I didn't get to attend last night's candidates forum. (Frankly I wasn't quite sure if it was open to the public or just to folks at the condo complex where it was held, but that is beside the larger point.)
I was a little disappointed in the discussion around the waterfront. Seems like Jim Stiles tried to get things started with his opening salvo. I'm basing all my comments on the news article, btw. Find it here. But John Moak didn't pick up the challenge choosing, in his words, to focus on the successful elements of his first term.
I really hope someone takes the time to parse the details of the different Waterfront stances of the two candidates. Stephen Tait tried to do this here. (I hope this links to the article but I'm not sure if registration is required.) But I feel more can be done. What does 250 spaces look like on the waterfront? What about 150? Give us some graphics. Show us some details.
I guess this is an open letter to The News, but if the Current is up to the challenge go for it. I, of course, invite both camps to comment to this post.
I just need more info on this important subject. I think both sides took a different degree of hits from Letters to the Editor in the news. Janet Marcus leveled a pretty good blast against John Moak here. While Fred Hufnagel questioned some ideas that Jim Stiles raised here.
Disclaimer Number One: Politics plays a role in everything especially letters to the editor. I obviously can't verify every fact or statement in these letters. But I haven't seen any comments refuting the charges or addressing the concerns raised in either letter. I think that would be nice.
Disclaimer Number Two: As I've stated previously, I'm a less parking on the Waterfront guy. I don't necessary want wide open green space but I don't want too much parking down there.
I'll try to wrap this up, but all this blather leads me to a larger question which I'll address in a separate post.
Meanwhile, I'll attend future forums with an ear open for some answers and details.
No comments:
Post a Comment