Where I Stand

By Lee B. Duboc

Brief discussion on various issues facing Menlo Park today

We need to look for workable, sensible traffic solutions. Radical traffic calming does not work. Once one street is 'calmed' by obstructions such as 'bulb outs' and islands, drivers look for other, non-calmed streets, thus, turning once relatively quiet, less traveled streets into unintended speedways. This turns neighbor against neighbor, turning one person's old traffic problem into another person's new one. Residents must realize that our city needs its main arterials: Santa Cruz AVe., Valparaiso, Willow, Middlefield, and, to a lesser degree, Middle. Yet, this does not mean we let inconsiderate drivers turn these into highways. On the contrary, we must have clearly marked and unobstructed bicycle lanes, places for pedestrians to walk, and active speed enforcement by our police. And, instead of wasting Measure A funds on projects that have little public support and many logistical/legal problems, such as the proposed Cambridge/Alma bike tunnel, the city should install sidewalks wherever necessary and feasible.

We must also realize that traffic is a regional issue. No man is an island, and neither is Menlo Park. It is time to establish good working relationships with all of our neighbor cities. Mayors of our city, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Atherton must meet regularly and their phone numbers must be on each one's speed dial. Menlo Park must insist that it is an equal partner in any negotiations with Stanford whether it is the completion of the widening of Sand Hill Road or the future develoopment of the foothills.

Fiscal Responsibility:

The boom times are over. With greatly decreased tax revenues, the State will take an ever-increasing share of this scarce revenue source, leaving counties and cities to fight over the scarce dregs. Yet, most of Menlo Park's expenses will not go away just because the tax revenue is drying up. Children still need playgrounds and fields to play on. Senior citizens will still come to our centers. Roads will need repaving. Police will need to patrol, possibly more than ever. And, people will be less willing and able to vote in support of bond issues and to accept fee increases. Now is the time for council members who will look first at the budget process and demand a way to know exactly how much is spent on every single city program and project. Line item budgeting should be the standard. And, every single hour of staff time should be allotted to the appropriate project, inter and intra departmentally.

The Council should always ascertain a mandate or need before embarking on costly projects. The Alma/Cambridge Bike Tunnel wasted many hours of staff time ( and time is money) for a project taht had limited need and even more limited appeal at the proposed location. It took citizen outcry to put a stop to an ill conceived, ill timed, and ill reasearched project. Menlo Park barely missed a $250,000 bullet of city expenditures. Something it was not so lucky to have done when it came to the Santa Cruz Ave. traffic calming fiasco. As of now, there is still no complete accounting of how much that has cost we taxpayers. And, due to this ill-conceived project, the city staff is now afraid to make any decisions without extensive review and in most cases, re-review, by consultant-lead citizen groups. This is happening in still another grand plan for Santa Cruz Ave., and the plans for the re-building of the Burgess Pool and gym.

Residential Ordinance:

EVeryone wants a sane, consistent, objective process for all homeowners who want to improve their homes. Many of the new changes taht are proposed do not achieve this goal. The plan, as proposed and most likely as will be passed, will add another layer of bureaucratic review on to the already onerous home-remodel process. Most people who have been through the existing process will tesitfy (and have!) to the fact that the process, as is, is not too lenient, far to the contrary. Menlo Park has an aging housing stock inventory. What was good for families decades ago has changed. People want better, more roomy kitchens, more bathrooms, and, the age of the formal dining room, and living room has passed. Meida rooms, high-speed cable access, al have entered the lexicon of home ownership. People do not buy a very expensive ranch style house to live in as is. They buy it with hopes of improving it, and making it meet the needs and styles of today. The pejorative labeling of home improvements as 'monster houses' is an inflammatory device. Most people desire to be good neighbors, and, most of the residents of Menlo Park are savvy and aware enough to bring to light any aberrant design. There is no such thing as 'laisseze faire' remodeling standards in existence, nor being advocated by me or any of my fellow candidates. I simply want what the majority of Menlo Park residents want -- understandable regulations with a quanitifable and predictable process and outcome. It is in the best interest of all property owners in Menlo Park when our aging housing stock is improved. Throwing misleading rhetoric into calm reasonable discussion will not help the community when coming up with sensible, common sense residential regulations.

M-2 Rezoning:

I have one question: Why the rush? Has the city council realized taht we have a significan economic downturn occurring at present? Let's take advantage of this otherwise unfortunate time and really study this matter. The only reason I can see for bulldozering this process along before November is a fear that a new council will not vote for the proposed, present council-majority generated changes. To me, that is reason enough to be suspect. We could be re-zoning for businesses that no longer exist or that will never come back to Menlo Park;thus killing our city business area's economic viability. If this is the real reason behind this re-zoning dash,then,the council majority should be honest and above-board about it. Tell the citizens of Menlo Park and the property owners taht the present City Council majority no longer wants office buildings in the M-2 area of our city, that it is willing to kill viability for our landlords and property owners. If that is the case, let the community speak. Is this what the majority of Menlo Park citizens want? Do the majority of citizens realize the long-range implications of such actions? And, is there a viable, long-range plan for the use of the M-2 area after most of the business-generated occupancy is gone? Do the citizens realize the implications and trade-offs that might include the re-zoning of business areas into areas for affordable housing development and mixed housing/retail/business communities? If that is the case, is this what the majority of Menlo Park wants,and are they aware of the trade-offs taht must be made when chaning tax-generating buisness areas into heavily service-using areas? There are many questions that must be asked of the citizens and city leaders before there is a 'rush to judgment'.

I am not a big-business-loving, monster-home promoting reactionary. I am you. I am a citizen who loves Menlo Park, a place I chose to live in. I have raised my thre children here, volunteered non-stop in the schools and for the schools. I've helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that have directly gone into programs taht have benefited the children in our local public schools. I have taken carloads of middle school children into the Belle Havaen childcare facilities to paly and provide arts and cooking projects to some kids taht do not have the luxury of expecting such things as 'common place'. I have collected hundreds of new toys and organized wrapping aprties so taht children can receive them from the Ecumenical Hunger Project of East Palo Alto at Christmastime. I have distributed donated Halloween candy and canned foods to centers and homeless shelters taht most people on the 'west side' of the freeway do not know even exist. I have been an involved, pro-active Parks and Recreation Commissioner for the City of Menlo Park. I do not wait for projects to come to me, I make the projects happen. I run for City Council with no long-range political ambitions or aspirations. I do this out of a love for my chosen hometown.