Want the news summarized?
Subscribe to The Morning Report.
Diane Reichardt wrote:
The Peninsula Planning Board Election is about fraud. An Election was held, a resident Architect got more votes than the incumbent Chair, The votes were recounted and the incumbent Activists stamped their feet and cried foul. The City Attorney ruled the Architect was qualified to run, but to allow the incumbents another chance to hijack the community they voted for a new three part Election,unprecedent in this community. We have the Point Loma Association, the Chamber of Commerce and many, many citizen groups who care about this election,hardly hard- core developers. I must confess to being a 25yr veteran of local real estate sales. I’m proud to have helped many families purchase their homes. I’ve lived in the community since 1969,please don’t label me Geoff Page. If our planning Board can’t do anything but label people…we’re truly lost. Let’s have honest, respectful dialog for a change. Meaningful dialog instead of insults can and will result in a better community.
Well, we’ve heard from the other side. As usual, they either have the facts wrong or they are twisting the facts. Ms. Reichardt has been a major critic of the current board and her post is a great example of the opposition thinking.
At least she revealed that she is in real estate in the Peninsula. The fact is that the resident architect she mentioned was found to not have satisfied one of the requirements for candidacy; he never attended a single board meeting and a candidate is required to attend only one meeting before running. The board did not vote for the new election. This was decided by the City Attorney because of their reading of our by-laws. I did not label Ms. Reichardt as anything nor did I post any insults.
In response to Diane Reichardt’s first post:
Wow! Comparing the Peninsula Planning Board Election to the war in Iraq is a perfect illustration of the hysterics that have reigned in our quiet community. The one true statement Geoff Page made was that “a few years ago community activists wrested control of the PCB” …it’a never been the same since! That was the STOP NTC GROUP. There is a whole rest of the community that goes about their business working to keep the charm and character of the community without the hysterics. Anyone who appears before this group of “Activists” is immediately branded as an evil developer or realtor, when many are ordinary citizens trying to remodel a 40 or 50 year old home. They are trying to come to a “meeting of minds”, but are often treated rudely and with disdain. The “Activists” act like stern parents who know what’s best for everyone….or like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld…. No soup for you
Ms. Reichardt post again twisted what I said. I did not compare the election to the war in Iraq. What I did was compare how people who believe in this war see things only in black or white; if you question the war, you are branded as unpatriotic, which is lunacy. People in our community who question development and do not walk in lock step with the development community are branded “anti-development” by these same types of people who can only see issues as black and white.
Joe Varley wrote:
What Geoff Page fails to mention is that the activist control of the PCPB has resulted in a complete lack of leadership. The election on 6/9 is a result of the present board’s inability to conduct the March election in a legal manner. When the current chair was not elected the board attempted to pass motions to invalidate a winning candidate to seat the ousted chair. City Attorney, Mike Agurrie’s opinion stated ” the Board can not alter or manipulate an election after the fact in a Democracy” and ordered a new election. Fair and balanced is what the Community wants and the present board does not deliver.
Mr. Varley, an associate of Ms. Reichardt, is another very vocal critic of the Board. He also plays loosely with the facts. The elections are usually conducted to fill five seats. The top five vote getters are the new members. Cynthia Conger, the current Chair, was the number six vote getter.
The architect that Ms. Reichardt mentioned gained more votes and would have been seated, had he satisfied the candidate requirements. When his attendance record was questioned, the other side went into full scale defense because one of their main goals was to unseat Ms. Conger. When things got really nasty, the board proposed a compromise to expand the board by one seat to allow the architect a seat.
The opposition refused to compromise, drove the issue into the City Attorney’s hands, and the result was another election that no one wanted.
— GEOFF PAGE