Menlo Park council studies boutique hotel

"good friends" since childhood - sounds like a conflict of interest. Ohtaki should recuse himself.

No, he should not have to recuse himself. There is a reason pecuniary interest is the standard, because it is objective and can be independently established. Friends since childhood is far too subjective. If we made it a rule that being friends with someone meant that a council member would have to recuse themselves, we'd be dooming ourselves either to meetings without a full and vigorous debate because members were absent, or to only electing to council people so utterly lacking in social skills that they have no friends. That doesn't sound like a good outcome to me.

It would be useful to get a lot more detail on the cost-sharing proposal. Like what kind of hotel would be built by this developer without that, and what would the expected ToT revenue stream be? Would there be a floor on ToT to the city, and how would that be guaranteed? The exact trade-off proposed needs to be made clear.
It's also unclear why the developer cannot get that extra $1M with other investors, really peanuts in Silicon Valley. Most investors would also take an equity share in the building, but that sounds like a bag of trouble for the city. Much of this looks like a bad precedent to be setting for future development through the Specific Plan or otherwise.

Tunbridge, I totally agree with your position.

The entire review and evaluation process for this hotel concept will be publicly reviewed so there will be plenty of opportunity to unemotionally discuss it. Pay attention and participate.

No one will be impressed with uncivil discourse and conspiracy theories. They ALWAYS weakens one's arguments. Peace.

Please note the general comment in my prior message about civility was NOT directed at Turnbridge. I simply like to participate in healthy and productive discussions.

Would it be asking too much of the Almanac to report campaign contributions (if any) that Mr. Pollack might have given to other council members?

Editor's note: From the story:
Mr. Pollock donated $400 to Mr. Ohtaki's successful 2014 campaign for re-election to the council; the councilman took in $18,463 total from donors. The developer did not donate to the other candidates in the race.

Boutique hotel? What we need more is housing!

63 rooms where the Shell station was. Amazing. This is a fine location for a hotel, not so good for housing. And we need the revenue that a room tax will bring. Sounds like a winner.

Good project that we want, but nobody gets a free pass! I say if the developer needs a year waiver of his taxes, then he either didn't do his math properly or he's seeing what he can get away with.

Planning in this town is hamstrung by uncertainty. Developers don't know what need to go to Planning commission or how much ransom money the need to pay in 'public benefit.' This uncertainty is what creates empty lots, and our changing the rules or giving certain guys a break does not help the situation.

Stick to the Plan! Torpedos be Dammed!

If Menlo Park has extra taxpayer's cash lying around, inclluding the revenue that would be lost in a tax waiver, it should be used for improving our woefully deficient infrastructure and not for subsidizing private profit from the development of a luxury hotel.