BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Susan Rose Fights Back

County Supervisor Susan Rose sent a letter to supporters that hit today defending herself against News-Press editor Travis FactsWrong's campaign against her. First, she makes a good case to turn the switch to the "on" postion for this post from "Armstrong" to "FactsWrong". Many of our visitors want proof for the name switch -- you've got it here.

Rose didn't go as far as The Slugger in her fundraising letter last spring -- but this is what I think the Mayor should have done if she was going to take on those that buy ink by the barrel.

I'm impressed with Susan's approach, tone and how she laid out her side of the story. See it for yourself and comment about it here. The best part is that the site allows you to publish unpublished letters to the News-Press -- something I've been thinking about for awhile. The links to sites on journalistic ethics is a nice touch.

As stated in an earlier post, comment moderation is now in effect. Make a reasoned case for or against Rose or Armstrong's position and your comment will get published -- make ad hominem attacks on anyone or drift off-topic and your comment will not make it.

31 Comments:

Blogger spiritsofsb said...

Excellent letter. Good for Susan. I hope this provides momentum and cover for the many individuals who've wanted to somehow confront the NEWSPRESS atrocious lies. I really like the idea of people being able to post the submissions the NEWSPRESS refuses to print.
Brava!

3/22/2006 6:47 PM  
Anonymous fly on the wall said...

Supervisor Rose seems to be stating that the NP has not given as much coverage of her favorable actions as it has to her less favorable actions. But I did not see where she revealed any inaccuracies in Travis' statements.

She does state that she thinks of her community involvement as a strength. Perhaps she misses the point that although she may engage in dialogue with her constituents from time to time, that she is not truly involving the community when she ignores what the majority has to say!

In a typical Rose-colored version of recent history, she champions the Goleta Visioning Committee as if it was setup as a sincere attempt to get the plan update that the Eastern Goleta Valley has needed for THREE years. But in fact, it's first and foremost task was to rush into selecting sites for possible high-density rezoning.

Some of us have not forgotten that one year before, this very same Supervisor Rose was insisting the we DO have a community plan and DO NOT NEED an update. Hence, the great delay. So we won't be getting around to "shaping our own destiny" before sites may be destined for dense rezoning.

But the option is still there. Supervisor Rose can still come through and put her money where her mouth is. All she has to do is insist on no rezoning or high-density site selection until a comprehensive, accurate and acceptable Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan is in place. It's that simple.

The NP is right to echo the voices of the hundreds of concerned Eastern Goleta Valley residents who feel that their neighborhoods are being threatened with the harsh impacts of overdevelopment while their Supervisor sits by and underhandedly favors developer interests above current residents.

Many thanks to the Santa Barbara NewsPress.

3/22/2006 6:55 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

So wise Fly, do tell us all again why more and more plans somehow are going to draw a conclusion any different from what already has been planned by County staff and umpteen numerous stakeholder and visioning groups, in open or closed meetings????

More Study for Noleta housing plans is like the Bush Administration denial that global warming is happening and simply will go away with more and more research and study.

The more you all whine about the panacea of a Community Plan as the ultimate solution, the more the rest of the County will finally be fed up with you all. Your bucolic suburban neighborhood housing bubble is bursting like it has for nearly all of the rest of California. This is just classic NIMBYism with a veneer of planning jargon.

WE ARE WISE TO YOU. When the soma of a "Community Plan" is done and draws the same conclusions about how sensible those sites are for some gain in housing density, what will be the next excuse and obfuscation for postponing the inevitable????

The South Coast area, the whole County, and State are filling up with people. You all have plenty of room to absorb just a little of that pain like the rest of us who live in actual cities, in First District or Second District.

3/22/2006 8:47 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

I agree completely with "fly on the wall".

Susan Rose is attempting to recreate history in her letter to "friends and supporters". She claims that News-Press editorials "stifle productive discussion". On the contrary, their attention to her many missteps has brought much needed scrutiny to the actions of an elcted official that has NOT LISTENED TO HER CONSTITUENTS. Susan asserts that her bad press began as a result of her decision about beach access near McCaw's beachfront home. It seems to me that this unsubstantiated nexus qualifies as an "uncivil" accusation.

Susan claims that the NP editorials are "misleading" and "factually incorrect". For a real example of misleading and incorrect statements, just visit a Vision Committee meeting and hear what the consultant or County staff have to say about our local housing and land development policies.

As for "ethical and social responsibility" maybe Susan should revisit the issue of the infamous email from her office which indicated that her staff was attempting to find a work-around to those pesky Coalition for Sensible Planning people. Active, involved citizens can sure be a burr in the saddle, can't they?

A recent example of Susan's warm public service attitude was her written ("spiteful") diatribe against Roberta Weissglass, a constitutent with an opposing opinion. Susan didn't attempt to contact her constituent one-on-one, but instead attacked her position and her integrity through a public letter to the (NP owned) Valley Voice. Now that's real class.

Susan has systematically destroyed her relationship with a large portion of the Second District citizens. She continually attempts to obfuscate and hinder, and appears to be planning to do so all the way to the bitter end. What she ought to be doing is making every effort to be honest, forthright, transparent, humble and conciliatory.

Sorry Susan. Your set-the-record-straight letter is just another sad example of why you JUST DON'T GET IT.

3/22/2006 9:59 PM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

Here below is the latest Travis Factswrong editorial. Can anyone think of other organizations, people, or corporations that contribute to Council candidates and can get a favorable decision back in exchange?

Will Marborg get the whole City territory by June, or will it drag out as late as September? The tagging is already on the wall for that move. (yes, BFI has created plenty of reasons the City could dump their contract, but would the City be investigating BFI so eagerly if Marborg were not ready to take over the monopoly and nudging some Councilmembers to pursue this?)

The continual denial or ignorance that local land developers and other corporate interests are not as much or a bigger outside influence on the City Council is YET ANOTHER example of the biased, skewed, and unprofessional tenor of the Newspress editorials... all totally on point with several topics entered here at Blogabarbara.

If Factswrong is so blatently biased again for his treatment of unions and not corporations, perhaps could he also not be biased against his selective treatment and bias against Supervisor Rose?

This is a real pattern. I hope it changes with a different editorial during next few days to point out the effects of corporate contributions to Council candidates and incumbents.
-----------------

Campaign dollars and union raises

March 23, 2006 12:00 AM
No one can deny that public employee unions have a disproportionate sway on local elections.

The Service Employees International Union lavished money on Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum and City Council members Roger Horton and Grant House in the November 2005 election. Mrs. Blum and Mr. House even have followed SEIU orders to keep you in the dark about their answers to the union's controversial candidate's questionnaire.

County residents are uncomfortable with the spending of union dues for political purposes without the regular consent of workers. A majority of county voters last November approved Proposition 75 to restrict the use of this money by union bosses. The measure, unfortunately, lost in the statewide vote.

The role of union money is one reason why the Santa Barbara City Council's stab at campaign finance "reform" is bound to fail or result in unintended consequences. For example, restricting the amount of money a candidate may receive does nothing to reduce the influence of so-called independent expenditures.

Unions on their own already spend money on television commercials, campaign brochures and phone bank services, in addition to giving money directly to candidates. Limiting what a candidate can get directly will give such entities even more power and won't reduce the amount of money spent in elections.

Trying to cap the amount the unions, businesses or private citizens spend on their own raises First Amendment concerns.

Yet we also worry about the subtle -- or not so subtle -- pressure that union bosses and officeholders put on each other to get what they want. The SEIU questionnaire, for example, aimed at trying to get candidates to commit in writing to specific wage levels and weaken the bargaining position of City Administrator Jim Armstrong and his labor negotiation team.

But consider this hypothetical situation that could involve any labor group:

Two or three politicians on a locally elected body want an ally elected to a seat beside them. They secretly tell the union that they'll look favorably on big pay increases during upcoming negotiations, but only if the union puts lots of money behind their candidate.

Could it happen -- or has it ever happened -- here?

How do you reform this behavior?

Consider this hypothetical situation:

Two or three politicians want an ally elected to a seat beside them. They secretly tell the union that they'll look favorably on big pay increases, but only if the union puts lots of money behind their candidate.

3/23/2006 12:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Fly on the Wall and Bill Carson, lots of fury but little logic or facts in Supervisor Rose's piece:

--McCaw didn't buy the paper until late 2000. That simple fact, rather than the timing after 20 years of the county's acceptance of hundreds of expiring beach easements, including McCaw's, would seem to be the reason for the start of a policy of stronger local editorials than those previously written by John Lankford for the New York Times. Ms. Rose's attack on McCaw personally by bringing her house into it seems "uncivil, almost spiteful," to quote the Supervisor's letter.

--What EXACTLY are the "misleading and factually incorrect statements" that Supervisor Rose claims Mr. Armstrong is making? She doesn't identify ANY in her letter. Until she does, this blog should refrain from name calling like "FactsWrong." Ms. Rose just can't make that kind of attack, and not back it up with facts, and then think everyone should automatically accept it as true, just because she says it. Otherwise it's just propaganda and comes off as arrogance.

--The "unpublished letter" on her site was the one the News-Press already published in its Valley Voice, smack in the middle of her own Second District. I've been told the paper doesn't publish letters already published elsewhere--but here it was in fact carried in a News-Press publication. Come on, Supervisor, you can do better than that.

--It's good that Supervisor Rose says she's a "firm supporter of a free press." President Nixon said he was as well, as he was also on his way out of public office.

3/23/2006 12:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, you say: "Many of our visitors want proof for the name switch -- you've got it here."

Got WHAT here? I didn't see any "proof" of any wrong facts in Susan's letter that would justify calling someone named "Armstrong" the ugly name "FactsWrong."

Sounds like you're making an "ad hominem attack" and your own comment should maybe "not make it."

3/23/2006 12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Mayor's "fundraising letter" last spring was a joke. The "bad smell" at de la Guerra Plaza the lovely lady wrote about was little more than a thin skinned incumbent using bad judgment...as with Supervisor Rose and her letter.

P.S. If this doesn't make it into the blog, I'll post it in Rose's "unpublished letters" section of her website.

3/23/2006 12:55 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

12:55 -- good sense of humor -- let's stop pretending we censor here. I actually agree that Blum's letter was bad judgement -- we'll see how Rose's turns out.

3/23/2006 1:00 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

12:47 -- part of getting your facts wrong is to conveniently leave them out of the conversation. See Valerio's post...

3/23/2006 1:01 AM  
Anonymous fly on the wall said...

With regards to First District Streetfighter's question (quoted below):

"...do tell us all again why more and more plans somehow are going to draw a conclusion any different from what already has been planned by County staff and umpteen numerous stakeholder and visioning groups, in open or closed meetings????"

My comment:
It's a good question, because what the people are hoping for out here in Second District unincorporated is to have good planning that will minimize the negative impacts of further development. BUT as with the bad start of the visioning committee, we don't always get what we order out of the kitchen. You're right; the community plan process is not a guarantee that we will get the protection we need. We are HOPING to get the treatment we deserve, which is a realistic and comprehensive plan that will consider resources, traffic, safety, air quality, adequate parks and open space, preservation of views, etc.

Here are some facts...did you know that there USED TO BE an ordinance call the Goleta Growth Management Ordinance (GGMO)? It covered some of these very same concerns. It included Eastern Goleta Valley. It's also a fact that Supervisor Rose made a campaign promise to "uphold the Growth Management Ordinance." But the City of Goleta formed and the GGMO was repealed. Suddenly, the unincorporated area was stripped of a level of guidelines and restrictions. Meanwhile, enter the State Mandate and willing developers.

So, we are hoping to get the protection we need in order to ensure that this place is well planned and maintains its charm and livability. If we get served, we don't know what will come out of the kitchen, but we've put in the order anyway. I would hope that the rest of the South Coast supports us.

3/23/2006 7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, so you also can't identify any "wrong facts" even though there is on-line access to everything Armstrong has written?

But you're still willing to allow yourself and others the "ad hominem" attacks of making fun of and distorting Armstrong's last name?

You're not living up to your own standards.

Let's see if Supervisor Susan Pink or anyone else can list dates and factually incorrect statements to justify the name calling -- FIRST.

You just saying Armstrong "conveniently leaves facts out of the conversation" -- but not saying what they are -- isn't good enough to allow name calling.

Now that you are an editor, you at least have a responsibility to not be lazy.

Pieces about Bermant and his contributions, for example, reflect the fact that the editorial pages have not exactly been a friendly haven for developers.

Your own use and your encouragement of this name calling allows the blog to get ugly and drift off topic.

Back to Supervisor Susan Rose's letter, if Armstrong is actually making "misleading and factually incorrect statements" about her, why didn't she add some examples to her letter?

Why won't she go on his radio show and identify and correct them?

Challenge him?

What's she afraid of?

No "wrong facts"?

She might actually have to listen and respond to constituents that call in or sit in to ask her questions?

She might have to address critical Second District issues face to face with smart people who have opposing opinions?

So far, without any hard facts to back up her letter, it's just more empty political fluff. A mile wide but one-quarter inch deep.

3/23/2006 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole things that Susan Rose is doing smells like "legacy repair."

And its not working. She has totally ignored the constituents of the 2nd district when all they have done is presented, time and time again, extremely logical requests for planning before we potentially overdevelop.

To First District Streetfighter: High density is inevitable? I hope that's not true. And please don't pull out your NIMBY bazooka just because I am questioning whether we have a choice in the fate of the South Coast.

3/23/2006 2:44 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Sara,

I recognize my own bias, and I'm sure you do too. But it seems pretty obvious from these posts that Susan's new offensive is just that...offensive. Her response to what she and her few followers view as an unfair attack by the News-Press is nothing more than sour grapes. She blew it with her constituents. As you read the posts here you see reasoned and rational validation, whether you like it or not, that Travis called it as he saw it.

3/23/2006 5:28 PM  
Blogger john san roque said...

With due respect to those of you who don’t agree with Rose’s politics, that’s not the issue. The issue that was raised by her letter is whether the News-Press is fair in its treatment of her. She wrote the letter because she felt she was not getting a fair shake.

The question, in my opinion, is whether a newspaper has the right to use everything at its disposal to tear down individuals. I have never accused the NP of getting its facts wrong. I believe they have the resources to avoid something that obvious. However, not printing untrue statements does not equate with printing accurate statements, nor does it prohibit the paper from using its position to paint an inaccurate and unbalanced picture of individuals it does not support.

Aside from the News-Press, I regularly read the LA times, and I occasionally read the SF Chronicle and the New York Times. In the past couple years, I have seen Susan Rose, Marty Blum, Lois Capps, and Gail Marshall speak out about the way the News-Press has distorted their record and positions. The LA Times, the NY Times, and the Chronicle all support and reject political candidates, but I don’t recall ever seeing any individuals make similar claims against those papers. Just before the election in 2004, the News-Press, which had been attacking Pedro Nava for several months, printed a letter to the editor from an individual who accused Nava of causing the suicide of his wife, devastating the children, and stealing their inheritance. (Please look it up if you believe this is an exaggeration). Maybe it’s just me, but I think this was unacceptable from a journalistic viewpoint as well as a political and moral one. For the record, I was not a supporter of either Rose or Nava.

For those of you who take comfort in the belief that it’s difficult to point to untrue statements in the editorials, I suggest that there are less risky ways to influence readers. Asking the News-Press for fair treatment of Susan Rose (or whoever is in the crosshairs at a given time) does not mean that the paper can’t be critical of her political positions and actions. Actually, I think the paper would have more credibility with many of us if its self-proclaimed “ink by the barrel” attacks were not so over the top and utterly predictable.

3/23/2006 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you John San Roque. I agree 100%. The problem is how slanted and how uncivil the attacks are - not that he is attacking!

Did anyone closely read the "Susan Rose's attack dogs" piece recently? Look at the way Mr. Armstrong attributes quotes. He'll say things like "In essence" and "basically" instead of giving readers what the people actually said. And whenever he characterizes something instead of giving the real quote, don't you wonder why? Because he can feel free to put words in people's mouths and try to make things appear the way he wants them to. Real reporters don't write articles this way.

I think it's a shame he is allowed to continue "representing" SB editorially.

3/23/2006 6:07 PM  
Anonymous fly on the wall said...

John San Roque said: [Supervisor Rose] wrote the letter because she felt she was not getting a fair shake.

True. And poetic, because that's precisely the reason constituents write to the paper to complain about Supervisor Rose. They know that they aren't getting a fair shake. When those opinions are printed the dialogue is kept open. Thankfully.

As for NP reporting, this topic was originally about Travis who is, let's not forget, the opinion editor. He should, therefore, be expected to lace his opinion into his articles. As for his inaccuracies, so far the combined list compiled here is very short: ZERO. Not bad at all.

3/23/2006 6:44 PM  
Anonymous NIMBY bazooka (RPG, actually) said...

Many, if not the majority, of Second District constituents would like to see the areas with residential infill lots actually get infilled with housing targeted to The Critical Workforce. Noletaland is the "dumping ground" because Noleta has all the ground on which to build.

And, hard to enforce a GGMO if it no longer exists. Growth MANAGEMENT is not growth prohibition at all costs and at all times forever in a quagmire of endless studies. The first Rose election in 1998 is not current reality in 2006, when housing costs have doubled since 1998.

After the coveted Community Plan, what is next? I predict then that the next excuse, after spending plenty of public money that could pay for a jail or something, will be to conduct first another study on annexation to Santa Barbara, and then 6 years from now yet another study on incorporation as a new City of Santa Lita (but only after a couple of years studying what to name the new city).

In essence and basically, stalling is still stalling, and a NIMBY is still a NIMBY, and you can quote me on that.

Rose is fighting back.
Big Deal.
Get Over It.

3/23/2006 7:47 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

Some Newspress-style editorial exaggeration and twisting shockingly right here in these fair electrons of Blogabarbara comments:

In my entry "8:47 PM" I wrote "how sensible those sites are for some gain in housing density".

Then, my critic Anonymous "2:44 PM" paraphrases (not quotes) me with the rhetorical question: "High density is inevitable?"

I never wrote nor intended to mean "high density", but my critics, and the same critics of Rose, morph any increase in density (which indeed is inevitable) as the negative, fearmongering connotation as "HIGH density".

Infill lots in Noletaland do not have to become Pine Avenue in Olde Towne Goleta, and no Vision ever intended that.

This rhetorical morphing and fearmongering is what the Rose Camp seems to be, in essence, now forced to deal with, more or less.

3/23/2006 8:13 PM  
Blogger john san roque said...

"Fly on the Wall" is thankful that the dialogue is kept open, but there's no true dialogue when it's controlled by one side. About the same time as the Nava letter in the News-Press before the 2004 election, Armstrong refused to publish a column by Lois Capps if he wasn't allowed to edit it beforehand. He said it didn't meet the NP journalistic standards. Pretty similar to his preface to Rose's column to "correct" her errors.

I think most of us would like to read a position statement by our elected representatives without having that statement filtered, prefaced, or edited by the editorial braintrust of the News-Press.

Is there anyone in this blog that thinks the News-Press prints a representative sampling of the letters it receives--rather than skewing the letters to support its own position? And do you think that's what a newspaper should be doing?

3/23/2006 9:43 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

fds 8:13pm...the state mandate requires upzoning to a MIMIMUM of 20 units per acre. There is no option for "some gain in density".

This has nothing to do with "rhetorical morphing and fear mongering". Thanks to legislators like Nava and Jackson, Sacramento is forcing us to target our last remaining open space for HIGH DENSITY and only HIGH DENSITY.

Rose is just as guilty because she promoted, and is still more than willing to promote these policies.

3/23/2006 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the News-Press prints a representative sample. As you can see with this blog, however, standards are necessary.

3/23/2006 11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By comment 20 we've concluded that Rose and Sara are unable to show any proof that Travis gets his "facts wrong." It's because he doesn't. Even John San Roque admits that. So, instead of calling Travis names here like "FactsWrong," Rose's and Sara's beef seems to be that he's "ToneWrong." Maybe he's just "OpinionsWrong." Sounds like Rose is "LettersWrong."

Or, maybe, Rose is like Blum--thin skinned in a one party town of left Democrats used to being completely in charge and not being questioned, by anyone.

3/23/2006 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obsession or ratings... Not that Armstrong isn't the single most influential journalist in town right now, but, Sara, can't we move on to more positive and pressing topics than Susan Rose's latest rant? She's on her way out, has little influence left, and is thus old news.

3/23/2006 11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone think the Independent prints a "representative sample" of the letters it receives? Ha!

3/23/2006 11:32 PM  
Anonymous fly on the wall said...

It's sad to see how much resistance is given to a community that simply wants to keep the quality and livability of their neighborhood.

FDS, you jumped on the 2:47pm as if he was twisting your words. Look again....

Here's what you said:
"When the soma of a "Community Plan" is done and draws the same conclusions about how sensible those sites are for some gain in housing density, what will be the next excuse and obfuscation for postponing the inevitable????"

and here is 2:44's response:
"High density is inevitable?"

There's no misquote -- it doesn't appear intended to be a quote. It's a rhetorical question.

===============

I spoke up in this blog to add some information and insight into the common opinion of people living in the uninc Goleta Valley, and to share some facts. That's all. BTW, Bazooka, you totally missed my point about the GGMO. I'm sorry that you don't understand. It would be nice if you tried some compassion for everyone who lives here -- even the ones who have mortages and property taxes to pay. Imagine!

3/23/2006 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Travis Factswrong"? Sara says above she isn't going to allow ad hominem attacks "on anyone". Well, if she means what she says, she must start deleting....beginning with Valerio, above. Or, since Sara was impressed with Rose's letter, selective name calling seems to be ok here, depending on who it is.

Wait a minute? Unfair and uneven standards? Uncivility? I thought that's what Armstrong is being accused of...???

3/24/2006 5:37 AM  
Anonymous cityboy said...

I don't think Travis Armstrong or Susan Rose care what a bunch of anonymous bloggers think of them..are we that sensitive we can't take a little heat now and then?

3/24/2006 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The attempts by both Travis (read Wendy McCaw) and CSP to tear down Susan Rose are self-defeating. They are playing into the hands of the North County Supervisors who have a clear and open agenda of protecting property rights over public rights, of putting commerce over protection of the environment.

Please note that contrary to the naive promises of Gary Earle, the Board is selecting site for rezoning, sending them to the planning commissioners and will ultimately rezone them, all well before there is a community plan.

History will show that Susan Rose did her best in light of outdated state mandate process, in light of pressures from developers and other Supervisors.

Susan Rose did point out in her letter a very specific example of a News-Press big and repeated lie. The NP has constantly labeled her pro-growth and pro-development, despite her having voted for only one rezone in 7 years. And the News-Press lies to us daily by distorting the editorial pages, printing primarily the letters and columns agreeing with NP editorials, and suppressing most of those disagreeing.

But Rose's detractors are so busy making sport of tearing her down, that they don't want to recognize that they are playing in the hands of Wendy McCaw, who already has her mega-mansion by the ocean.

McCaw will go down in history as having rolled back environmental protection here by doing her best to replace pro-environment Supervisors Schwartz, Marshall and Rose, with Oak Killer Firestone and his cronies.

Sooner or later, Rose's detractors too will feel the sting of her bottomless ink pen, and then you too will understand that her presses run for her personal agenda, and Travis is just her yappy little lap dog.

Wake up!

3/24/2006 2:59 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Good points -- let's not get to crazy with the yappy little lap dog comments...

3/24/2006 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Proud Goleta city resident said...

Anonymous said "History will show that Susan Rose did her best in light of outdated state mandate process, in light of pressures from developers and other Supervisors."
And... "The NP has constantly labeled her pro-growth and pro-development, despite her having voted for only one rezone in 7 years."
I've got news for you. While Susan Rose may have approved only ONE rezone in HER district, she pulled out her RUBBER STAMP for a number of poorly-designed high-density housing projects(with insufficient parking because, you know, the residents will walk, bike and bus to work, school, shop, etc. just like YOU, right?) El Encanto Apartments and Sandpiper Residences are two real "winners" that come to mind.
Wake up folks. Supervisor Rose is as pro-development as Supervisor Gray. If you don't believe it, check the voting record.
Ever hear any of these decision makers make a motion to curtail job growth by enacting a commercial building moratorium to correct their proclaimed jobs/housing imbalance? Hmmm, why not?

4/05/2006 7:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home