Dear Council members,
Re: (11/3/2025 Daily Post Page 1 "New Foe in Downtown Battle")
I believe that the League of Women Voters SHARE our view that State Low Cost Housing is Mandated.
However, once they consider the history of our Plazas and the voter sentiment opposing the citys plan for Housing on the Plazas, I believe they would agree that you should seek alternative/better/more acceptable locations.
That is why I sent them (and you) the following email:
Michael C. DeMoss
Important information:
From: Michael C. DeMoss, Attorney, Menlo Park Resident Tax Payer and Former Menlo Park Finance and Audit Commission Member.
Dear League of Women Voters of South San Mateo,
Please consider this information regarding your lack of support for the "Save Downtown Menlo Park Ballot Measure". ( see "New Foe in Downtown Battle" Daily Post page 1. 11/3/2025)
Please feel free to confirm the following information:
Note: I have no financial gain or loss regarding the future of the Menlo Park Parking Plazas, other than as a Menlo Park tax payer.
My understanding of this issue:
In the 1950s Mayor Burgess and the Menlo Park City Council, in coordination with the downtown city property owners, established the downtown parking plazas.
The Property owners agreed to pay (tax assessments) for the construction and perpetual/continued maintenance of the parking lots WITH the PROMISE that the parking lots CANNOT be changed (taken away) WITHOUT a VOTE!
That is the main reason for the Lawsuit and the Ballot Measure.
115 business owners recently signed and submitted a petition OPPOSING the plan to build low cost state mandated apartments on THEIR PARKING PLAZAS.
Former Menlo Park Mayor Schmidt formally opposes this plan.
3,500 Menlo Park voter signed the "approved" ballot measure petition; so that Tax Paying Voters can decide the future of the parking lots that they have a vested interest in. (My opinion: the legal title to the parking plazas properties presently have a "cloud on the title", which has not been removed or resolved).
Our current Mayor Drew Combs properly voted "No" (at the last city council meeting ) to the decision to seek "Parking Plaza" bids from developers.
I believe the city should:
Adopt the ordinance and save the cost of litigation (as a seasoned trial attorney and former trial judge, I believe the city will lose the right to alter the Parking Plazas, based on the vote of a mere 3 council members).
The City Council can serve the voters best by seeking better locations for housing; which there is almost unanimous citywide support.
If you still think 3 council members (who will likely be out of office when the destruction of the parking lots occurs) should override the rights of our 20,000+ voters, please let me know what you think should be done.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael C. DeMoss
