View Single Post
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2010, 12:22 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,198
^Pretty terrible reporting too. Including statements like this:

Quote:
"And most of all, it still does not adequately respond to the concerns of the people most affected," the letter states. "The public controversy over the alignments selected in the months since the court ruling should have resulted in a reevaluation of other alternatives, either another way to run the train up the Peninsula, and/or another route not on the Peninsula."

The draft letter goes on to criticize the authority for not analyzing what property it may need to seize in Atherton and other Peninsula municipalities to build the tracks and for neglecting to study vibration impacts, as the court requested.
Why does the author neglect to state anywhere in the article that the judgment in the lawsuit last summer specifically upheld that the authority was in the right with ALL of their dealings on the peninsula? The court didn't request anything more be done with the Menlo Park and Atherton segments - only some parts of the segments in San Jose.

"Should have resulted in a reevaluation of other alternatives" - ???? Why, exactly? Because the dude she interviewed says so? She couldn't interview the other side or possibly look at what the court said last summer when all of the requests for other alternatives were clearly thrown out, and perhaps mention that?
Reply With Quote