The opponents to Proposition A have resorted to the tactics of issuing misleading information of various types rather than argue on the merits of the issue. For example, the major theme of the last mailing of the committee Against Proposition A was that you , the voter, could "not understand!" This is certainly misleading, or worse.
The fact remains that their last-ditch offensive is based on proclaiming that they are the past and present power structure and any point of view not advanced by these so-called representatives of the residents attacks our entire system of government.
The fact remains that the city was formed, by a vote of the residents, to restore what was claimed to be local control. Why do the opponents to Proposition A fear the vote of their constituents now on matters of such extreme impact on the community? A vote is only required after the city agencies and the City Council have performed their function and found a project worthy of their approval.
The fact remains that the opponents to Proposition A have changed their claim that decisions on major development projects could bypass current procedures and go directly to a vote of the people. They now state that the current city hierarchy, the staff, the Planning Commission, and finally the City Council will shirk their responsibilities to put such developments through the normal rigorous review procedures and any required "give and take" and/or "negotiations." Their contention now is that these agencies of city government would rubber stamp their approval of such proposals and send them to the voters for decision. The proponents of Proposition A have not made this assumption, which would not be worthy of our representatives. If what the opponents to Proposition A are inferring is true, then we must have Proposition A.