“ Measure A, however, would enable the potential addition of permanent outdoor dining behind CaNada Corners,”

Wow. The Almanac doesn’t even know where the dining would go. BEHIND Canada Corners? WRONG.

“ Measure A, however, would enable the potential addition of permanent outdoor dining ”

It does no such thing. It rezones two parcels, PERIOD. Outdoor dining can continue without that. The restaurants just need to make a reasonable application for a Conditional Use Permit.

This article accuses Woodside residents of being “anti-outsider” while NO ONE has said that or anything like it. That slanderous accusation arises simply from our quoting our own general plan which specifies that town center development should be designed primarily to benefit residents. That means you can accuse us of practices like anti-non-Caucasion Covenants? How theatrical.

Whose "viewpoint" is this? It reads more like an advertorial than a well researched editorial piece. This has nothing to do with race. A small number of residents want to make Woodside more like Menlo Park / Redwood City / San Carlos to suit their convenience. The discussion threads show a complete disregard for the existing open space and the peaceful atmosphere that would be destroyed. Think of the disruption, traffic, and unspecified but significant expense involved. Traffic is already very congested and backed up along Canada Rd / Woodside Rd / adjoining roads and the proposed construction projects would choke the avenues in/out of town. No on A.

"The argument from opponents that residents shouldn't support this measure because expanded use of the town's center could benefit "outsiders" and upset Woodside's rural character"

Almanac: in the name of responsible journalism, tell us where you heard or read that argument being made by anyone opposed to Measure A.

@Melinda, just because the Almanac does agree with you doesn't mean it's biased.

One thing I did learn is that the very existence of something Alan has been championing as a viable gathering place ( the areas around Tawn hall and the parking area that was recently used for the Day of the Horse celebrations) was made possible by something exactly like Measure A. Measure 1 turned protected open space into infrastructure that has benefitted the community. The irony cannot be ignored.

We are a small community where passion run deep and strong. Me? I voted yes on Measure A and urge others in our community to do the same.

Melinda Stoker:

You rail against an OPINION piece for being “poorly researched”… but it is an OPINION! It doesn’t need research or facts because it is a subjective point of view.

I was on the fence about this measure. I generally trust our towns ASRB, planning commission, and town council to give any project a thorough and thoughtful review. But after reading the emotional, self-righteous, and hyperbolic posts from the “No” camp, I’m convinced that Measure A is a good thing - the opponents doth protest too much.

Matt Richter -- You are arguing that just because one Measure resulted in something good, than so do the rest. Measure I was not sold on a pack of lies, and it wasn't done with no planning whatsoever. Measure A has both those problems and many more.

Matt Garr -- you are calling it an opinion piece. Where did that come from? It makes assertions presented as fact that are demonstrably false. That's bad journalism no matter how it's named.

No one on the against side of Measure A believes in excluding outsiders nor even uses that word. The word "outsiders" has been bandied about only by the pro crowd.

Similarly, no one on the against side is against change; their history demonstrates that. They are against a Measure that has been promoted with falsehoods, that makes a zoning change with no plan in place whatsoever, who's backers refuse to say what they will ask for if it is passed, and some of whom have already called us racists in other forums. The appalling thing is that the Almanac writer is perfectly happy to spend an entire paragraph on that claim with no evidence whatsoever and without having interviewed anyone who expressed any exclusionary opinions.

awatkins: This is Matt Garr. I did not write the comment above, and I post / comment under my own name.

It’s horrifying to discover a post here falsely associating another’s screen name with my own, and then attacking me regarding a comment that I did not write. I will ask the Almanac to have your comment removed and I also request your apology.

Now, I will repeat my support for Measure A which opens the door to enhancing our community. I agree with the points made in this editorial and hope that many join me in voting YES on A.

I find the discussion around Measure A misleading.

Personally I like the outdoor dining in front of the Bucks and the Bakery, and I even enjoy what the Pub has done.

All of those outdoor eating areas have eliminated a total of 10ish parking spots. Spots that could easily be recovered by reconfiguring the back of the parking area behind the hardware store.

The real issue, however, is that by adding outdoor dining the restaurants have effectively doubled their capacity. This is why there is a parking issue. The restaurants are trying to serve more people.

Measure A creates a false equivalence between the need for parking and the desire for outdoor dining.

Seems to me the easiest solution is to just reduce the total amount of each restaurant can have back closer to their capacity pre Covid. You can keep the outdoor dining and also not need a ton more parking.

No on A for me.

AWatkins: "This article accuses Woodside residents of being “anti-outsider” while NO ONE has said that or anything like it."

Don Pugh has said exactly that he doesn't want 'outsiders' in Woodside:

“…because most of the Bakery customers are not local residents.”

“Do we want Woodside to continue to be a pleasant rural community without crowds of tourists and outsiders overwhelming our peace and quiet?”

“Why do we need to spend thousands of dollars on an amphitheater that will attract crowds of tourists…”

All three quotes from Don Pugh are from San Mateo County Elections documents.

Disinformation again from AWatkins.

AWatkins and "Outsiders"

Don Pugh has also been railing against 'outsiders' by posting comments and writing op-ed pieces to the Almanac:

“The fundamental question is: Do we want Woodside to continue to be a pleasant rural community without crowds of tourists and outsiders overwhelming our peace and quiet? Or do we allow more commercial activity, outsiders and visitors so the Bakery owners can make money off them?”

“The General Plan requires that businesses primarily serve the day-to-day needs of the local community, not outside tourists.”

“How many customers are not local residents?”

Clearly, Don Pugh is against outsiders in Woodside. Does Don Pugh do all of his shopping, gas purchases, dining out, etc. in Woodside? If not, doesn't that make him and others "Outsiders" when they venture beyond Woodside?