My response to Tom McGow's Post re Beach (click for link)

Thank you Tom - it’s good to hear your perspective. As much as it seems like I am for demolition of the existing building and for a new “green” building at the beach, that really is too simple of a box to put my opinion in. We, as a city, have limited resources. We need to know with a high level of certainty the troubles and complications - through objective analysis - what approach has the best cost to benefit ratio. Perhaps we will know more once we get the financial analysis due soon on the project. Let’s look at the facts surrounding both options. Let’s not rely on emotional reasons and, please, do not call rehabbing the building “restoration” - especially if we are grafting on a 1920s facade to an already historic (yes, it is) International Style building. As for my beating the drum on the campaign contributions, I do so to point out the hypocrisy of screaming Pay to Play at every turn, put together a patchwork, Pay to Play ordinance (and call it an “Ethics” ordinance), introduce it just prior to campaigning, then get one of your “targeted” candidates to vote against it, shamelessly beat that candidate over the head with it during the campaign and then accept campaign contributions from “professional business entities” that have “contracts” with the city and make their interests the cornerstone of your campaign. Yeah, I have a problem with that.