I'll keep this real simple. Vote NO on Measure A! It's an affront to the General Plan of Woodside encompassing vague references to possible future expansion of the commercial district, if and when, blah, blah blah. This is how laws governing our town are made? Even this editorial race-bating hit-piece cites a possible amphitheater site next to Town Hall, which happens to be owned by the town with no funding to build anything. "Bailey and Tauber . . . maintain" an amphitheater isn't going to cost the residents or town anything?

I guess I can appreciate those who want to embrace the novelty of eating $25 avocado toast next to a busy state highway but bulldozing and paving over irreplaceable land situated at the very core of this rural equestrian community is blasphemy.

Perhaps some day the flora and fauna of Woodside will rise up and take back the land they have been driven from. In the meantime, please vote NO on this horrible proposal.

Oh Whoops! The Almanac has erased previous comments from multiple Woodside residents that documented the gross bias, hysterical accusations of racism and significant errors in this editorial. I guess we've been cancelled.

This editorial demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the main issue: the outdoor dining that we all want to preserve is in FRONT of Canada Corners. Apparently the author haven't bothered to visit Woodside in the last year or so, or they'd know this simply by driving by. But even so they want to instruct us in how our town center should operate.

They apparently interviewed only the two promotors of Measure A, but not anyone in the opposition. So the editorial is loaded with all the misrepresentations made by the promoters, including the utterly silly one that rezoning some land, which is all Measure A does, will somehow "allow for" discussions. I always thought it is the first amendment that "allows for" discussions.

Since the authors apparently know nothing of Woodside municipal processes, the don't realize that changing dining configuration is done via a Conditional Use Permit application, which the restaurants can submit any time. That triggers formal processes, hearings, etc. No "allowance" is needed.

The authors go on to insult Woodside residents claiming they are "resistant to change" but provide no supporting quotes. They further insult us by claiming we are opposed to anything that benefits "outsiders" (their term).

But the real howler is their taking that falsehood and spending a paragraph developing it into the slander that we are racist. Yes, we agree with our General Plan which states town center development should focus on benefiting residents. Palo Alto's general plan expresses a similar need. So I guess that makes Palo Alto is racist as well. Where does this inflammatory accusation end?

crying racial discrimination over opposition is redonculous. stick to the merits of the proposal - spare us the woke nonsense - REEEE!

I love the conspiracy theories here... "the Almanac erased all the No Posts"... Well, it erased my post and I am very much in favor of Measure A.

Why? Because all it does is unlock an overly restrictive, arguably unconstitutional Measure from 30 years ago, so that the Town's residents can have a meaningful and reasonable dialogue about land use. Personally, I trust our ASRB, Planning Commission, and Town Council to be inclusive and thoughtful in any proposed development.

If you disagree, that's cool. I respect your opinion. But many residents are tired of users wagging their fingers and making untrue hyperbolic statements about the measure.

The "No" crowd doth protest too much.

Matt from the block -- You have been fallen prey to the lie on which Measure A promotion is based. Measure A, being only a change to the status of two parcels, does not somehow enable a "dialog."

As a fellow Woodside resident I urge you to educate yourself on Town procedures, in particular, Conditional Use Permits, which are what start the process of changing a Restaurant's operating restrictions, and must be initiated by the Restaurants.

Regardless of which way Measure A goes, from next week you are going to witness the truth as the Restaurants apply to make outdoor dining permanent by filing for CUPs.

I complained to the CEO of the Almanac, Bill Johnson, about their having accused hundreds of us of using the word "outsider" and therefore our being "blatantly discriminatory."

His entire response was that he absolutely can prove that ONE person used the word "outsider" and that therefore it is a "a theme in the opponents' arguments."

Not a peep about portraying all of us as racist. Ouch.