X-OldHeader: From hahn@unetix.com-DeleteThis.com Thu May 24 09:31:49 2001 Return-Path: <hahn@unetix.com-DeleteThis.com> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id JAA20811 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msgbas1.sgp.agilent.com (msgbas1.sgp.agilent.com [141.183.101.235]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id JAA22385 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unetix.com (unetix.com [209.237.2.194]) by msgbas1.sgp.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9232CC for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Fri, 25 May 2001 00:31:45 +0800 (SGP) Received: from unetix.com (adsl-216-101-184-123.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [216.101.184.123]) by unetix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA06947 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:40:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hahn@unetix.com-DeleteThis.com) Message-ID: <3B0D3703.A9F9DDC5@unetix.com-DeleteThis.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:29:56 -0700 From: Jonathan Hahn <hahn@unetix.com-DeleteThis.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com Subject: Re: SFO voters to decide for entire Bay Area? References: <87372ECCA42DD3118E3200508B2E1146697948@GGEXSF>
This is exactly true. Taxation for BART reached (still reaches?) all the way to
Santa Clara County even though we don't have access to BART. Yet voting for
access to the bay, which I do access and use, would be limited to the city of
SF? There's something very wrong with that.
I agree with Tracy's prediction for the outcome of the vote in SF.
Unfortunately, I think most any popular vote in the region would be likely to
favor filling the bay. There was a somewhat strict environmental proposition on
the ballot many years ago and it lost by a large margin. Despite the relative
progressiveness of Californians, when it comes to convenience and cost, I don't
believe Californians as a group care all that much about the environment. It's
much easier to take a pro environmental position when the consequences don't
affect you.
-jon (CA native)
Tracy Pierce wrote:
> Why should the city of SF decide this issue? While the people of SF may
> have far more valuable opinions than do the other residents of the Bay Area,
> and while the city of SF owns SFO airport, it's still NOT their bay!!
>
> While the idea being sold to you (giving the people of SF the power to kill
> the bay fill via vote) may be intoxicating, what if that vote goes the other
> way? (It would! - they just want to land on time, and that's how they're
> being sold the bay fill in the first place!)
>
> Seems to me this is just a sneaky way to make it look like 'the people'
> concerned were consulted, when actually only those people who stand to make
> money (the city of SF) would be consulted. The very idea of this being
> placed before "the voters" reeks of subterfuge and conspiracy by SF
> powers-that-be vs the Bay Area at large. The issue being sold onto the SF
> ballot is completely a red herring.
>
> Tracy (have we figured out who's the enemy yet?) Pierce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:12 PST