Latest Twist Post Makes "Strawman" Claims
Original post made by FactChecker on Oct 25, 2006
Actually no candidate denied the need for playing fields.
For example, Heyward Robinson's position paper on the League of Women voters Web Link says this: "...As a parent, referee, and long-time coach in our youth sports programs, I understand our community's high demand for recreational facilities. ... As your Parks and Recreation Commissioner, I co-authored the City's recent report that highlighted the region's field shortage."
Why would someone who co-authored a report showing a field shortage before the election, deny the results of his own report during the election?
There are two other points that quickly need to be made.
First, Measure is not a "simple land-use" question, is a $17M dollar project. Taxpayer money paid for the reports and pretty pictures that are now part and parcel of the Winkler, Duboc, campaign and which illustrate this project.
There is an inexhaustible demand for playing fields. And there are users in the community such as gym users and recreation center users who have been waiting patiently throughout measure T for their fair share of measure T money.
Millions of first round Measure T, General Fund, and Redevelopment agency money has been spent on playing fields already.
I am deeply concerned that the artless political pandering to field users may create a situation where other users do not get their fair share of Measure T and other monies.
I happen to support using a limited portion of Bayfront Park for playing fields, but I do not support measure J.
If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.
Services, Dining and Shopping Downtown in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 1,988 views
Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 1,598 views
Separate Entrances for BMR and Market Rate Apartments?
By Stuart Soffer | 0 comments | 206 views