Menlo Park council race: Tensions grow over residential rezoning

I'd like for Ms. Wolosin to be transparent about what, as a council member, the would support on rezoning the USGS property. Will she support a mix of high density housing....not just town homes!

Did Ms. Nguyen recommend *thirty* foot fence heights, or is this a misunderstanding? I don't think I've ever seen a fence that high. Perhaps around a prison yard???

The USGS site and what will become of it is one of the biggest issues in the D3 race.
@conscience is right. Townhomes or multifamily density is the question? Most of the D3 campaigning has been an ideological discussion with scant attention to actual details of the City Council action that is foreseeable in District 3. Wolosin and the other candidates have not provided unambiguous responses on this issue. Wolosin is emphazing housing in her campaign. Will she back it up and support multi-family density housing at the USGS site?

I read Ngyuen's response to the single family home zoning change issue, about the 30ft fencing, to obviously be tounge in cheek sarcasm, highlighting percieved privacy concerns raised by the zoning change. @ublock, why so petty?

@Jack I *literally* asked for clarification. It did not read as sarcasm to me and was written here as a very plain statement. This is why the author should clarify. If not sarcasm, I wouldn't find concern over fences that high to be petty.

And I don't even understand the sentiment. The duplexes in my neighborhood are the same height as single-family residences.

@UBlock, comparing a minority candidate's statement on land use (which is plainly sarcastic) to creating the conditions of a prison yard, as you did in the body of your response and in the moniker you have chosen, is 100 percent petty.

@Jack O'Lantern Bwaaaa ha ha ha... you assume I "chose a moniker" to imply something about the candidate and prisons. I literally used my first initial and last name. <...still laughing...> I can't believe "Jack O'Lantern" is [falsely] calling me out for creating a moniker with some sort of sinister intent.

For the record: I find it unwise to *assume* things from very simple statements and prefer to ask for clarification. Was Ms. Nguyen's request for 30-foot fences serious or sarcasm? (Note that I'm asking the original author) If sarcasm, I'd recommend the author note that. If serious, then this is not petty whatsoever as I would *not* want a 30-foot fence next to my house.

Have a Happy Halloween, Jack O'.

@Ublock You want us to believe your last name is Block and you were not making a reference to a prison?

That is quite a coincidence, given you referenced a prison yard in your initial post
and as everyone knows a "block" is a control unit or segregation unit (also called a "block" ) in a prison. Web Link

Focusing on Nguyen's sarcastic comment, making references to prison yards? This really isn't a very good way to support your candidate and divert attention away from the focus of the article.

"In an interview, Wolosin said that rezoning is just one of many housing policies she's open to considering if elected and tasked with working on the city's new housing element. "(Rezoning) R1 is not the centerpiece of my campaign," she said."

Rezoning may not be the centerpiece, but it is central. For insight, explore Menlo Together's website. Web Link Jen Wolosin is a member, as are others with influential MP positions. You will find links to articles and petitions encouraging more dense housing near transit and downtown, meaning district 3.

IMHO, Jen Wolosin will overturn R1 zoning. Stu Soffer and Marc Bryman, you missed your chance.

1) I'm surprised that no one mentions that we should demand that the State reconsider the "mandates". Apparently, we have handed the State Bureaucrats total control over our lives & our neighborhoods! Where will it end? Is there anything that Newsom does not want to mandate? Menlo Park is no longer the family-centered community that we once admired.
2) High rise housing @ Transit stops? Has anyone noticed that people are avoiding sitting/standing in enclosed, dirty mass transit? Ridership will never meet the vastly overstated numbers "forecasted" by our "Urban Planners" and dense housing isn't desirable either!

I am concerned that an Almanac blogger wrote a blog endorsing one candidate without disclosing that he had asked another candidate, who he did not then endorse, for a quid pro quo which she refused.

Kudos to Wolosin for refusing the requested quid pro quo.

There are many lovely and vibrant mixed multifamily and single family neighborhoods in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Long Beach among other communities. These housing mixes often also support longer-term residents of a wider range of ages, family configurations and incomes, a positive outcome otherwise difficult to achieve with more homogeneous zoning.

I have to say I find it funny that a person with the Moniker of Jack O'Lantern calls out another person for their name. I would have to give they win to U. Block on that one

As for sarcasm, really? I am not sure I read it that way. I will give you that sarcasm does not translate well to print but even so Nguyen should have known better than to even make that statement. Claiming is is sarcasm is as believable as when Trump says he was just joking about investigating injecting bleach...

I have to say at this point the District 3 race is rapidly becoming the lesser of the 3 evils, or the best of 3 bad choices. I know that as a homeowner in Menlo Park if a candidate tried to rezone the residential properties in Menlo Park for higher density that I would support recalling that person.

I am perplexed that the Publisher himself removed an endorsement of my candidacy for the Fire Board * from this Forum because he felt it too powerful and yet that same Publisher ignores the fact that an Almanac blogger wrote a blog endorsing one candidate without disclosing that he had asked another candidate, who he did not then endorse, for a quid pro quo which she refused.

*
Web Link

On Sep 2, 2020, at 9:12 AM, Bill Johnson wrote:

Hi Peter and Tom,

This was removed for two reasons. First, we don't permit candidates to post third-party endorsements. You can imagine what that would lead to, both in terms of fact-checking and candidates flooding the site with endorsements. Second, high-profile endorsements from public figures aren't allowed even if posted by them. Advertising is the proper place to publicize such endorsements. We don't have the means to verify the authenticity of such postings and the forum is not intended as a way for candidates to publicize their influential backers' testimonials. The goal is to allow regular citizens to share their views and personal experiences. During campaigns we work very hard to keep comments focused on substantive issues and the contrasts among candidates. I'm sure both of you, having decades of political experience, can appreciate the need for this.

Tom, great to connect with you. It's been a long time. I'm glad to see you're still working hard to improve our messed up political system. Let us all hope for a decisive Trump defeat in November so we can begin repairing the damage.

Best wishes,

Bill

Bill:

I find your editorial note totally inappropriate as the owner of the publication & you lose any semblance of neutrality on any issue!

"Let us all hope for a decisive Trump defeat in November so we can begin repairing the damage."

Agree or not, you have overstepped the boundary!

Bill did I miss something or did you do what you were telling Peter not to do, You endorsed a candidate, biden, by attacking Trump, unless you're writing in some one, I thought the press was to remain neutral, I expect some clarification please, Similar to dorsey you're telling us what we as the people can't do and you as the press can.

@Bill It’s a little shocking how brazenly open and comfortable you feel being so partisan as a publisher.

I agree about the 30 foot fence not being sarcasm as the journalist would have said so and the only place I can think of ever seeing one IS a prison yard. Not even SFO has fences that high.

As for High-density on USGS, all for it. Tri plexes and duplexes, they are not already allowed thru-out MP? and why not?! (Rhetorical)
MP has approved huge houses (with zero yard) some next to tiny ones, 2 on Menalto, one on Johnson off the top of my head. Low density Multi-family Du's and Tri's make total sense, great for mulit-generatoinal living - and No ones property values are going down because of it. Do a little research before claiming that. They are all over neighboring communities and it's just as expensive to live there. For petes sake someone just paid over $3 mill to live ON Willow Rd, the busy part.

So the minority candidate who has recieved racist emails in this campaign now has to endure the dog whistle that her comment about a fence will make people's homes look like prison yards, despite the obvious sarcasm, and ignoring that the fence comment was in response to the 30 foot tall triplex next to property line that Wolosin is proposing considering. It begs the question, does the 30ft tall wall of the side of triplex make people feel like they are in a prison yard as well? I would hope not. But does it make a difference that Wolosin proposed it as opposed to Ngyuen?

"Bill did I miss something or did you do what you were telling Peter not to do, You endorsed a candidate,...."

To be clear - The Publisher did not prohibit me from endorsing a candidate.

What the Publisher did was to remove the Honorable Tom Campbell's strong endorsement of me from the Town Forum on the grounds that "high-profile endorsements from public figures aren't allowed even if posted by them. Advertising is the proper place to publicize such endorsements."

U-Block: If you have a house behind or next to you (perhaps a 2-story), so close that you might feel that you no longer have the privacy, you would want to have as high a fence as possible. So this is not really a funny matter. It does matter to some residents who may not welcome having very close neighbors. We need to be mindful of that fact.

Jack O'Lantern: It is true USGS is a big issue, and a prime site. However, it would be naive to think that we will be able to develop on that site. It IS Federal land, not City land. It would be naive that we could outbid other developers for the USGS site ($$$) and then pay to build housing ($$$), especially due to Covid, we will not have the kind of income we normally get (sales taxes, hotel taxes). Where the world would we have the money to pay for the USGS site and the find the money to build it?
I would say we need to use City-owned land, like downtown parking lots, and then have a Bond Measure to pay for the housing development. We would not have to raise as much as trying to get money to pay for USGS land as well. While all of us would love to own the USGS property, it is not likely that we will get it. It is naive to think that somehow we have tons of cash laying around to be able to do both (buying and building). I think we need to leave USGS off the table until we get it (IF we are able to get it).

@Chelsea Thanks for the response and engaging in the conversation!

Please note that I never said this was funny. "Jack O'Lantern" said the issue was petty and I was saying that it was not petty as some people may not appreciate fences like that getting built. I laughed at "Jack's" assumption that I'm using a fake/derogatory pseudonym (which I'm not) while he is posting from an obviously fake pseudonym. I did not laugh at the topic as a whole and was simply asking for clarification from the author.

It sounds to me like you were not being sarcastic about allowing ultra-tall fences, unlike what "Jack" assumed. My opinion: I have no problem with new fence rules being explored as housing styles change, but I cannot envision a scenario where I'd like to have a 30-foot fence (or even 15 or 20 feet) on the property line next to my house. I'd much rather have a 30-foot tall building at the appropriate setback as a neighbor.

I applaud all three candidates for being willing to look at housing in Menlo Park and accepting that changes might be necessary. I think transit and housing are two of our biggest issues to address. I'm a District 3 homeowner now, but have lived here since being a graduate student and renter many years ago.

So not sarcasm it seems. Kind of what it sounded like originally. I can not even imagine how dark a single family home would be if it were surrounded by a 30 foot fence, even a 15 or 20 foot fence should keep the property in deep shade most of the day. How depressing.

The city needs to stay out of the landlord business. They should not be buying and developing low income housing on public land (which as tax payers we all own). They should use the powers of permit control to require developers to add low income housing to property that they already want to develop. They can do that with the USGS property as it won't be Federal land once it is sole to a private developer.