Rebuttal to the "No" position on Ballot Measure P.
Facts matter:
If you vote YES on Ballot measure "P", you are NOT voting to stop the Apartments and you are not saying: "Not in my back yard". (NIMBY) AND you are not stopping normal improvements to the parking lot, like adding EV charging stations, etc.
You are simply saying to the city council:
"If you intend to build apartments (for example) on the parking lots; First, let the Voters Decide IF THEY approve of the plan".
Question: Why not just trust the council?
Answers:
1) The city is in a Financial Deficit, now and well into the future; and all 3 developers are asking for the city to come up with $30 to $45 million to pay for the parking ramp or loan them $10+ million.
This is a "Deal Killing" impossible request.
Mayor Nash has declared "we are penny pinching now". . . So: why has the council decided to negligently go forward with plans that are financially unwise?
(Also: It is reported that an estimated 27 city employees will lose their jobs due to the citys financial shortages).
2) Not one of the developers meets all the requirements of the bidding parameters, especially by failing to "provide adequate parking". In fact, one of the original bidders withdrew from the bidding, honestly stating that it was NOT financially feasible, unless the city comes up with money for a multi-story parking ramp (about $50 million).
3) One developer plans to have NO Washers and Dryers in each apartment, to save money (and to collect extra income from the community laundry room machines). They also insist on using non-union labor to save more money. Real Estate professionals agree: It will be hard to sell the "Coin operated Laundry Room" to prospective tenants (in addition to "No assigned parking spaces" for tenants).
3) All 5 council members have admitted that they have NO experience in commercial real estate matters. This project is extremely COMPLEX. Two council members are leaving in November, and the new council members (and the tax payers) will have to deal with their mistakes.
4) All 3 developers have NOT provided adequate parking for BOTH the stores AND the apartments. A similar development in San Jose was recently foreclosed for the exact same reason: (Lack of enough parking!)
All 3 developers are about 500 parking spaces SHORT of meeting commercial real estate standards for parking for this proposed development.
5) The PRIVATE developers want the council to lease them our (tax payer owned) parking lots for $1 per year for 50 years . Problem: The 5 acres of parking lots are valued at about $50 million. The city council would breach their fiduciary duty if they leased our publicly owned land to a PRIVATE developer, on less than "Arms-Length" terms. The developer should pay market rate fees for use of the parking lots. (About $2.5 million per year).
6) There is a pending lawsuit that rightly claims a "cloud on the title" to the parking lots BECAUSE:
The adjoining store owners have a documented vested right to a "51% vote on any decision to alter the parking lots".
Why? Because of assessments that were paid to establish and maintain the parking lots, perpetually.
(similar to a land easement).
The fact that the city is violating this vested right/restriction is one of the many reasons the Ballot measure was, and is, necessitated.
7) Over 100 downtown businesses have signed a petition OPPOSED to the citys plan to change the parking lots.
Also: The ballot measure petition was signed by 50% more Menlo Park residents, than was needed to qualify (3500 people signed the petition because they want to vote YES). The council chamber was "standing room only" in opposition to declaring the parking lot as "Surplus Land".
The council has ignored all these warning signs from their voters.
8) Why is this Not "NIMBY"? Because, IF there was a location in downtown that did not disrupt parking for the businesses, and did not violate their legal rights, the supporters of The "YES" Ballot, and the downtown businesses would probably support it. IN FACT There are many better locations to build state mandated apartments, which the "YES" supports are promoting:
Go to: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSaveDowntownMenlo.org&c=E,1,rMg_Rg2k1V1v4YiLD2Q_TkUD_OtWbXFI7AjrnirOZRr6sX_MLe60wJU3uJpa9qjmB4tNTIIUKRi0O-WQMCk-kbwQYm6nq6UVWW5FEObVwYCBao8,&typo=1
For a list of excellent sites to build on.
9) IF the city council would listen to the real estate professionals and construction professionals that have testified and written to them explaining why the plans that are being proposed are FLAWED, the Ballot Measure and the Lawsuit would not be necessary.
10) Building 8 and 9 story apartments adjacent to older stores that are likely without sprinkler updates; PLUS: an inability to navigate large fire trucks and equipment between the new and old buildings, in an emergency: most likely, will not satisfy the fire department safety regulations.
11) History & Precedent:
Fifteen years ago, the city council decided to change our downtown parking lots and let developers build a hotel, apartments and stores on these same lots. The adjacent property owners and businesses hired a lawyer and formally informed the city that it violates the vested legal interests of the adjacent properties (remembering item #6 above) requiring the "51% right to vote to approve changes to the parking lots"; and the city council wisely withdrew the proposal.
The same "withdrawal of proposals" is demanded now.
12) Voting "YES" is simply a necessary "Intervention" by the voters to stop a Rogue City Council from making an irreversible MAJOR ERROR that will violate the legal rights of the downtown store owners AND damage the businesses and "Vitality" of Downtown Menlo Park.
As a commercial real estate attorney, with experience as the General Partner, and Property Manager, in over 25 real estate deals involving Apartments, Retail stores and Offices, I believe the plans being considered by the council are so flawed that I will have to vote "YES" in November to stop the projects . . . So that the tax paying voters can decide what is best for Downtown Menlo Park.
On this issue: The city council is wrong.
Michael C. DeMoss
Resident of Menlo Park
Former Chairman of the Audit Sub-Committee, Menlo Park Finance and Audit Commission
Sent from my iPhone
