Letters | October 14, 2011 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - October 14, 2011

Letters

Measure debates

This story contains 1688 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Bob Wenzlau
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 14, 2011 at 11:15 am

Bob Wenzlau is a registered user.

Bob Roth - You raised the rhetorical question in your letter "Let an independent group with no "skin in the game" look at the competing costs and benefits. Prepare an Environmental Impact Report then decide on the need for parkland."

The independent Blue Ribbon Task Force found that a site by the water pollution control plant was best. The members were picked by both sides of interest at the City Council. Still the Task Force was constrained by Council who stipulated that the landfill site could not be examined because of its dedicated park status. This rubric is what Measure E seeks to solve - the city would not allow an examination of the landfill site without its status of being dedicated parkland being changed.

The type of rhetorical question you raise is why the Measure had to be pursued. Without the 10 year release from park dedication, these environmental studies could not be performed. So your position that informed your advocacy is defective - the land must be undedicated in order for its use to be explored for local organic management. Your question did make good rhetoric, and tactically brings the confusion you likely hope to seed.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.