Cupertino City Council, Mr. Paul Fong and Hugh Biggar
The Measurex re-planning proposal is due for the city council to evaluate on Mar 8th, 2006. In this past month, Mr. Paul Fong, a resident at Cupertino and an elected trustee of Foothill - De Anza District mass-mailed residents of Cupertino with his urge and support for the replanning proposal by Taylor Woodrow, an international housing development group. In his letter, in both English and Chinese -- two versions mailed out separately over a month --, he blatantly lied about the proposed number of housing units: 14 instead of 94! in his arguments for supporting the proposal. By lying about the number of housing units and pitting that this is a proposal about parks instead of the existing light industrial space, he urges recipients to reply to his enclosed postcards so that he can send the positive replies to the city council.
It is so alarmingly dismal to see a resident, let alone a public official, is willing to lie and distort in order to garner his support. Such dishonest conduct smells so obviously like a special interest group that is trying to misinform the greater public in order to incorrectly influence busy residents' impression of the proposal -- those that haven't had time to read the proposal facts. Since a good portion of the Cupertino residents are Chinese-speaking, such act of going a step further in mailing a pure Chinese version smells even fishier -- given that Asian population, especially relatively new immigrant families, are traditionally less active in civic issues as their exposure to the standard Amercian, active community participation is not yet as mature.
The dishonest Mr. Paul Fong aside, when one thinks about why the Cupertino planning commission and the city council are willing to consider such risky replanning proposal speaks volumns about the integrity of their public serving attitude. This proposal supposedly has been turned down and replanned for more than a year now. Now with the new proposal, which proponents claim meets all the city regulations, Taylor Woodrow is trying again. It is depressing when one takes a step back from looking at whether the plan meets regulation or not and thinks about the effects and quality of the plan. If this plan does not harm, or instead merely maintains, or better yet, improves the quality of life at Cupertino and residents living around the neighborhood, why would Taylor Woodrow and proponents all be talking about their great compensation to the schools nearby and their helping mitigating the adverse traffic impact? Why wouldn't they be all talking about how the life quality will be improved? If such proposal will cause no harm, why compensate the schools with so much more money than they need for the next few years to come? If such proposal has no ill effects, why do they need to study how to widen the traffic lanes? If such proposal is all clearly good, why do they need a proponent like Mr. Paul Fong to mass-mail and lie to the public about the plan?
As a city councilman and -woman, isn't it his/her responsibility to ensure that s/he is serving the public -- to guard, maintain or improve the quality of life in the city? If a project has such clear wide-changing and ill-effects and not maintaining or improving the quality of life, why are they even spending so much time, therefore money, to evaluate it -- supposedly for over than a year and more than a few times already? If this is not a plan that one day in the years to come, they can stand next to their kids while walking about the neighborhood and saying: "Look! This dense design and widened traffic lanes next to schools are here all because your father/mother approves it. I am so proud of it," then how can they even be standing in front of the public, on record, and inform the public, we like it and are evaluating or supporting it?
The latest edition of Cupertino Courier contains an article by Hugh Biggar, written in a tone and style that looks to support the plan as well -- as it lacks critical analysis about the plan's effects on the quality of life and instead focuses mainly on the plan's meeting regulations and offering suspicion-raising compensation such as offering money to schools and below-the-market rates for some housing units. (Honestly, if Taylor Woodrow believes that the plan causes no harm, why would it even go so far in compensation?) Furthermore, despite that the city planning commission has recommended denial of the proposal, Biggar writes: "Cupertino's planning department supports the project...." (Biggar may try to defend himself by saying he used the word "department," not "commission.") Shame on a public writer here at Cupertino willing to write in such a style to try to affect the public's opinions. Are you proud to tell your kids one day, Mr. Biggar, that because of your writing style and tone, you have contributed to making it possible for generations to come to see 94 housing units on that land and widening traffic lanes next to three schools nearby?
It is so alarmingly dismal to see a resident, let alone a public official, is willing to lie and distort in order to garner his support. Such dishonest conduct smells so obviously like a special interest group that is trying to misinform the greater public in order to incorrectly influence busy residents' impression of the proposal -- those that haven't had time to read the proposal facts. Since a good portion of the Cupertino residents are Chinese-speaking, such act of going a step further in mailing a pure Chinese version smells even fishier -- given that Asian population, especially relatively new immigrant families, are traditionally less active in civic issues as their exposure to the standard Amercian, active community participation is not yet as mature.
The dishonest Mr. Paul Fong aside, when one thinks about why the Cupertino planning commission and the city council are willing to consider such risky replanning proposal speaks volumns about the integrity of their public serving attitude. This proposal supposedly has been turned down and replanned for more than a year now. Now with the new proposal, which proponents claim meets all the city regulations, Taylor Woodrow is trying again. It is depressing when one takes a step back from looking at whether the plan meets regulation or not and thinks about the effects and quality of the plan. If this plan does not harm, or instead merely maintains, or better yet, improves the quality of life at Cupertino and residents living around the neighborhood, why would Taylor Woodrow and proponents all be talking about their great compensation to the schools nearby and their helping mitigating the adverse traffic impact? Why wouldn't they be all talking about how the life quality will be improved? If such proposal will cause no harm, why compensate the schools with so much more money than they need for the next few years to come? If such proposal has no ill effects, why do they need to study how to widen the traffic lanes? If such proposal is all clearly good, why do they need a proponent like Mr. Paul Fong to mass-mail and lie to the public about the plan?
As a city councilman and -woman, isn't it his/her responsibility to ensure that s/he is serving the public -- to guard, maintain or improve the quality of life in the city? If a project has such clear wide-changing and ill-effects and not maintaining or improving the quality of life, why are they even spending so much time, therefore money, to evaluate it -- supposedly for over than a year and more than a few times already? If this is not a plan that one day in the years to come, they can stand next to their kids while walking about the neighborhood and saying: "Look! This dense design and widened traffic lanes next to schools are here all because your father/mother approves it. I am so proud of it," then how can they even be standing in front of the public, on record, and inform the public, we like it and are evaluating or supporting it?
The latest edition of Cupertino Courier contains an article by Hugh Biggar, written in a tone and style that looks to support the plan as well -- as it lacks critical analysis about the plan's effects on the quality of life and instead focuses mainly on the plan's meeting regulations and offering suspicion-raising compensation such as offering money to schools and below-the-market rates for some housing units. (Honestly, if Taylor Woodrow believes that the plan causes no harm, why would it even go so far in compensation?) Furthermore, despite that the city planning commission has recommended denial of the proposal, Biggar writes: "Cupertino's planning department supports the project...." (Biggar may try to defend himself by saying he used the word "department," not "commission.") Shame on a public writer here at Cupertino willing to write in such a style to try to affect the public's opinions. Are you proud to tell your kids one day, Mr. Biggar, that because of your writing style and tone, you have contributed to making it possible for generations to come to see 94 housing units on that land and widening traffic lanes next to three schools nearby?
posted by Concerned Resident at 11:00 AM
0 comments
