Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Oct 14, 2011
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.
Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 4,028 views
Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,281 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 910 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 324 views
This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 0 comments | 114 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.