Mary Witzell wrote:
Your article really surprised me as I certainly do not see the situation as you do. The PCPB election has nothing to do with Iraq, left or right, rich or poor. It has to do with planning in the Peninsula area. Development should be done to enhance what is here. I am neither pro-development nor anti-development. Many of the people opposing the current board have worked long and hard beautifying the Peninsula. They are not developers or special interests, but simply, people who live in the area and want what is best for the community. We have a lovely, vibrant community and all of us want to keep it that way.
I am sure that Ms. Witzell doesn’t see the situation the way I do and I respect that. However, I would have had even more respect for her opinion had she explained that she was a Point Loma real estate agent. While I do not believe that all people involved in the Peninsula real estate market are on the other side of this issue, I do tend to be wary of people expressing opinions without revealing this kind of information. I have no respect for folks who write blog comments and hide behind pseudonyms.
To Julie Cramer, who wrote:
All very interesting; including the fact that the statement about “development community” taking over the planning board is a blatant lie. Let’s try to see each person as an individual — not as part of a group conspiracy. Vote for the people that you personally know and respect for their positive demeanor and willingness to contribute to the community.
I certainly disagree with Ms. Cramer’s characterization of my comments as a “blatant lie.” Ms. Cramer championed the candidate that the board challenged because he did not attend a board meeting prior to the election. Ms. Cramer heads an organization that is trying, admirably I will add, to get a pool built at the Naval Training Center. In order to accomplish this goal, it is necessary to maintain good relations with the McMillin Company, the one developer that harbors more ill will towards the PCPB than any other. I believe it may have been Ms. Cramer who came up with the idea that a candidate that attended the candidate forum, held the night before the March election, satisfied the attendance requirement. Unfortunately, the city attorney agreed by interpreting one word in the available documents and in an effort to be strictly neutral. The intent of the attendance requirement was that candidates see how the board operates before running. Nothing about the candidate forum resembled the normal, monthly board meeting. It may be possible to credit Ms. Cramer with the need to have an election run-off. It may well be that it was her efforts that drove this into the city attorney’s spotlight, forcing them to make the decision they did.
In response to Ms. Reichardt’s third post, in which she wrote:
I have stated the facts as they happened with no embellishment. An election was held. Accusations and insults have been “flung” and answered. The City Attorney has made a ruling. I am telling the truth. I do not owe anyone an apology for telling the truth. Geoff Page proudly proclaimed the “Activist’s wrest” of the Planning Board in 2001. I find your insults out of line with The Voice’s policy of avoiding “overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations.
No, Ms. Reichardt did not state the facts. She said we voted a new election and that was entirely incorrect. I have not made any personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations. I make an effort to shed a light on the facts. If someone finds the facts to be personally offensive, that is something I can’t help. Rather than make general criticisms, which is easy, perhaps it would be better to discuss specifics, which is far more difficult if there are none to discuss.