Post a New Topic
Original post made
by Mary Carlstead, Duveneck/St. Francis,
on Nov 6, 2007
Maybe the Weekly is afraid of big labor.
The Weekly probably locked the thread because it was beginning to fill with unproven suppositions about the connections between labor and the candidates.
The last post in that thread was absurd, in the extreme, with false information presented about housing policy, and the use of that false information to smear candidates.
The Weekly - who I don't always agree with :) - made the right call.
But, Jeremy, notice that supposed "smear" of candidates was of two candidates supported by the Weekly.
Maybe that is why discussion was cut off
The Weekly blocking the thread makes me even more sure that they shouldn't be voted for.
It looks like now the thread has not just been locked: it has been totally removed -- without notice or explanation. At least I cannot find it any more. The Weekly has every right to do what it wants to do on this forum, but this kind of behavior only leads to conspiracy theorizing and charges of favoritism and censorship.
This was a topic that was posted for discussion by the Weekly itself for users of the forum to comment on. Then, they first lock then remove the topic. Makes me think maybe one of the commenters stumbled on some unpleasant truth about the labor contributions to Yeh and Espinosa that the Weekly (which endorsed both candidates) wanted to hush up. Maybe it is that ABAG thing. We'll never know I guesss...until it's too late.
Nevermind. I found the post. They didn't remove it. I still don't understand why it was locked. The post by Raleigh, contra Loski above, didn't contain anything but speculation about the reasons for the contributions to Yeh and Espinosa - which the coy commets about matter by the candidates themselves certainly invites.
I also assumed it was because the information might be seen as critical of Yeh and Espinosa, the Weekly favorites. The donation might have been seen as an endorsement of development because those unions support construction jobs.
They seem to think like Drekmeier does, that if you build a lot in the city, it will protect open space, even though it isn't so. At least, that's Drekmeier's excuse.
My posting was removed because I suggested that Espinosa and Yeh needed the support of the labor unions because they may run for higher office in the future, and that PA City Council was just a step towards their ultimate political goals.
We'll see if they remove this posting.
Maybe you should check on whether your posting offended any real estate agents.
Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 20 comments | 5,071 views
This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 11 comments | 892 views
Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 786 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 586 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.