Why is it biased? Check this out - it's the paragraph after a recital of the architectural history of the building:
The building's location east of the coastal construction control line is a reason NOT to invest money in the existing building. It is actually an argument for a new building that would be west of the coastal construction control line - meeting current construction standards. Some of you may remember the dramatic Powerpoint presentation made by Commissioner Cara Jennings about the perils of coastal construction when another proposal was before the City Commission - complete with scenes of people running away from waves pounding the beach. Here's one of them:
And, in her presentation, Commissioner Cara Jennings also talked about the importance of "managed retreat" from the ocean due to the threat of rising ocean levels. Here is another image from that presentation:
You can review the entire presentation by our District #2 Commissioner by clicking here. The point is that you cannot tell the public that since the building is seaward, or east, of the coastal construction control line, it's a reason to rehabilitate the building - unless you don't want to represent the facts the way they are and present a biased version to those that are taking the survey.
Let's go back to that paragraph, at the second point that is made:
Can someone show me a study that examined the costs of rehabilitating the existing building versus building a new building? An accurate assessment was never done, but here the city is telling the public that due to the costs of the new building, the decision was made to rehabilitate the old. Why are we lying to the public? Is the community's attachment to the existing building due more to the fact that tenants of the existing building contributed to and promoted Commissioner Jennings' and Mulevhill's campaigns?
Menu board at John G's October 2008
What a wicked web we weave when we try to deceive...
It's only when we get to question #12 that the public is asked the following:
This is the question that should have been asked by the City Commission after it exited the contract with Greater Bay - with enough facts present to make an informed, impartial decision about the expenditure of public money.
Remember too that people are asked to identify themselves as part of this survey - possible political retribution? I wouldn't rule it out.