Breaking news! Live from Santa Clara City Council!
Councilwoman Aldyth Parle has clarified her position. Ms Parle had previously appeared to support the 49ers' astroturf ballot initiative. She has now explained her intentions. Due to an illness in the family she missed some council meetings, and was not aware that Council was on track to put a measure on the ballot. She only agreed to support the initiative because she was led to believe that it is the only way that the voters will have a say. Now that she is aware of the facts, she wants her name removed from the list of astroturf supporters.
Updates:
Here are a copy and a video of Ms Parle's remarks:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I want to know why the City of Santa Clara did not oppose the location of the 49ers stadium at the Great America site when they are very strongly oppose the CUP (Conditional Use Permits) of various groups / organizations wanting to set up bases of operations not more than 1 mile from Great America.
The City's reasons for refusing the CUP were:
1. The proximity of various high-tech manufacturers that use hazardous chemicals and gases. These manufacturers, as argued by the City of Santa Clara, may potentially spew out deadly fumes and gases should an accident occur. That was the reason given when they refused the CUP for a church group located on Bowers Avenue and Scott Blvd.
2. The City of Santa Clara also cited traffic congestion as a primary reason for refusing the permits for 3 other religious organizations, all within a 1 mile radius of Great America. These organizations have at most 200 members each. If these somewhat less than 200 cars can be such a traffic problem, why not the 66,000+ attendees at a game City Council hearings for Silicon Valley Christian Assembly, River of LIfe, Muslim Center (on Walsh) to see what the City's objections were.
3. The City of Santa Clara also demanded that these organizations provide a shelter-in-place provision before they can have any gathering. Where is this demand for a mitigation plan from the stadium planners? Are these game attendees at the open air stadium exempt from the City's concern for their life should there be an unintentional release of deadly gases? Remember they were concerned for the gathering of people inside a building not more than one mile away!
Santa Clara Resident
-j-
Let's face it: Blowing taxpayer money on an NFL stadium is sexier.
1. The proximity to hazardous chemicals troubled this City Council not-in-the-least while they were busy finessing the stadium's EIR last fall:
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49er-stadium-DEIR/AppendixE.pdf
2. TWENTY THOUSAND VEHICLES will have to be parked on tech firm parking lots on NFL game days because the "stadium boosters" are cramming a 14-acre stadium onto a 17-acre site. See the main EIR document...
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49er-stadium-DEIR/49er-Stadium-DEIR-Text.pdf
...and see Section 4.8.
3. The 49ers, and the people that own them, are simply different from you and me.
We can only urge Santa Clarans, especially residents north of U.S. 101, to ask why the San Francisco 49ers can demand the special treatment they've been given.
What Anonymous has written above is an awfully good place to start.
Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
Post a Comment