 |
Based on what I heard while watching the City Council meeting on Nov. 28, the mailing of the Library survey postcard has been pushed back until January some time, something the authors of this flyer wouldn't have known about yet. This mailing date change is due to a fear that the card could be lost in the Christmas rush, along with the need to make a few City Council directed changes to its overall presentation. Obviously those changes would not be reflected in this flyer.
Here is what the flyer looks like. I'll tell you what is especially misleading about this flyer after you've checked it out. It is an interesting piece of disinformation.
So what is the problem you're asking? It is located behind door No. 1, which unfortunately states:
"This option would be funded by selling the current Library building and the back lot with no tax increase to residents."
This is, of course, nonsensical. While the back lot would certainly be sold off, so will the lot that the Library currently sits on as well. This flyer does share that with us. Rather it claims the Library building will be sold, and says nothing about the property. Which would be quite a trick if you think about it.
The Library building is not going to be sold, rather it will be reduced to rubble to make way for whatever the developer who purchases that property wishes to build in its place. It's not like the Library is going to be turned into an art museum, or a health clinic, or whatever else one might do with such a place. Giving the impression that it might somehow be preserved is unfortunate.
This raises another question. Since this postcard is supposedly a non-partisan one designed to give the City Council insight into the wishes of a constituency they apparently feel out of touch with, why is the Li-BOT's fab five out campaigning for their obvious choice, which is No. 1? And why the weaselly and misleading information?
The marquee problem with this supposedly non-partisan Library survey is that it associates keeping the current Library with a property tax hike, while presenting the move to the YAC as a no-tax increase solution. There have been no studies that have established the move option as potential tax relief, nor have any costs of things such as the significant new construction required there been officially established. Which could be considerable.
Unfortunately, this is all starting to look like business as usual in Sierra Madre.
That being ... shady.
sierramadretattler.blogspot.com