Your article in the EV Times totally mischaracterizes the public comments. Were you even there to listen? First you say that the public was using "Not in My Backyard" arguments. This is plain silly. The issue at hand is using Public Educational Land for Private Commercial purposes. This point was re-iterated time and time again by Students, Faculty and residents. The issue is EDUCATION and how best this land can be used for EDUCATIONAL purposes. The Board of Trustees are deluding themselves into thinking that leasing this land will solve any future financial crises. The $1.5M in rent represents a very small portion of the overall operating budget, and at the cost is selling off (leasing) the land to to private ventures essentially forever, never to be used for education again. Where is this mythical NIMBY argument the public brought up. Your imagination?
Second you say the public comments were "vulgar". I challenge to you to back up this claim. The only vulgarities may have arisen from you own mind. So get you mind out of the gutter. The public was passionate but respectful. And will be around do battle this on issue yet again.
I will take this opportunity to respond to your comments:
Were you even there to listen? I am the elected student trustee and set on the Board of Trustees. As such I tape each board session and can provide you with the full four hours of audio of this board session
First you say that the public was using "Not in My Backyard" arguments. There were number of comments about traffic, additional cars, parking and disfiguring the “beautiful evergreen hills”; I term these comments as “Not in my back yard comments.”
The public was passionate but respectful. For the most part this is a true statement. There were only a select few respondents who resorted to name calling; Chancellor Cepeda and Chancellor Smith were called a “liar” a number of times by several different people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour article in the EV Times totally mischaracterizes the public comments. Were you even there to listen? First you say that the public was using "Not in My Backyard" arguments. This is plain silly. The issue at hand is using Public Educational Land for Private Commercial purposes. This point was re-iterated time and time again by Students, Faculty and residents. The issue is EDUCATION and how best this land can be used for EDUCATIONAL purposes. The Board of Trustees are deluding themselves into thinking that leasing this land will solve any future financial crises. The $1.5M in rent represents a very small portion of the overall operating budget, and at the cost is selling off (leasing) the land to to private ventures essentially forever, never to be used for education again. Where is this mythical NIMBY argument the public brought up. Your imagination?
ReplyDeleteSecond you say the public comments were "vulgar". I challenge to you to back up this claim. The only vulgarities may have arisen from you own mind. So get you mind out of the gutter. The public was passionate but respectful. And will be around do battle this on issue yet again.
If you oppose the EVC development, please sign at www.tinyurl.com/friendsofevc
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I will take this opportunity to respond to your comments:
ReplyDeleteWere you even there to listen?
I am the elected student trustee and set on the Board of Trustees. As such I tape each board session and can provide you with the full four hours of audio of this board session
First you say that the public was using "Not in My Backyard" arguments.
There were number of comments about traffic, additional cars, parking and disfiguring the “beautiful evergreen hills”; I term these comments as “Not in my back yard comments.”
The public was passionate but respectful.
For the most part this is a true statement. There were only a select few respondents who resorted to name calling; Chancellor Cepeda and Chancellor Smith were called a “liar” a number of times by several different people.