Council last night had a series of dizzying substitute motions during the course what should have been a fairly routine discussion on the renewal of Measure J. As a result, the council might have passed the renewal of Measure J–they appear to have–or they might have created a whole new monster that will complicate the process of simple renewal.
A couple of dozen citizens came out on Tuesday night, all but one in support of the renewal of Measure J with no sunset and no exemptions. The one exception was the owner of the 43-acre Signature property just east of Harper Junior High and south of the Mace Curve. He argued for the inclusion of his property as an exemption to Measure J.
What we know so far is that some form of Measure J will be on the June 2010 ballot along with the next city council election.
We also know that the council increased the sunset from the staff proposed five year period which really made very little sense even to Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Mayor Ruth Asmundson, to a ten year time horizon. Councilmember Heystek suggested we ought to make it permanent and Councilmember Sue Greenwald suggested she would prefer it being permanent but would accept a ten-year sunset. Unfortunately they were outnumbered by the Councilmajority with Councilmember Stephen Souza joining his colleagues to support a ten year sunset.
Following that, the picture gets more murky. Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor in a strange tactic suggested that the issue needs discussion by three different commissions–planning, open space, and the business and economic development. This action, supported by two of his colleagues, will serve not only to delay the placement of Measure J on the ballot, but it could result in the altering and watering down of the initiative. This is clearly the goal of Mr. Saylor and probably the Mayor and Councilmember Souza as well.
In addition, Councilmember Souza pushed for and got a consideration of a specific, though unnamed, business park exemption for Measure J. This, in his words, would be for a specific, though unnamed property.
While I think most people support Councilmember Souza’s concern about bringing in additional business, and Councilmember Greenwald used this as another opportunity to push for a business park at Cannery, it does not make a lot of sense to take away the council’s power to negotiate and drive the best possible deal through a Measure J vote. If the public likes the business park proposal, there is no reason they would vote against it, but why not trust the public to make that decision?
In the end, the council voted for these possible exemptions and delays by a 3-2 margin. Councilmembers Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald both strongly opposed any attempts to delay or water down the landmark ordinance.
What should have been a slam dunk unanimous vote was turned into a lengthy and contentious ordeal and ended up with a less than overwhelming mandate 3-2 vote.
One thing that was defeated however was Mayor Pro Tem Saylor’s proposal that we possible alter Measure J through the General Plan process that has not been approved for update by council, but he keeps pushing for. This potentially could have reduced or exempted properties in the general plan from a Measure J vote. However, there was not support for this for the rest of the council.
Another proposal that was abandoned due to it being off-topic was Councilmember Souza’s idea of having a visioning session where they have a workshop or series of workshops to sit down and plan the city along a 30 to 35 year time horizon. While he had some intriguing notions in the conception, the idea that we can somehow plan the city 30 to 35 years in advance, especially given the current economic, fiscal, and climate pictures seems to be a waste of time.
In the end, there was agreement to place something on the ballot, mostly intact perhaps, in June of 2010. The idea that it needs to go back through the commissions means delays and possibly the ability for the council to backdoor some watering down.
An alternative might be to have the citizens bring forward their own Measure J vote and push it through the process themselves. This would be time-consuming and costly but it might be necessary depending on what happens during the discussion process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
. . have the citizens bring forward their own Measure J vote . .
Yes. Enough with the fantasy the Council majority gives a frank damn what the electoral majority in this town wants.
I am prepared to support candidates for the city council election who favor proposition J’s continuation. I would be pleased if it had no sunset. I will also support candidates who would use the cannery property for a business park. Although I understand the frustration with the stance of some council members, I do not think it worthwhile to put energy into a recall election when the 2010 election is so near.
DPD: “An alternative might be to have the citizens bring forward their own Measure J vote and push it through the process themselves.”
Let’s stop the CC majority and staff from further screwing around with it. Gather the signatures, put it on the ballot for June 2010. No sunset.
I was watching the Council meeting at home and what bollixed the Measure J vote issue more than anything was Sue Greenwald proactively starting off with not supporting a permanent Measure J term. Just about every speaker asked to make Measure J permanent and Sue made and effort to be the first to speak. Even when Lamar made the motion Sue did nothing to help him with his motion initially. She limp-wristedly and reluctantly acknowledged that she could support Lamar at the dead end of the discussion but it looked like her ego took precedence over logic because she started off with the wrong recommendation which was for only a ten year term.
I found this to be a harrowing event to watch yet I see no mention of it in the Vanguard’s article. So now in ten years we get to deal, again, with how the Council then will monkey with it and getting it to pass while the city and citizens get to pay for election after election of Measure J. Since the developers are hell bend on getting ti fail they will pour a ton of money into these campaigns to get it voted down. There is no excuse why Sue did not proactively support a permanent Measure J. What a disaster.
P.S. Referring something to a commission is the standard way to get political cover for delay and change. Happens every week, by all political persuasions. Obviously there are at least two votes to kill J outright. There is a third vote to delay and change, meaning kill it, but Stephen feels that he needs the political cover of the city commission process. The CC majority want to delay consideration of the renewal until after June 2010, meaning kill it.
The CC campaigns of Harrington, Greenwald and Forbes distributed Measure J to evey doorstep in Davis during the 2000 elections. The literature campaign was run out of my law firm facilities.
J has worked effectively for the residents of Davis.
Let’s just collect the signatures, get the same old effective and proven J on the ballot, no sunset, end the drama and tortured political process that the land speculators and the CC majority want to put this City through, again.
The opponents of J are the same who brought you Measure X.
Just say NO to more of the Measure X madness and drain on city energy and resources. Put J on the ballot as is, no sunset.
So Mike, you are saying because Sue did not advocate for a permanent Measure J there needs to be an enormous effort to collect thousands of signatures to make Measure J permanent? Seems to me it would have made a lot more sense for Sue to help get the votes last night as Lamar did.
You might be surprised and find out that many residents don’t favor measure J. If Souza will indeed kill Measure J, I just might have to offer some money to his favorite charity or relection campaign.
Putting the renewal on the June 2010 ballot (so that it is linked with the next City Council election) is the most logical timing. As the staff pointed out, this means that the council doesn’t need to take final action until February. So why not show some respect to the commissions and let them weigh in? We have plenty of time. Do you seriously think that after the voters and the current council have unambiguously expressed their support for Measure J that the commissioners will somehow start an insurrection?
In my opinion, Measure J will be much stronger going forward if it is universally endorsed by the Council and all appropriate commissions. If, in the unlikely event that there is a delay, we still have the November election as a fall-back.
A community-wide discussion on one of the central pillars of what makes Davis unique is a good thing, and I strongly object to people assigning nefarious motives to anyone that supports this discussion.
To Bollixed: Did Sue make a strategic blunder? Yes. She laid her cards out way too early. However, it is a huge logical leap to then argue that her actions cost a permanent Measure J–there is no way that Souza was going to do that. We saw where Souza headed, there is no way he was suddenly going to veer of if Sue had kept her mouth shut.
To PRED: I expect about 40% no votes on Measure J, maybe a few less.
To Chill Out: I suspect you are correct, I just don’t see the point. How do we know that the City Council is being nefarious? Because their mouths were open and their lips were moving. I don’t trust anything those people do and nothing you can say will change my mind on that.
Correction: City Council should read: Council Majority.
I dont think there are three votes to put J on the June 2010 CC election ballot.
Last night the CC majority turned over their cards: send it to commissions, delay, change the language so the effectiveness is gutted from loopholes, and put it on the ballot with the sham blessing of commissions that the same CC majority has had years to stack with like-minded appointees. The CC majority’s proposed process last night is a complete dead-end for J, and they know it.
Let’s just get the signature collection process started. I would not waste another hour on the staff and CC agenda process. Staff and the majority are opposed to J, as it impedes their concept of “smart” growth: Covell Village and similar nightmare sprawl projects. Staff want the Covel Village and Lewis Homes sites “master planned” as one big development. Of course they don’t want J to impede those grand plans. Souza is on board with that master plan concept, so of course he will vote to derail and gut Measure J.
DPD: why dont you post again the “master plan” for Lewis Homes with the road and development arrows leading straight into Covell Village and Grande Neighborhood to the north? That plan was endorsed by Souza, so why do any of you think that he is a third vote to put J intact, on the ballot?
Anyone who thinks there are 3 votes to keep J intact and put it on the June 2010 ballot is living in progressive fantasy land. Snap out of your daydream and get to work to save J.
I wish certain people would stick to the issues and stop bashing Sue out of personal animosity. Sue did an great job last night. She had nothing to do with not making J permanent. She stated that she would like to see it permanent, but did not think there were votes for that, and she was absolutely right. Lamar went for it anyway, just to do make a statement, but I believe he too realized making J permanent was not going to fly. The council majority already knew what they were going to do before the meeting started. J was not going to be permanent, no matter what Sue did.
What was really frustrating last night, was the fact that every council member started out his/her little speech with talking about how Measure J is now part of Davis and he/shedoesn’twant to take it away. The voters expect to be able to weigh in on growth decisions. Blah, blah, blah. And then Steve and Don and even Ruth to some extent proceeded to make every attempt to change the language, water it down, put in all sorts of special-interest exemptions, etc. rather than voting to do what most in Davis want: put J on the ballot as is.
We are just going to have to go to the commission meetings and fight for J in its current form. I think we can do that. Making any exemption is going to just open the door to every landowner coming forward and demanding equal treatment. Then J will be gutted.
I was one who worked on the original Measure J. Helping draft language, attending endless meetings, campaigning, etc. I just do not have the energy right now to go out and collect signatures to get ANOTHER J on the ballot. We are going to have to fight for what we have now.
I agree with chill out. Mr. Souza said last night put it on the ballot exactly as is. He also said a second measure should be put on the ballot concerning an exemption for a green tech business park.
Just what is wrong with the commissions getting an opportunity for input? Michael Harrington says this is a delaying tactic aimed at destroying Measure J. Is this belief based on his personal experience with the commissions-council model? The only thing that I see Measure J doing is that it has eased the burden of some in being able to vote to control growth. Even the staff report acknowledges that allowing Measure J to expire is not really an option, because the community will just revert back to the initiative process to control growth.
Agree with Mike Harrington. Mobilize the community for our own Measure J. I did’nt realize this was a possibility. It will cost a lot of money and time, but well worth it.
“Anyone who thinks there are 3 votes to keep J intact and put it on the June 2010 ballot is living in progressive fantasy land. Snap out of your daydream and get to work to save J.”
Are you willing to do the work and lead the charge? I’m w your arguments – I believe this is a lot of stalling to make any and all attempts to introduce different language, exemptions and the like.
Putting a pejorative spin on the motives of the council members isn’t really a productive contribution to the discourse. Based on my observation of the meeting, Don tried to muster support for Ken Wagstaff’s proposal to harmonize Measure J with the General Plan by tying the next sunset date to the end of the next General Plan. He went further to state very clearly that he was not in favour of anything less than ten years. I don’t know how long the General Plan update process will take or how long the next plan will run, but if we support the Wagstaff/Saylor position then the next sunset date would potentially be in 20 years or more.
Bottom line – the council unanimously rejected the staff recommendation of a five year sunset, and all five are now on record in support of a minimum ten year sunset. If Sue had compromised with Don instead of Ruth and Steve, then we could now be looking at a something like a 20 year sunset supported by a Saylor/Haystack/Greenwald majority. That seems like the right answer to me, and I hope the council moves towards this position when they take final action.
Matt Williams – do you remember when you insisted Souza would unequivocally support Measure J without changes? What say you now? I would be interested in your take on what happened.
We need to remove Souza – he is a snake in the grass. He says one thing, does another…
I have grave concerns about what changes may be made to Measure J as it is considered by commissions staffed by the current Council majority. I would like to see citizens come forward with a new Measure J that is exactly the same as the existing one. I would recommend that the citizen-drafted version also be only for 10 years, so that we do not lose any votes to the Council-version because of concerns some voters might have about the measure being permanent (although permanent makes much more sense to me).
Souza did what he always does – move the target. When it looked like Measure J would be placed on the ballot as is, w a ten year provision, he moved the target by inserting an irrelevant discussion, confusing the issue w a business exemption. Keep moving the target Souza, and what you will get is citizens outraged enough to pass their own initiative irrespective of the Council majority, and you will be ousted sooner than later!
About 64% voted against Measure X, despite a huge money campaign and most city council members urging support. Who thinks that any of them would want to diminish that right? I’d guess that some who voted for X may not want to give up that right either.
Chill out said “the council doesn’t need to take final action until February”. Why wait that long? If they can’t get it done by the fall, I’ll join the petition drive.
My business facilities are available to volunteers who want to put it on the ballot. J is already written; just eliminate the sunset clause. Print the signature forms and table the Food Coop and Saturday Market. Done. On the ballot. 95% of passing local voters are going to sign up to put it on the ballot. I like to table at the Food Coop. What a great way to have some fun in the months ahead?
Don’t let the sprawl developers and their political representatives and staff gut J! Put it on the ballot ourselves!
P.S. Everyone understands that it is worth billions (yes, billions) of dollars in profits to the sprawl developers to gut J? So why would any of you fence-sitters think that running it through the city commission process when the current majority has appointed their cronies to most of those seats will produce a Measure J renewal that looks anything like the current J ?
The current J was run through the city commissions in the late 90s, won at the ballot, and has had a successful 9-year run at the box office.
Just eliminate the sunset, and put it on the ballot. Simple, easy, cheap, and effective.
Cut out the CC/sprawl developer middlepersons.
Go straight back to the voters. I think that a simple renewal will produce at least a +70% YES vote.
I completely agree with Bob Dunning’s column today where he analyzes the J situation and supports a renewal as a voter-empowerment tool that everyone likes.
Giving the commissions the opportunity to ratify Measure J is the best course of action. This argument that they are all hand-picked cronies of the council majority that will work to undermine Measure J has no merit.
No need to play the paranoia card to gin up another big Davis fight. If the progressive community doesn’t like the outcome, there will still be plenty of time to get initiatives on both the June 2010 and November 2010 ballots. The council and commissions all recognize that the voters have no intention of relinquishing their veto power, and will take whatever steps are necessary to retain it.
That’s part of the problem Chill Out. If the final form doesn’t come until say February–that gives the community very little time to get something together. Besides, it might be worth it just to get it permanent and put the onus on the other side to remove rather than us having to fight this battle every ten years to re-approve it.
There’s plenty of time since it has already been through the process once. Remove the sunset, collect the signatures, and put it on the ballot. Simple.
In fact, I would argue that it will be much easier to collect signatures if the council comes back with an adverse proposal.
A signature campaign now would, by definition, be based on a paranoid assumption about the outcome of the city’s deliberative process, rather than facts.
I think we would start by arguing that we want to make it permanent and then suggest that there might be some exemptions and other watering down based on council discussion. I don’t think that’s paranoid since it is in fact what transpired last night. There is a reason why they are sending this to commissions for a law that has been on the books for nearly a decade.
[quote]There is a reason why they are sending this to commissions for a law that has been on the books for nearly a decade.[/quote]
The reason might be that they are just doing their jobs. Measure J is a big deal, and putting it through the deliberative process of the city before it goes forward to the ballot is the right thing to do. The fact that they didn’t rubber stamp the old initiative should not lead to the presumption that they are engaged in a nefarious effort to undermine Measure J.
For Chill Out: You are dangerously naive. Deliberative process you say-they’re just trying to put as many holes into it as possible and maintain an escape clause for the 3 on council who need measure J to go away. As much as you want to believe their honorable intentions, doesn’t make it so. We should not all need law degrees to be able to understand measure J(when its rewritten w/ many loopholes) when it comes up for a vote again.
I am just tuning in and I am shocked to hear that Sue Greenwald did not go to bat for a permanent Measure J. It sounds like Lamar made the argument to make it permanent and why on earth wouldn’t Sue help support him on this? And how can the assumption be made that Steve Souza would not support Measure J permanently? What a terrible mistake that all of us will have to pay for by having to fight for Measure J in ten years. ARRGH!
For Don’t Get It … Why the personal attack?
Can you back up any of your assertions with facts:
1. They’re trying to put as many (loop)holes in it as possible
2. They’re trying to maintain an escape clause (presumably you mean they’re looking for political cover from the commissions)
3. Don, Steve, and Ruth need Measure J to go away
4. They don’t have honorable intentions (implied assertion)
5. The commissions will amend measure J
6. After amendment, it will not be understandable to lay people without law degrees
No personal attack should have been read into my post. I don’t trust them and you apparently do for reasons not clear to me. If you just let the process run its course, we may regret it. I like being able to vote on things such as Covell Village and to say NO when I deem it necessary. If you lived on L street you probably wouldn’t have been really happy to know that L would have been one of the main N/S roads for the residents of the village to use, despite all the nonsense information they put out to the contrary. I’m sorry you took my earlier post as a personal attack, that wasn’t my intention.
I think Mike Harrington’s idea is right on. It sends a strong message that diddling around with Measure J was not acceptable to citizens. Once it goes to the commissions, there will be forces at work on the stage and behind the scenes to weaken Measure J. As you saw, Asmundson, Saylor and Souza all resisted putting it on the ballot as is, even tho each one claimed to support it. That says it all right there. If they all supposedly agreed with it, then why not vote to immediately put it on the ballot? We need to start the initiative process now, before the likes of Whitcombe and company change the tide of Measure J.
Dear “I’m just tuning in”: Sue DID go to bat for a permanent J. She seconded Lamar’s motion, but the majority voted that down.
Mike H. Are you going to be out there helping to gather the thousands of signatures needed to qualify another J for the ballot? Are you going to be walking precincts and tabling and all the other things we will need to do to get “our” J passed? Remember, we will be competing with the city’s gutted J at the same time. This is a HUGE effort, and if it is to be accomplished we need a list of 100 volunteers right now who are willing to set their lives aside for about 6 months and do virtually nothing else but work on this campaign. You can start sending in your names now.
To “chill out”: Unfortunately, there are a series of deadlines needed to get something on the ballot. If we wait till February to see what the city comes up with, it will be woefully too late to collect signatures and get anything on the ballot. That takes closer to nine months or even more. If we want to get something on next June’s ballot, we need to start collecting signatures now.
Dear Yolo Watcher,
As I posted early yesterday, I watched the meeting on cable and saw make her first motion for only a ten year Measure J. Because she did not make the right motion for a permanent Measure J Lamar had to. At least Lamar tried (thanks Lamar). Sue did not even try. Let’s face it, Sue bollixed the permanent Measure J vote.
To “Yolo Watcher”: As I noted earlier in the thread, a signature campaign launched now would have to be based on a presumption that the council will attempt to place an adverse Measure J renewal on the ballot. Unfortunately, the arguments to support this presumption tend to be woven with paranoia and claims of conspiracy and malfeasance. My position is that it will be easier to mount a campaign based on facts. So why don’t we just chill out and let the deliberative process run its course? Measure J does not sunset for 18 1/2 months.
“Unfortunately, the arguments to support this presumption tend to be woven with paranoia and claims of conspiracy and malfeasance.”
I think your statement is hyperbole. I think what you see here is mistrust not paranoia and not claims of malfeasance, mistrust coupled with as Yolo Watcher suggests, a limited time line.
par•a•noi•a
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others
(e.g. Don, Steve, Ruth)
You can judge for yourself whether or not the distrust is extreme and irrational. From my perspective, a willingness to blow off six months would certainly meet that bar.
With respect to the limited time line, 12 months is more than enough – and, personally, I plan to enjoy my summer.
Key words: “extreme” and “irrational” — I think we have a reason to distrust them on landuse issues.
That doesn’t mean they are going to take an adverse action with regard to the Measure J renewal.
“That doesn’t mean they are going to take an adverse action with regard to the Measure J renewal.”
I suspect you are going to have to eat those words.
Wondering? said . . .
“Matt Williams – do you remember when you insisted Souza would unequivocally support Measure J without changes? What say you now? I would be interested in your take on what happened.”
The answer to that question is pretty simple. All you have to do is read Judy Crust’s comment “Mr. Souza said last night put it on the ballot exactly as is. He also said a second measure should be put on the ballot concerning an exemption for a green tech business park.”
With that said, as I said in public comment there is no fiscally responsible reason for giving any exceptions at this time. That is simply giving up something and getting nothing for it. A green tech business park nees to have Souza’s WOW factor just as much as any other proposal. The voters will vote down an exception ballot measure just as quickly as they vote in the Measure J extension.
Matt – I appreciate your honesty and willingness to respond to my less than tactful question. But I guess the point I was trying to make is that Souza cannot be trusted. At one time he said he was for Measure J exactly as it is, and promised you and others he would not change his position. But when the rubber met the road, and he had the opportunity to step up to the plate and stick to his word, he didn’t. Instead he muddied the waters with his business exception approach. This is all by way of saying Souza should never be trusted. He says one thing, but changes depending on which way the political wind/campaign contributions are coming from. I know I will never vote for Souza again.
My View, your approach is Manichean. That is neither good nor bad. It simply is what it is. Souza will never be Manichean. He will make simple things complex. That’s his nature. I personally see having the voters vote on a business park exception as actually being a good thing . . . as long as it is a separate question on the ballot. Based on the Council vote Measure J will be on the ballot “as is” for the same 10-year period it had in its original form.
If I were being obnoxious, I would say that the people looking to change the term of Measure J from 10 years to no-limit are actually violating the very thing we asked Souza to commit to. However, I’ll refrain from pointing out that double standards are not good in any situation.
I’m sorry that you feel betrayed by Souza. I need to know more about what he is thinking regarding the green tech he gets an “incomplete” in my grading book. I will keep you posted on what he says. Perhaps the best way would be to have him pen a guest commentary here in the Blog to explain why he feels the way he does.
“My View, your approach is Manichean. That is neither good nor bad. It simply is what it is. Souza will never be Manichean. He will make simple things complex. That’s his nature.”
I would say Souza is more Machiavellian than anything else!
[quote]
Mike Harrington said . . .
“”So why would any of you fence-sitters think that running it through the city commission process when the current majority has appointed their cronies to most of those seats will produce a Measure J renewal that looks anything like the current J ? [/quote]
Well Mike, the first of the Commission meetings took place last night, and the people you labeled “cronies” have spoken. In short, you owe each of the BEDC members an appology. By a 7 to 1 vote the BEDC Commissioners voted to tell the Council that they do not recommend a Business Park exception to Measure J at this time. The one dissenting vote, Tobin Richardson wanted even more forceful language opposing an exception than was in the motion. So, effectively the BEDC vote was unanimous support of Measure J “as is.”
BEDC is in the midst of a Business Park Lands Strategy Update (BPLSU) process, and Chair Anthony Costello’s motion did reserve the right to revisit the issue if the information provided by Sarah Worley and Brian Abbanat in the BPLSU showed that there was a compelling need for a Business Park. Before casting the one dissenting vote to Costello’s motion, Richardson said he wanted the “no exception” recommendation to be permanent.
Anyone hoping that the BPLSU will generate a second vote by BEDC later in the process will almost surely be dissapointed. Costello was very clear in saying that he hasn’t seen anything so far that makes him believe a Business Park is clearly a god idea. Joe Hruban said he simply didn’t see any value in making an exception. In his comments, Richardson referenced the forcefully made comments made during the Public Comment period.
The one cautionary moment of the evening came when Katherine Hess made her introductory presentation to the BEDC on the topic. In effect she merged the two separate and distinct votes of the Council. The way she persented the issue to the Commissioners they were giving guidance on whether Measure J should be presented on the ballot “as is” or modified to include the Business Park exception. In public comment I pointed out that the Council had approved “as is” for a 10-year period, and that Council’s consideration of the Business Park exception was only as a second free-standing ballot question. Mayor Asmundson confirmed that Katherine’s interpretationwas indeed incorrect. Perhaps the Measure J “as is” renewal has more to fear from Staff than it has to fear from the Commission “cronies.”
[quote]
Don’t get it said . . .
“For Chill Out: You are dangerously naive. Deliberative process you say-they’re just trying to put as many holes into it as possible and maintain an escape clause for the 3 on council who need measure J to go away. As much as you want to believe their honorable intentions, doesn’t make it so. We should not all need law degrees to be able to understand measure J(when its rewritten w/ many loopholes) when it comes up for a vote again.” [/quote]
Don’t Get It, based on the BEDC meeting you may want to reconsider your assessment of Chill Out. So far the score is Honorable Intentions 1 and Many Holes 0
That doesn’t mean that any of us should let up on our dilligence. There were close to 20 speakers in public comment last night, and all of them supported Measure J “as is.” Bill Streng was there and could have spoken for the other side of the argument, but he chose to be silent.
The Planning Commission meets on Wednesday and the Open Space Commission meets on Monday July 6th. Measure J is not on the Agenda for Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting. Even if they don’t formally discuss Measure J until their Wednesday July 8 meeting, I do not believe it is too soon to carry the Measure J “as is” and “no exceptions” messages to the Planning Commissioners.
Matt …
Thanks for keeping score.
I’m neither “dangerously naive” nor planning to “eat those words” anytime soon. But I do appreciate the constructive feedback from Don’t Get It and My View.
My pleasure. In issues like these there is rarely a true “right” answer. However, you could never provwe that by the rhetoric level. 8>)
I appreciate the feedback as well. Sharpens my understanding of the issues.