What a great opportunity for a debate
- among friends no less! But, since I'm hampered with not enough
information, and little time to access it, I have to defer for awhile at
least.
Michael has my endorsement and my support,
and I can single-out out why. I've worked with Michael.
Our effort on neighborhood protection issues, and serious GHCC
concerns was surely helped when a majority of our City
Council decided to casually dismiss us. Michael was
there for us, and with me on Re-zoning, View Protection, Use Variance
studies and presentations. As a member of these GHCC committees,
which I chaired, Michael often went with us before the City Council and
the Planning Commission, and at other times quietly worked behind the
scenes effectively and efficiently communicating GHCC's
positions to our membership and supporters. As I recall, he was
paying attention when a majority of our Council was putting us (homeowners)
down for doing our job. Where was the remarkable “voice” of the
people then? Remember Area 14?
I think I can safely add that assigning motives
in a winner-take-all process disregards
the difficulty of running successfully against incumbents, no
matter the money, endorsements, or the issues. Digressing from the
issues always favors the incumbents, and minimizes the chances
for any non-incumbents to win. In a sincere debate of the issues,
motive would be fundamentally rejected. That's only my opinion, my dear
friend.
Talk to you soon,
lila