Complaint against the City filed with Civil Grand Jury

I stand corrected - Robinson filed a "Complaint" not a "lawsuit".

The lawsuit is next on Save Menlo's agenda to Stop Menlo - sorry to have spilled the beans.

Peter Carpenter, [portion removed] from Atherton, writes:

"The lawsuit is next on Save Menlo's agenda to Stop Menlo - sorry to have spilled the beans."

Where is your proof of any of this accusation, Peter? Nobody in the SaveMenlo group that I know, has mentioned a lawsuit being on their agenda.

[Portion removed; keep it civil.]

@ "looking on." I find that Mr. Carpenter's statements are typically well-supported and helpful. It certainly isn't "garbage." And who cares where he lives.

Your statement emphasizes a troubling point:
"Nobody in the SaveMenlo group that I know, has mentioned a lawsuit being on their agenda."

Perhaps someone you don't know "mentioned a lawsuit?"

Nobody seems to be able to speak on behalf of the group or be held accountable.

looking on:

savemenlo supporters on this forum have said they will launch lawsuits. You'll need to go back away and do some research but you will find it. In fact, if I remember correctly, a poster by the name of Gern said it, in addition to a few others. No lie. Truth.

Gern even threatened to start a NEW initiative if Measure M passed and Stanford then submitted Measure M compliant plans that he did not like.

Save Menlo started with a petition to the Council and Stanford and all of their demands were met.

Save Menlo's response - they took the petition off their web site and launched an initiative.

Save Menlo has no designated leadership so no one can be held accountable.

Save Menlo has no designated leadership so no one can agree to and enforce an agreed upon endpoint.

They will continue to anything and everything they can to Stop Menlo.

They are whack-a-mole experts.

To: Menlo Voter:

Don't just post and say that lawsuit(s) will be filed and fail to back up your accusation. I know many in the SaveManlo group and none of them have mentioned lawsuits.

Indeed it is Peter Carpenter, the Atherton resident, who first claimed Heyward Robinson had filed a lawsuit -- simply not true --- and Carpenter had to back off and retract his claim.

So Menlo Voter put up of shut up!

Editor(You object the use of the term "Carpetbagger", which was coined after the Civil war. Today's use is routinely used as

Today, the phrase refers to someone who moves to a new location for opportunistic reasons. At least it seems to fit Mr. Carpenter quite well -- An Atherton resident who is interjecting himself of Menlo Park issues"

looking on - the headline was corrected. Now what is your objection?

" An Atherton resident who is interjecting himself of Menlo Park issues"???

I DO have skin in the game.

Santa Cruz and ECR are MY downtown.

Menlo Park is part of MY community.

I serve as an elected Director of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District which would be adversely affected by Measure M.

looking on:

I'm not going to spend hours of my time trying to find the posts I know I saw from people threatening lawsuits if measure m fails.

Menlo Voter-cum-Builder stated: "In fact, if I remember correctly, a poster by the name of Gern said it, in addition to a few others. No lie. Truth."

Peter Clownpainter then followed with: "Gern even threatened to start a NEW initiative if Measure M passed and Stanford then submitted Measure M compliant plans that he did not like."

Complete fabrications, both, and I challenge either gongfermor making these accusations to cite where I've stated any such thing in this forum.

The ease and frequency with which Peter Carpenter, chief architect of the MenloParkDeservesBetter No on M platform, foists intentional misstatements upon readers here and elsewhere online should give every Menlo Park voter pause.

Gern

Gern states - "Peter Clownpainter then followed with: "Gern even threatened to start a NEW initiative if Measure M passed and Stanford then submitted Measure M compliant plans that he did not like."

Complete fabrications, both, and I challenge either gongfermor making these accusations to cite where I've stated any such thing in this forum."

Well, Gern here it is:


Posted by Gern
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Mar 22, 2014 at 9:52 am
"... their proposed initiative has every incentive for Stanford, Greenheart and Roger reynolds to develop the smaller partials which make up their much larger holdings as individual projects. This will result in a proliferation of small projects each conforming to its own parcel setbacks thus resulting in a large number of tall boxes ..."

More of Peter at his conjectural, FUD-worthy best. Fortunately, the people behind these projects understand the substantial added costs and delays associated with developing their parcels piecemeal would outweigh Peter's imagined benefits, especially when the proposed mini-skyscrapers would likely run afoul of citizen-led initiatives and referendums of their own."

Gern - Do you now remember posting these exact words "would likely run afoul of citizen-led initiatives and referendums of their own."?

Gee Gern, I guess you didn't say it. Oh wait, you did.

Only in the very skewed, irrational world inhabited both by Peter Carpenter and Measure M would these two statements be equivalent:

Peter, today: "Gern even threatened to start a NEW initiative if Measure M passed and Stanford then submitted Measure M compliant plans that he did not like."

Gern, in March: "More of Peter at his conjectural, FUD-worthy best. Fortunately, the people behind these projects understand the substantial added costs and delays associated with developing their parcels piecemeal would outweigh Peter's imagined benefits, especially when the proposed mini-skyscrapers would likely run afoul of citizen-led initiatives and referendums of their own."

The context of my March comment was, of course, the absolute worst-case scenario Peter was bandying about at the time, something which likely would lead to another initiative or referendum though I never indicated I would be starting either, clearly. That *fact* is lost on Peter in his sad, monomaniacal quest to discredit everyone and everything supporting Measure M's success.

And, Menlo Voter/Builder, I'm still waiting to see the quote from this forum or elsewhere wherein I threaten some kind of lawsuit, an outright lie on your behalf and just the sort of baseless crap you and Peter continue to dump in this forum.

The ease and frequency with which Peter Carpenter, chief architect of the MenloParkDeservesBetter No on M platform, foists intentional misstatements upon readers here and elsewhere online should give every Menlo Park voter pause.

Gern

Gern - just admit you got caught.

Gern:

Do you ever present anything factual or just constantly attack those who do?

"Do you ever present anything factual or just constantly attack those who do?"

Fact: In his comment above Menlo Voter/Builder willfully lied about my threatening or intimating a lawsuit, and in response to another commenter's request to substantiate his claim stated simply, as might a petulant child, "I'm not going to spend hours of my time trying to find the posts I know I saw from people threatening lawsuits if measure m fails."

This, then, is how Menlo Voter/Builder and Peter Carpenter typically offer up "facts" over personal attacks.

Gern

Gern states - "Peter Carpenter typically offer up "facts" over personal attacks."

I provide proof that Gern was the Measure M supporter who raised the spector of citizen lead initiatives in response to the possible submission of Measure M compliant proposals by Stanford,

Here is what Gern posted : " Fortunately, the people behind these projects understand the substantial added costs and delays associated with developing their parcels piecemeal would outweigh Peter's imagined benefits, especially when the proposed mini-skyscrapers would likely run afoul of citizen-led initiatives and referendums of their own.""

[Portion removed]