Open in app

Sign in

Write

Sign in

Why I’m Voting No on Measure V

Emily Moberg Robinson
8 min readOct 17, 2022

--

Welcome to my not-so-brief explanation of why I’m voting no on Measure V. (tldr: Measure V perpetuates historical inequality in Menlo Park, and throws up roadblocks to developing affordable housing. Vote No on V.)

First, some Flood School site-specific comments. Measure V does not explicitly single out the Flood School site, but this is the only site currently under serious consideration for rezoning and development, and it was the impetus for the creation of the ballot measure. If Measure V passes, it will represent, perpetuate, and precipitate yet another big blow to Ravenswood City School District, MPCSD’s sister district that educates our east Menlo Park kids.

Historical context: This is one of those crappy situations where we’ve both inherited and profited from a mess made by previous people in power.

My family has lived in 2 neighborhoods along Bay Rd.: Lorelei Manor, while my three kids attended MPCSD schools; and now Flood Triangle, as my youngest goes through MPCSD’s middle school. In the 70s and 80s, after decades of white flight and housing-based institutionalized segregation (blockbusting, redlining), both of these neighborhoods, along with Suburban Park, Menlo Oaks, and the Willows, petitioned to leave Ravenswood City School District. As a direct result, our neighborhoods have benefited from dramatically increasing property valuations and a corresponding comparative increase in school resources — both from the much larger property tax base and a community that is able to self-fund school programs. Simultaneously, RCSD has experienced persistent underfunding. The effects of this were thrown into sharp relief during distance learning, but the continuing impact of redlining on schools is well-studied.

I am very grateful for the education and opportunities our children have received from MPCSD, especially during the pandemic. And I am VERY opposed to throwing up yet another roadblock to RCSD and their efforts to fund equitable education for their children. I do not want to perpetuate institutionalized economic and racial inequality. And while I’m confident that perpetuating inequality is not the *intent* of any of Measure V’s supporters, I’m equally confident it will be the *effect.*

Many of us moved into these neighborhoods well after redlining, blockbusting, and racial covenants were abolished (fun fact: as Japanese Americans, my grandparents would not have been allowed to buy our house on Menlo Oaks Dr.), and after our majority-white neighborhoods ‘seceded’ from the then-majority-Black Ravenswood school district. We might not be *responsible* for the structural inequalities that have been baked in over a long time. But we *benefit* from these inequalities — more valuable houses, better resourced schools, etc. And I feel strongly that this gives us a moral obligation to work to rectify these inequalities — even when this work comes at a personal cost.

Regarding the “save teacher housing” talking points: Yes, this verbiage is imprecise. Slogans necessarily are imprecise. However, slogans and precision and explicitly-laid-out nuance aside, Ravenswood has repeatedly stated their commitment to offering the units first to qualifying district teachers and staff; any open units will then be rented out to other qualifying community members. I cannot understand why this model is a problem for Measure V supporters, who are insisting on a ‘teachers only’ clause. It would be grossly fiscally irresponsible for the district to write such a clause into their contract with a developer.

In addition, there have been a ton of insinuations and even outright accusations that the district does not intend to house teachers, that these will not be BMR apartments, and that the district just wants to make money. The first two allegations are false; and the last makes no sense to me. I think the district SHOULD care about money; how else are they going to afford to teach our kids??

Traffic concerns: My family lived in Lorelei Manor for 11 years. LM is very similar to Suburban Park: kids play freely on the street, walks around the block take an hour because you stop to talk to people every 3 houses, even those of us who don’t have dogs know all of the dogs, etc.

LM also is a cut-through for impatient drivers stuck on Bay Rd. looking for an (imaginary) alternative access to Marsh. When our kids were little, my neighbors and I used to put patio furniture out on the street to slow down speeding commuters. My family now lives off Van Buren just down from the Flood School site, and our street will certainly see more cars when the development gets built. All this to say: I understand SP’s concern about traffic! In fact, a few months ago, I emailed the city council and the parks commissioner a few months ago to advocate for a second entrance via Van Buren, as well as opening up access through Flood Park.

For what it’s worth, however, SP’s traffic concerns have not been fully addressed… because the development has not been approved and there are no plans submitted for revision. This is in no small part due to the Measure V campaign itself, which is causing the developer and RCSD to pause.

But the 45-page document summarizing the May 3 housing element q/a includes a summary of the city’s traffic analysis: “Even with a hypothetical new development, the total traffic volumes on these streets are not likely to exceed what is experienced in other, more densely developed parts of Menlo Park that have streets with similar vehicle capacity.” And estimates point to new Flood housing traffic being LESS than the traffic impact from when Flood School was open.

This doesn’t mean there won’t be more traffic than now, when the school is closed and Flood is an empty lot. Of course there will be more, and we can and should push for mitigation. But ultimately, City Council needs to run the cost-benefit analysis of building affordable housing vs. no change for the Suburban Park and surrounding neighborhoods. And yes, what it comes down to is that No-on-V supporters are asking all of the neighborhoods on Bay Rd., and *especially* Suburban Park, to make sacrifices for the good of other people.

Neighborhood character concerns: This is the Measure V argument that bums me out the most. RCSD has committed to offer all 90 units to qualifying teachers and staff first (for context: a family of 4 making less than $166,000/year would qualify); and then to qualifying members of the public — including the 40% (forty percent!!!!!) of Ravenswood students who are homeless or housing insecure. Please see RCSD’s FAQ for detailed information. I have read some truly offensive comments on social media from people wondering why RCSD hasn’t committed to drug and background tests for their renters. These are *our* teachers, *our* aides, *our* nurses, *our* children! And if and when the development goes in — whether it be at 78 units or 90 — I hope there won’t be residual effects from this kind of gross rhetoric. I KNOW that Lorelei, SP, and Flood Triangle have the wherewithal to welcome new neighbors to our Halloween parades and street parties and garage dad-bands.

Second, here are some of my objections to Measure V that extend beyond the specifics of the Flood site:

It already is difficult to develop affordable housing. Obtaining state funding for these ventures, funding which developers NEED in order to make their projects economically viable, is a competitive process, not a guarantee — something I just learned a few days ago. Requiring a city-wide vote in a *regular* election to upzone a single-family zone to a higher-density zone puts even more roadblocks in place. Regular elections take place only every other year. Measure V would add two years to an already lengthy process.

This concerns me from a state housing-element compliance standpoint — if we don’t get our act together and build affordable housing on our own, the state will come in and do it for us. But more fundamentally, I oppose throwing up roadblocks since I think it’s best for everyone if people from diverse income levels can live and work in their own community. Measure V has economic, environmental, and labor/retention implications that deeply concern me.

An equitable application of Measure V requires as much of voters as we require of City Councilmembers. A (generous) interpretation of Measure V assumes that voters have the time, inclination, and resources to research zoning laws, the housing element, the historical context and impact of past zoning decisions, state mandated requirements, legal implications, traffic reports, etc. etc. etc. I consider myself well informed about most of these things, and I’m *still* finding out new information and learning how much I don’t know/understand. And if, in fact, it is not an anti-affordable housing bill, Measure V also assumes voters have a holistic perspective on community needs, rather than a hyper-local neighborhood perspective. I am skeptical about this because of Menlo Park’s elections history.

We have district-based council representation for a reason. Our current system was put in place in 2018 (4 short years ago) in response to a lawsuit about Menlo Park’s racially polarized voting and discrimination against specifically Black and Latino residents. During the decades-long era of at-large elections, there were *no* representatives on city council from the Belle Haven neighborhood — for whatever reason, not enough west Menlo folks ever chose to vote them in.

Two of the many results of this political imbalance has been an overwhelming concentration of high-density housing developments on that side of the highway (much more dense than the proposed Flood development), as well as a super imbalanced public school system. I’m largely unsympathetic to complaints about representation — the district-based system we have now is so much more equitable than what we had before.

No-on-V has broad community support from highly respected and trusted individuals and organizations. Orgs include the Ravenswood Education Foundation — which has extensive experience with the Ravenswood City School District, the MPAEF, most of the MPCSD board members, most of the SUHSD board members, San Mateo County Democrats, Habitat for Humanity, We Hope, Faith in Action, the Community Equity Collaborative, and many more. Many of us also know members of the campaign’s leadership team, as well as its endorses (hi!!). These are not people “in the pocket of big developers.” They (we) are just…. normal people – fellow neighbors, soccer team parents, PTO members, hot lunch volunteers, friends from pre-school, the people we happily catch up with once/year at the Fremont Park summer concert series.

Even the Sobratos (who live in another realm of ‘normal’ than I do! ha) clearly are not supporting the No-on-V campaign for nefarious financial gain — look at the kinds of initiatives their foundation supports. Our campaign falls squarely in their “advancing English learners” and “environmental sustainability” wheelhouse — efforts that I think are supported by most of us on both sides of Measure V.

Thank you for reading. My hope is that this piece gives a little more context to the debate, and delves more deeply into the fundamental issues giving rise to the campaign slogans. And because you can never take the historian out of the girl, here are some further reading references. :D

Measure V
Affordable Housing
Ravenswood Schools
Anti Racism

--

--

Emily Moberg Robinson

Written by Emily Moberg Robinson

0 Followers

Help

Status

About

Careers

Press

Blog

Privacy

Terms

Text to speech

Teams