlo Park has become?

For years - decades it was a downtown that served the area with in scale and varied businesses.

It is now over built -- yet with vacant restaurant store fronts. Kind of says a lot when people are a) not there to walk to eat b) can't find parking to want to drive over.

How much tax revenue do you get from office/ medical buildings?

The city is basically ruined-- it is an industrial park with inadequate street access and parking.

Did you really just want a city of drywall office buildings waiting to go vacant?

Did you study the resident demographics and think-- what should a downtown for an aging population look like?

Clint Eastwood served as mayor of Carmel to help fight the way his town was turning into something that didn't serve the locals.

No heros here? Menlo is becoming a drive by place -- not a place to stop.

Oh , and by the way the nasty aggressive parking fee system Menlo embraces is a major turn off to visitors.

We don't have an aging population in Menlo Park. In case you haven't noticed our schools are overloaded and looking for more room. If anything we have a population that is getting younger as more and more families move here. Part of the reason our downtown is so dead and not a destination is because of the previously ageing population that didn't want a lively downtown.

"No heros here?"

There are lots of heroes here - the citizens who worked hard to help develop the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission which labored over every page in that document and the City Council that held countless public sessions, reviewed Draft and Final EIRs and then reviewed , adopted and continues to revise the Specific Plan. And that same council which continues to insist that any project submitted in the Specific Plan area must serve not only the property owner but also the broader interests of Menlo Park.

Hey, gadfly Morris Brown- what is "miss-information"? Is that facts for the ladies?

The census data shows the median age increasing. Facts are funny things eh?

How can you call people who are turning the town into a traffic nightmare office park "heros"? I am sure thousands of hours are spent on approving office parks.

The issue is why do it? Look at what is being produced. Results matter more than process.

The census data shows the median age increasing. Facts are funny things eh?

How can you call people who are turning the town into a traffic nightmare office park "heros"? I am sure thousands of hours are spent on approving office parks.

The issue is why do it? Look at what is being produced. Results matter more than process.

Sadie:

according to the census data in this web link: Web Link the only age categories which have increased between 2000 and 2010 are the under five group which increased by 1.1% and 5 to 17 years which increased by 1.4%. The 18 to 64 age group decreased .9% and the 65 and over group decreased 1.6%. So the age groups showing growth are youth.

Yes, Sadie Facts are funny things aren't they?