Regarding Barry Horstman's excellent article on financial disclosures in the mayor's race ("O'Connor, Cleator Continue Financial Debate," April 16), Maureen O'Connor equates her spouse's potential land use project with a project proposed by a Bill Cleator supporter.
But there is a real difference. Maureen O'Conner will derive a direct financial benefit under California community property law whenever her spouse, Robert O. Peterson, makes a profit in real estate or in any other manner.
Secondly, O'Connor seems to prefer involving the city attorney's office in determining on a case basis whether she has a conflict. Do we really want to take our city attorneys away from investigating citizens' complaints?
If O'Connor cares about the city she hopes to govern, she should disclose what properties she and her husband own.
Otherwise the question goes unanswered . . . what is Maureen O'Connor attempting to hide?