29th Street Ballroom
The Value of Rigorous Debate
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Chronicle,
Has Louis Black forgotten the value of rigorous debate [“Page Two,” May 5]? Propositions 1 and 2 address issues that matter – directing development away from our state's most sensitive watershed and holding our city government accountable. The propositions have inspired a rich, if heated, public debate about unnecessary tax abatements, grandfathering to avoid SOS standards, the proliferation of toll roads, our rightful access to public information, accountability of our police, and more.
If Mr. Black is uncomfortable with the debate, maybe he should blame the City Council. After all, a court of law had to throw out the council's misleading ballot language because electioneering against the propositions right there on the ballot is illegal. The edited ballot still contains electioneering language, as bewildered voters will see. When the City Council spends our tax dollars to influence an election this way, they cross the line. I'd rather have heated debate at every election than this cynical corruption of our right to a fair vote.
The City Council's weird tactics are a big reason why I support propositions 1 and 2. We need open government to reveal the City Council's motivations and as always, we need to save our aquifer from rapacious development.
Has Louis Black forgotten the value of rigorous debate [“Page Two,” May 5]? Propositions 1 and 2 address issues that matter – directing development away from our state's most sensitive watershed and holding our city government accountable. The propositions have inspired a rich, if heated, public debate about unnecessary tax abatements, grandfathering to avoid SOS standards, the proliferation of toll roads, our rightful access to public information, accountability of our police, and more.
If Mr. Black is uncomfortable with the debate, maybe he should blame the City Council. After all, a court of law had to throw out the council's misleading ballot language because electioneering against the propositions right there on the ballot is illegal. The edited ballot still contains electioneering language, as bewildered voters will see. When the City Council spends our tax dollars to influence an election this way, they cross the line. I'd rather have heated debate at every election than this cynical corruption of our right to a fair vote.
The City Council's weird tactics are a big reason why I support propositions 1 and 2. We need open government to reveal the City Council's motivations and as always, we need to save our aquifer from rapacious development.
Tara Shadowen
[Louis Black responds: Tara, I'm genuinely confused here. Isn't debate a discussion among the differing sides on an issue? Isn't this what I'm engaged in, presenting one side? I'm not uncomfortable with the debate, though the partisan attacks are unnerving. I am against the props. but wouldn't that mean I was participating in the debate? Your letter reads as though you are talking about acquiescence and not debate? Also, your interpretation of the judge's ruling seems more partisan and self-serving than accurate.]