Sept. 28, 2022
Guest Opinion
BY MARY N. GILLES
Menlo Park residents! It is time to pay attention because Measure V is about private property rights and your investment in your property is at risk.
The City Council majority of Betsy Nash, Jen Wolosin and Cecilia Taylor would not compromise with the Suburban Park residents on a balanced approach to developing the Flood School site. This neighborhood of narrow streets, small parcels and many young families, will be severely and negatively impacted by the ingress and egress of new residents if the project is overbuilt.
While the residents from Suburban Park who created Measure V were motivated to prepare Measure V based on what happened to them, they crafted the initiative to protect other neighborhoods in Menlo Park from any majority of council members who would have carte blanche to create high- density in low-density neighborhoods where they will never be accountable in the next election.
By way of background, since Menlo Park created five voting districts a few years ago, there are no longer citywide elections for council members.
This is a large part of the problem. Drew Combs, who actually represents Suburban Park, is against an overbuilt project at the Flood School site and had proposed a compromise that his constituents agreed to. But the Nash/Wolosin/Taylor block would not agree to it. So, the three council members who will make a decision that will negatively impact Suburban Park are immune from being ousted in the next election cycle by those residents.
The nasty truth: any council member whose vote negatively impacts neighborhoods other than their own district cannot be held accountable! For example, the same scenario can happen in Sharon Heights, which is the neighborhood represented by Ray Mueller. If Betsy Nash, Jen Wolosin and Cecilia Taylor decide to create a high-density development at Sharon Park (one was attempted in the past), they can do it despite the objections of Ray Mueller and his constituents of Sharon Heights.
Districting is inherently bad for our city and is not the answer to addressing the under-represented community of Belle Haven (the reason district voting was put in place).
If Measure V passes, increasing the density in low density neighborhoods will have to be accomplished through a citywide decision.
This is our only option to protect each neighborhood from a majority council that will up-zone neighborhoods where those council members are not accountable.
From my perspective, single-family zoned neighborhoods are precious and incredibly expensive. Our city leaders should do everything in their power to preserve our beautiful neighborhoods and act in a more responsible manner to create more housing or change zoning.
Until the district structure is abandoned, the residents have no choice but to vote “yes” on Measure V to regain their power over their homes and their neighborhoods.
Mary N. Gilles is a longtime Menlo Park Realtor.
I find it funny and extremely misleading that the no on V campaign, which is funded by a big developer and the woman who supports developing high density housing in our parks, claims to be “pro teacher housing”. The development that they want to build on the flood Park site is purely a for-profit development with no units guaranteed to go to teachers. And to the best of my knowledge plans have not even been submitted to the city so regardless of what they’re saying they could propose a 300 unit building and the current three members of the city council can approve that over any objections by The Neighbors or the city council member who represents that District.
The compromise mentioned above would have required units to be dedicated for teachers but that was turned down because it would impact the profits that the developer and the Ravenswood School District want to make. This is not teacher housing this is about making lots of money and being able to do the same thing all over Menlo Park. Sharon Heights could be next, or another development in the Willows, more development in Belle Haven or any of the districts in Menlo Park. We need to have the residents have a direct voice
So the author supports the idea of more housing, just not in her town? I guess the expectation is neighboring communities should pick up the slack for unsufficient housing supply because residents there care less about their “investment”? This column just reeks of entitlement, I’m sorry. Baby boomerism at its worst.
I just don’t understand the whole binary nature of so many opinions. The writer isn’t against housing, but reasonably against indiscriminatly destroying existing neighborhoods. It’s possible to expand housing so that it fits into the places people have lived for decades. What is it about a dense 60 units in a single family home neighborhood reeks of entitlement? No, as the writer correctly points out, this is about a few city council members who just don’t care about the homeowners of Menlo Park.
All I have to do is look at who’s financing each side to know which one has my interests in mind as a home owner and tax payer in Menlo Park. The NO side is backed by big developers, a wealthy woman who doesn’t even live in Menlo Park (what’s her interest???), and housing advocates from elsewhere in California. The YES side is funded by small donations from families in Menlo Park.
I would encourage people to offset the NO organizers votes, but they can’t even vote in Menlo Park!
The way to vote is really very clear. Vote to protect your neighborhoods, not make developers richer.