Editorial: $8 million for gym, with strings
Original post made on May 2, 2008
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:00 AM
on May 2, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I did not hear the absolute position that the name of the donor was witheld throughout the entire project. I only heard it was held until there is a contract. Is that not true?
on May 4, 2008 at 2:46 pm
R.GORDON is a registered user.
It is most likely that the contractor has already been chosen and is not from San Mateo County which could create some questions about "a gift horse" and why so many of our rich "philanthopists" are choosing to go outside the area, like San Jose. One would think, that since they have different building codes, it would make it a lengthy process in the construction.
on May 4, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Agreed. Under no circumstance should the identity of the donor be withheld and/or concealed.
The fact that this is a high stakes transaction is irrelevant. Even small deals should be transparent.
This is a public government. This is not a private corporation but a public one.
Your other points are extremely valid but when we strip everything away, this is a public matter and because of that singular fact, the donor's identity should be disclosed.
If any elected official fights for this on our behalf then he/she should be thanked for doing his/her job.
Thanks for your editorial.