Responding to criticism

0
272

Dear Editor, Please note that John Mazza had 522 words to slander me last week and while I have strictly kept to the 350 word restriction on all other occasions, it is only fair that equal space be given to counter his false claims. Thank you.

The Letters to the Editor section is like a sacred public forum where citizens can exchange ideas in a healthy debate with the only rule that writers uphold the highest level of honesty and not disguise their opinions as fact.

John Mazza has plenty to answer for in writing dozens of stunning fabrications about the supporters of the current City Council, including myself. So, in order to inject a little reality into his ongoing fairy tales, I challenge Mr. Mazza to a public debate to let him try to prove any of his campaign slogans. Just John and me and whatever documentation we wish to bring to support our statements. He should realize political yellow journalism doesn’t survive well under the scrutiny of today’s modern technological tools of videotape and digitized public meeting logs.

Shaggy Dog Story No. 1 -John conveniently attempts to gain more votes for his candidates by stating Liebig, Keller and Winokur “have never endorsed the Coastal Commission Local Coastal Plan.” Have we all been imagining the CAN Forum playing on cable for the last month where Candidate Winokur states, ” I think the best course is to accept the existing Coastal Commission Plan” and Candidate Liebig echos with, “I am also willing to take a gamble with the Coastal Commission Plan,” and Walt Keller hedges with, “It isn’t all that bad a Plan.” Maybe they want the Commission’s Plan, because they won’t be one of the 1,000 landowners illegally mapped as ESHA who will lose all use of their land if that Plan goes into effect, nor will they be the ones writing checks for $12,000 an acre for brush clearance as the Plan requires, not to mention dozens of other atrocities that homeowners would have to endure.

Shaggy dog story No. 2 -According to Mr. Mazza, the Council is not amending the Coastal Commission Plan and negotiating a resolution to the current permitting stalemate. Is John telling the crowds who attended the all day Council Hearings on 1/24 and 2/7 to review amendments to the Coastal Plan that we weren’t really there? Does he think people can’t use computers and read the amended Plan on the City website as well as the Council’s plan to submit it to the Coastal Commission for certification in two weeks? Does Mr. Mazza think he can make Liebig, Keller and Winokur magically appear on videotape when they were never at any of the meetings to support the process of amending the Coastal Plan?

Shaggy Dog Story No. 3 -The Council approved M so they support development. Wrong! If the City Council wanted development, they would never have let the populace vote on the Development Agreement. California has no law that City Councils must have the approval of the voters to adopt Development Agreements and 99 percent of Councils pass them without any vote of the residents. It is an incredible testament to how much Candidates Jennings, and Kearsley respect the members of this community that they let us decide.

Anne Hoffman