Parking-Induced Madness and Democratic Dysfunction
When “Pause the Park” becomes a rallying cry, you’ve lost the plot
Close your eyes for a moment and embark on a memory experiment with me (actually keep your eyes open because I need you to keep reading for this to work):
Think about the places that evoke fond memories of your hometown. A favorite park, a plaza, maybe that nondescript restaurant with the best burger in the world. Somewhere you used to spend time with your friends and family, where you found meaning and connection.
Whatever you imagined, it probably was not a parking lot.
Yet in a handful of Bay Area towns, small groups of residents believe public parking lots are integral to their community character. To defend their beloved parking from being converted in parks, they’ve embarked on expensive ballot measure campaigns to overturn decisions by their own elected officials.
Anti-park initiatives illustrate a fundamental flaw in direct democracy: Small groups of wealthy residents can derail years of planning and throw their communities into chaos under the guise of democratic decision-making. Unless states rethink what types of voter initiatives they allow, these measures threaten to become a new playbook for fighting the types of places that will help future generations create new nostalgic memories.
“Pause the Park”
In Los Altos, the owners of a local grocery store have rallied residents to “Pause the Park,” i.e. block a city plan to convert two downtown parking plazas into public parks.1
The park opponents wax poetic about the parking lots on their website. These aren’t just car storage, they are an essential part of the “village charm and walkability of downtown.” (Yes, the proponents are arguing that car parking is necessary for walkability.) Protecting the parking lots “Safeguards protected trees, the tree canopy and open space.” Somehow parking spaces are more walkable open space than actual parks!
In order to prevent the city council from moving forward with plans to build a park, opponents seek to qualify a ballot measure. If passed, the measure would require the City to undergo a referendum for any change to publicly owned parking lots in its downtown—de facto locking the parking lots in amber in perpetuity.
This is the natural outcome of direct democracy. A small group of fundamentalist voters can derail duly elected officials—even when they are doing the most popular of things—by throwing a bunch of money at ballot measures. Even when the measures ultimately fail, they can delay projects for years and suck up all the political oxygen in a town to stall anything else from moving forward.
“Save Downtown Menlo”
A few towns over in Menlo Park, home to Meta, Sequoia Capital, and other giants of Silicon Valley, a similar campaign wants to prevent the city from converting three downtown city-owned parking lots into affordable housing, parkland—and a replacement parking garage.
The campaign, led by the same grocery store chain, has already qualified a ballot measure for November. Win or lose, it has successfully delayed development for years. Menlo Park originally planned to start construction of a project in 2025; halfway through 2026, and the City has yet to even choose a project developer.
Among many spurious arguments used by the opposition to development, my favorite is a long article about the importance of parking for the success of downtown businesses, which quotes Joni Mitchell in defense of paving paradise for parking.
The essay goes on to argue that “ample off-street parking” defines the city’s vision for “a vibrant downtown business district.”
Parking spaces do not shop at local businesses; people do. While parking may facilitate suburbanite shoppers, so do nearby homes and parks.2 (And it’s worth re-iterating that the plans for housing and open space include replacement parking.) Local electeds shouldn’t be hamstrung by local initiatives from building paradise on top of a parking lot.
Parks and housing (and even a bit of parking) for all
Whether or not the ballot measures succeed in Los Altos and Menlo Park, they are part of an increasingly common playbook to block parks, housing, and other essential components of community life. For decades, cities have passed anti-growth initiatives capping heights and densities; dozens of CA jurisdictions have such laws on the books. As state laws have gradually overruled these anti-growth initiatives, anti-housing activists increasingly fight individual projects at the ballot through measures and recalls.
To prevent more misguided ballot measures, California and the many other states with overzealous direct democracy should increase the threshold to qualify for the ballot in the first place—or eliminate voter initiatives altogether for local land use decisions. Eliminating ballot measure vetoes for land use decisions would increase predictability for builders, save cities and residents time and money, and concentrate decision-making authority in duly elected officials rather than rogue citizen groups.
Supporting representative democracy gives power to the people we elect to represent us rather than whoever has the most time and money to push an agenda. If we want elected officials to succeed, we need to empower them to do their jobs. Voters already have power to block projects by voting out politicians with whom they consistently disagree. Local ballot measures enable the tyrants of free time to veto anything they dislike, even when it’s public parks.
Reforming local initiative and recall processes won’t erase opposition to new housing. But it would make our democracy work better. Elected officials would still answer to voters, but with the breathing room to weigh tradeoffs and pursue long term solutions instead of governing in response to short term backlash. They’ll have more space to think about the kids who will one day grow up in their community, what they’ll remember: A parking lot, or a park?
You can help beat the measure in Menlo Park by donating to the Housing Leadership Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) dedicated to fighting anti-housing ballot measures in San Mateo County. Nothing I write on this blog is ever associated with my employers.
For those who live in the area, the local grocery chain leading opposition to the parks and housing is Draeger’s, a local high-end grocer. Unfathomable behavior.
Also, Menlo Park’s commercial vacancy rate has been above 15% for years, long before the city began discussing housing on some of the downtown lots. Parking did not bring enough customers to make the downtown vibrant.
Menlo Park is where I grew up and my family is very frustrated with the West siders who keep putting up these fights. It makes it more likely that they will fall out of housing compliance and for projects like 80 Willow (not on the West side) to be constructed.
I stayed up 4 hours (past midnight here in WI) to speak on the parking lot conversion and ensure the people heard that the children of Menlo Park cannot afford to live there. My siblings watched and said they didn't realize Parks and Rec was a documentary.
I live in Los Altos. What can I do to help oppose the (creation of the) ballot measure? We don't need town residents to vote on whether or not government-owned parking lots can be sold or modified.