 |
|
|
|
|
Speak Out
Measure S information has been misleading
I feel compelled to respond to several incorrect and misleading statements in the Sept. 6 front page article titled, "Fluoridation opponents continue to question city ballot tactics" by Daniel Hindin. First, the change in wording of the ballot measure was not done to allow the city to "tax its residents," as claimed in the article. The change in wording was made to simplify it. Sunnyvale's water utility is--and will remain--entirely paid for by water users through fees, not taxes. The goal of the ballot measure has and will continue to be to determine whether Sunnyvale citizens will accept fluoridated water from our current supplier or pay up to five times more for water from a less reliable source.
Second, it is misleading to say the lawsuit filed on this issue challenges "the way the city of Sunnyvale has handled the election process." The lawsuit raised objections to the words used by the proponents in the ballot argument and the validity of one proponents' signature. On Monday, Sept. 11, 2000, the judge hearing the case dismissed this lawsuit in its entirety finding that the ballot argument could be submitted to the voters as originally written.
Thank you for clarifying the record on this important issue that will be brought before the voters in November.
Tim Risch
Sunnyvale City Council
|
|
|
|
Sunnyvale, California Since 1994
