This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sm/ for current information. |
![]()
| ||||
![]() |
|
|||
Measure J Advisory Measure City of Menlo Park Majority Approval Required
See Also:
Index of all Measures |
||||
|
Results as of Jan 4 9:41am, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (30/30) |
Information shown below: Yes/No Meaning | Official Information | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | | ||||||
Should the City of Menlo Park have the option of constructing sports fields, with necessary infrastructure, on not more than 17 acres of the 160 total acres at Bayfront Park, subject to obtaining all environmental clearances and regulatory agency approvals necessary to build the sports fields, using developer fees, user fees, donations, and other voter-approved parks and recreation funds?
Preliminary concept plans show an area of between 10 - 17 acres (depending on the number and configuration of fields) roughly in the center of the Park, that could be developed with up to two full-sized regulation, lighted soccer fields and 1 - 2 adult baseball diamonds or combination multiuse areas. Preliminary cost estimates range from $10 - 17 millions for the construction of the fields and related infrastructure (utilities, parking, restrooms, concession stand). Further detailed studies would be required to determine the cost of developing sports fields on the closed landfill and identify sources of funding for both the capital cost to build the facilities and the operation and maintenance expenses. In accordance with the California Elections Code, advisory measures such as this one are nonbinding; meaning that neither a "yes" vote nor a "no" vote will result in the constructions of any sports field or the necessary roads or utilities without further public hearings, environmental studies and approval from various regulatory agencies and the identification of funding for construction and maintenance. /s/ William L. McClure, City Attorney of Menlo Park
|
Events Video of Yes and No Arguments
|
Arguments For Measure J | Arguments Against Measure J | ||
Bayfront Park Fields, YES!
Our City desperately needs more play fields. Menlo Park is a very desirable place to live and
good parks enhance our quality of life and property values. New families are moving in, our
schools are thriving, and participation in sports programs is booming. Soccer, lacrosse,
baseball, football, softball, and all field sports are growing in popularity. Sports leagues also
keep youth healthy and out of trouble. Unfortunately our existing field space is overused and
insufficient to meet this demand.
Compared to other communities, our play fields per resident ratio is low. We're at the point
where children are being turned away from some sports leagues due to "overcrowding".
Providing play fields at Bayfront Park is a great opportunity and our only real option. Play fields
have been envisioned at Bayfront Park since the late 1990's and conceptualized in the
Recreation Master Plan since 1999. The idea is NOT new. It is time to move this vision
forward. Other viable options do not exist.
Plans at Bayfront Park are viable. Independent consultants and engineering experts agree that these plans will work. The play fields can be built without raising city taxes. The costs to construct these fields will be covered by dedicated existing and projected funds, and will not dilute other city services. The play fields would only use 17 acres of a 160 acre park + about 10%. Bayfront Park is our largest city park. We can share a little of it with our children. The park's hills won't be impacted. The hiking and biking trails won't be impacted. The wildlife preserve won't be impacted. Strict environmental standards will be maintained. In fact, the addition of more restrooms and improved access will allow more people to enjoy this park. Vote YES to move forward on play fields. /s/ Lee B. Duboc August 5, 2006 Council member /s/ John Conway August 6, 2006 Owner, Menlo Chevron /s/ Larry McGill August 6, 2006 Menlo Atherton Little League Board Member /s/ M. Maria Flaherty August 6, 2006 Menlo-Atherton High School Lacrosse /s/ R.P. (Dee) Tolles August 5, 2006 Former Mayor
Bayfront Park was planned and built as a hilly, open space for passive recreation. It is not suitable for intensive uses requiring many acres of flat lat. Opening up Bayfront's landfill cap to create level athletic fields would be environmentally risky and extraordinarily expensive.
Vote NO on Measure J! Say NO to extravagant spending and preserve Bayfront Park as open space. /s/ Andrew Cohen August 24, 2006 City Council Member /s/ Mary Jo Borak August 23, 2006 former Mayor, City of Menlo Park /s/ James B. Madison August 24, 2006 soccer coach & referee /s/ Anne G. Moser August 24, 2006 former trustee Menlo Park City School District /s/ Lennie Roberts August 24, 2006 Legislative Advocate Committee for Green Foothills | Measure "J" asks you, the voter to approve a BLANK CHECK to develop athletic fields at Bayfront
Park while Menlo Park is suffering a financial crisis.
Measure "J" contains NO LIMIT ON SPENDING for construction or maintenance.
Preliminary cost estimates are enormous + $17 MILLION + to develop 17 acres of the park. Actual
costs will almost certainly be much higher. NO COST ESTIMATES are available for annual
maintenance and operations. Measure "J" requires NO CITIZEN OVERSIGHT of these expenses.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE "J". Stop this unwise spending and preserve Bayfront Park as natural
open space, available to all.
Why would fields be so expensive at Bayfront?
/s/ Kelly Fergusson August 13, 2006 Vice Mayor, Menlo Park /s/ Charles M. Kinney August 14, 2006 Former Mayor, Menlo Park /s/ Stephen M. Schmidt August 13, 2006 Former Mayor, Menlo Park /s/ Elizabeth Lasensky August 13, 2006 Friends of Bayfront Park /s/ Robin Winslow Smith August 13, 2006 Sequoia Audubon Society
1. Your "Yes" vote is not a blank check. This is a non-binding advisory measure simply asking whether you favor the idea of building play fields on 10% of Bayfront Park. Lots of planning, review, and approval cycles will lie ahead before any construction even begins. 2. The construction is possible, and has been done before. Play fields have already been built on closed landfills all over the Bay Area. We already regulate lechate and methane gas at Bayfront (you pay for this through increased garbage bills). An independent consultant has told us that these fields can be built and that getting the regulatory agencies' approval should not be a problem. 3. Because certain funds are set aside explicitly for parks and recreation, we will not have to use money from our city's general fund. The argument against this measure fails to mention that there are NO good alternatives for building the play fields our city needs. Even if the needed 17 acres of land were available, the cost of purchasing it would be about $68 Million. Add in the cost of developing the fields, and it becomes obvious that Bayfront Park is our most economical option. We own the land at Bayfront Park. We already spend over $250,000 a year to maintain it. This proposal represents an excellent way to leverage an underutilized, existing city asset for the benefit of all. It's time to move forward! /s/ John Posthauer August 24, 2006 Pop Warner Football Coach /s/ Robert Silano August 24, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commissioner /s/ Mickie (Miriam) Winkler August 24, 2006 Former Mayor, Menlo Park /s/ John C. Boyle August 24, 2006 Transportation Commissioner /s/ Todd A. Roberts Soccer Coach, Mid Peninsula Strikers |