Your questions on Measure V answered

Very nice to see these clear factual statements. I hope the reporter will continue to add more questions and factual answers.

Measure V is the most NIMBYish idea imaginable. Requiring a vote of the whole "city" to allow an R-1 (single family home) lot to be upgraded to multiple family is absurd. It will only raise the cost of whatever is developed on the property, and it will make it nearly impossible for Menlo Park to comply with state laws regarding housing. That will likely result in litigation or lost funding from the state when we fail to even try to correct our housing imbalance.

We have a city council, we have a planning commission, we have professional staff. There is plenty of opportunity for input. A vote? Really? Do you think the residents will really take the time to study the particulars and weigh the costs and benefits?

I am a 33 year resident of Menlo Park. This is a bad idea. All around.

VOTE NO on Measure V.

“To an extent, yes. According to the state's Department of Housing and Community Development, Measure V does seem to block affordable housing.” To an “extent”? What extent? “Seems” to block housing? These are hardly facts.

“No developer has signed on for the Flood School project, so it hasn't faced an official public review yet.” This has been made very clear by the RCSD that once they got the rezoning they were clear to build. Every decision beyond that was just a rubber stamp.

The Almanac is clearly behind the “No” campaign, and this is just an attempt at “seeming” impartial. This is just another softball to the “No” side.

“We have a city council, we have a planning commission, we have professional staff. There is plenty of opportunity for input.”

OldManCA you’ve clearly missed the reporting. Neighbors expressed concern over what a massive development at the back of an existing single family subdivision would do and our city council shrugged. Literally. Our own District 2 council member said on many occasions that “there was nothing he could do.” It was only when Ray Mueller proposed a second entrance that he jumped on board at all. We need advocates for our views, not a rubber stamp for the Sobratos of the world.

And I dearly love the response from our own Mayor Nash. “It’s between the neighborhood and the developers.” That made us all feel heard. There would have been no Measure V had the city council just said, “We see the issue - let’s work it out.” But they chose not to, on more than one occasion.

vote Yes on Measure V, protect our neighborhoods because we can not count on City Council to do so...

A rezoning in a neighborhood is a very big deal.

Obviously not for renters or those living in a multi-unit already, but for the family that invested their life's savings to live in a low traffic family neighborhood and bought their dream house. They knew that if they bought closer to a major road or a school their house would be a bit cheaper, and if they found something for example on a cul-de-sac it would cost more. But whatever calculated decision they made they knew that the area was zoned as it is and that they could safely do this investment knowing what they had around them. This is a fundamental principle for most people buying a house, as the location is key.

Allowing a very small council, and planners often being external consulting firms (as in Atherton), come up with proposed rezoning sites could mean that one of your neighbors sell to a developer that convinces these council members to rezone it into multi family. These council members are under pressure to come up with new housing and probably lives miles away from you.

The only reason anyone would want a short cut to do the above, is if one mistakenly believed this would produce more inexpensive living. A developer should make 20% available, which means if you get a 12 unit development as neighbor, 2 or perhaps even 3 will be low income. However, the limit for income is very low and will typically be higher than what teachers in the Menlo school district make.

The arguments behind the no side is admirable but misguided. High density housing should be added in areas meant for it, with capable roads, shopping and infrastructure nearby. These locations are so important for the town that they deserve a public vote.

Vote no on V. We already have a very thorough process in place for planning and zoning decisions. Don't leave it to 25% of the voters to decide important, complex issues like these.

Let's see - would you rather trust five local citizens who have been carefully chosen by the voters based on clear qualifications and track records or one half of the 25% of registered voters who just happen to vote in a given zoning election and who have no discernible or knowable track record or qualification except being 21 years old or older?

To Peter’s question, I’d much rather real homeowners have a say as opposed to three progressives who side with the housing advocates and developers to lower my property values to make Menlo “affordable.”

So don't trust the people, but trust the 3-5 people elected?

What is going to happen if a questionable rezoning is presented is that it will have to be publicly announced, not just show up on a council agenda that no one reads and go under the radar, and the people affected will have a chance to make their voice heard, whereas those people who are not will ignore it. It is called democracy.

"About that", council has always had the power to rezone my house or my neighbor's. They've never chosen to use it – either in one of the official planning processes (e.g. Housing Element Updates) or spontaneously – and one of the reasons is surely because developers aren't interested in using our sub 1-acre lots for anything other than single-family homes. This is true of every council in recent history, no matter how developer-friendly.

The main force preventing developers from carpeting R1 neighborhoods with SB9 duplexes or even larger apartments isn't a resistant city council – it's economics. It doesn't, as they say, pencil out. The city housing element consultant said as much, multiple times.

This whole tempest in a teapot is due to Suburban Park's dislike of the Ravenswood proposal, aided and abetted (as Dagwood and others have admitted) by conservatives engaging in a proxy war against the mainstream Democrats currently sitting on council.

If Measure V fails,
a) Ravenswood District can bring forward a proposal to develop affordable housing on their 2.5-acre vacant lot (which should have been zoned PF like every other public school) and begin working with their chosen developer to engage the public on what that development could look like (as MidPen/the VA are already doing). There will be traffic studies + prescribed mitigations, design reviews, etc., and
b) That's probably it. Council would have no more power than they ever did, over R1 or any other land, and it doesn't change the math for developers either.

If Measure V passes,
a) It costs Ravenswood time/money and means less affordable housing at Flood for teachers/others who need it, and
b) Who knows? We'd have ballot measures associated with church and fire district remodels. Maybe someday the Seminary would decide to build more single-family homes instead of townhouses. The state might crack down on us. I don't think the Measure V campaign knows or cares – their main goal has always been a).

"I’d much rather real homeowners have a say as opposed to three progressives who side with the housing advocates and developers to lower my property values to make Menlo “affordable.”"

No, you'd rather rely on 25% of the registered voters that ever vote in local elections. Where 4/5's of that 25% can vote to rezone your neighborhood. That's brilliant.

"What is going to happen if a questionable rezoning is presented is that it will have to be publicly announced, not just show up on a council agenda that no one reads..."

You mean you have to actually participate in your local governance to know what is going on? Shocking!

"just show up on a council agenda that no one reads..."

Thank you for acknowledging that the defect is that you and other Measure V supporters don't bother to even read the council agendas much less participate in the legally required public comments BEFORE the council is permitted to vote on any agendized item.

Democracy is hard work - I suggest that you start doing that hard work.

It's clear Measure V is by and for those too lazy to exert themselves to actually be involved in things in our local government that are important to them. By the way, you don't have to read the agenda when there are planning changes being requested, the city mails out notices to let everyone within that neighborhood that could be affected. What, you can't even be bothered to read those? smh

kbehroozi, you are one of the few that actually presents valid arguments for voting no, instead of patronizing and using drumbeat arguments without fully understanding them. Following every council agenda indicates a certain phase in life where time is of abundance, whereas those of us with kids and careers have a different situation.

However, you are mistaken in when you say it doesn't pencil out. It is easier for a developer to make money if he can get more people into the same space. The most attractive developer lots are those that can be subdivided, i.e. you will get more per sqft for a lot if you can cut it in two. It is also easier to sell at less monetary value, so if you have a house in central Menlo for $4-5 million, and you can instead offer 4 units at $1.5 million each, it is obviously a better deal and easier to find buyers, so less risk. But as you say yourself but with a different conclusion, how are these helping the average teacher?

There are examples of unexpected re-zoning, especially by schools acquiring adjacent properties, but what is different going forward is that the state is demanding a much more rapid housing expansion, putting enormous pressure on council members. If a developer offers 8 apartments on a lot if it can be rezoned, it will obviously be very tempting to do that. The message to those neighbors will be "sorry, but we have no choice".

As you can tell, none of my arguments are about Ravenswood. This is about the suburban fabric of our neighborhoods. Yes, there will be more expensive neighborhoods, welcome to reality, but the solution is not to shoehorn in an apartment complex on a single family street Robin Hood style. I trust my fellow citizen, if someone for example wants to rebuild downtown and add residential living on upper levels like in Europe, I'm sure people would support that if deemed to make sense. There are better solutions than inside single family neighborhoods.

About that:

sorry, but people make time for the things that are really important to them, no matter how "busy" they are. I know I do. Also, as I said, the city mails out notification when planning or zoning change is being requested. You really don't have five minutes to read it? Seriously?

And no, "affordable housing" doesn't pencil out. I don't care how much density you try to shove into a space. If the space is small you can only increase density by going up and down. Both get very expensive very fast. Multifamily construction is significantly more expensive to build than single family homes. I've been building for thirty years, I know what I'm talking about. If developers thought they could make money getting property rezoned and building higher density multifamily in our R1 neighborhoods they'd already be doing it. They don't because it doesn't pencil. "Affordable Housing" in this area is a myth put forward by people that want to believe if they wish really hard it can be done while ignoring the financial realities. The only reason the Flood property works for "affordable" is because the land was acquired long ago. If a developer wanted to acquire it now and build "affordable" housing, they wouldn't. It wouldn't pencil.

I'm glad you trust your fellow citizens. You're putting your trust in a group of people that only represents 25% of the registered voters in this city. Who, probably like you, can't be bothered to read council agendas or mailers from the city regarding zoning changes. You trust that they'll take the necessary time to educate themselves on something as complicated as planning and zoning? Really? I don't trust anyone that is as lazy as our electorate has proven themselves to be.

"There are better solutions than inside single family neighborhoods."


Why do some people feel that single family neighborhoods are somehow sacred and cannot be included in a city wide effort to increase our housing stock? This is pure "I've got mine, get yours somewhere else."

How about an ordinance which specifies that every "single family neighborhood"must include enough affordable housing for all of the people who do the housekeeping, landscaping and child/elder care in that neighborhood?

Among other things that would significantly reduce trips to/from the neighborhood by those new "service" residents.

Here is a great response to the sacrosanct single family neighborhood mantra:

"Portland’s new rules will also offer a “deeper affordability” option: four to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices. The measure will make it viable for nonprofits to intersperse below-market housing anywhere in the city for the first time in a century."

Web Link

Menlo Voter - you keep referring to only 25% voting, and yet you expect everyone to read the council agendas?

This is about giving the people affected a say on things that changes their own neighborhood. These five council members are now voted by district, and only three are needed for majority, which means three council members with absolutely no accountability or political interest in your neighborhood or district can approve a zoning change that turns your neighbor into an apartment complex. This is more likely than you think, not only from the pressure of the state to generate more housing, but powerful interest groups.

We agree about affordable housing not penciling out, but I can assure you it makes a ton of sense for a developer, and these luxury condos in the middle of Menlo Park will be very attractive. But let's say you are right, which in case you have absolutely nothing to worry about as measure V is only interested in protecting R1 zoning, or single-family residences. All others, school, multifamily, churches, etc. can be transformed and changed just like before. They just can't touch R1 without actual people living there having a say.

I assume you also know that with AB 2295 becoming law, school districts are already allowed to build teacher housing on land they own such as the Flood project, it is already a done deal.

Peter Carpenter - you pose a philosophical question, "why can't I have what others have?". I don't know in each individual case, but we live in a market economy, and those systems tend to collapse if the government goes in and nationalize your assets. Randomly inserting high density developments in serene neighborhoods, like many of those in Menlo Park, will change the neighborhoods and make them less attractive, thereby lowering property values.

I love your suggestion of having dedicated areas for teachers and service trades in new development, but then it has to be planned from the beginning and not implemented after the fact.