Responding to Joy Law’s solution that Measure G be replaced by a
revised General Plan (satisfactory to everyone), I see a niggling
danger. Should two more development prone supervisors be elected to
the Board on March 2, there goes the ball game. There will be no
extra innings. Can anyone doubt it? Is this what the voter wants? I
earnestly suggest YES on G.
Responding to Joy Law’s solution that Measure G be replaced by a revised General Plan (satisfactory to everyone), I see a niggling danger. Should two more development prone supervisors be elected to the Board on March 2, there goes the ball game. There will be no extra innings. Can anyone doubt it? Is this what the voter wants? I earnestly suggest YES on G.
Margaret Cheney,
Hollister
