 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jerry Mitchell, in his LTE thinks that outsiders shouldn't have help fund the No on H campaign.
Quoting Mr. Mitchell, "According to county elections department records, 35 percent of the funds gathered to oppose Measure H(the Clover Valley referendum) were from people outside of Rocklin. I can somewhat understand Loomisites contributing as they may be affected by Clover Valley’s development. However, the contributions from Auburn, Lincoln, Sacramento and Berkeley indicate to me the need for them to learn to mind their own business."
Mr. Mitchell. Wow! 35% of the “No on H” campaign funds came from non-resident contributors. That’s terrible. It sounds almost un-American to allow “outsiders” to support the Democratic process. "No on H" supporters collected the outrageous amount of about $70,000 from all sources. You are probably thinking "How can those “militants” throw so much money at the referendum that nobody in Rocklin supported?"
Golly, gee, Mr. Mitchell, the supporters of Measure H only came up with a measly $750,000, almost 100% of it collected from non-residents. That comes to almost $90 per Yes vote cast versus the No folks who spent about $8 per No vote. Actually if you want to put a price on just the winning votes, the 883 votes they won by (out of about 18,000 total votes), cost was about $800 per vote. Sounds fair to me! Sounds like politics at it best, and all this with many supporters of Yes on H bending the truth pretty severely during the campaign.
Read all of daperera's blogs >>
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
By Mr. Mitchell's standard, no one should ever contribute to any election campaign unless he/she lives in the district. As noted in the Perera letter, almost 100% of the developer's "Yes on H" campaign came from outside Rocklin. In fact, not one of the developers' partners even lives in Rocklin.
Where do you draw the democratic line, Mitchell? Does it matter at all that contaminated creek water from the proposed Clover Valley project flows into many different cities and counties, or that polluted air will filter into many regions depending upon which way the wind blows? Does the fact that increased traffic will impact ALL the surrounding communities open the door to regional interest mean anything? Any citizen who knew of these regional impacts had a right to donate to the “NO on H” campaign.
This kind of myopic, blinders-on accusation tries to land on those who are even more ignorant than the one spouting the blather. We can only hope there aren't too many out there to which such nonsensical claims will stick.