It says what it says

Greg Burton may not have been the board Member that posted the message. I will be plesantly surprised if it was not him.

As far as your posting is concearned, I specifically mentioned two acusations made by Greg Burton, or which ever Board Member it was that made the posting. My posting is very clear on those issues.

From Board Member posting.

"If I go door to door and five out of 10 homeowners agree with me and I mail 5 preposted cards to City Council from those who agree with me, those who disagreed are CONVINIENTLY IGNORED. I am thus able to create a COMPLETELY FALSE IMPRESSION about the issue"

Conviniently iignored, completely false impression

These are the words of the Board Member not mine.

Donna Fudge did not conveniently ignore anything. 93% were in favor of the redevelopment. That means 7% were opposed. Greg Burton used 5 out of 10. that is 50%. AND THEN WENT ON TO SAY "CREATE A COMPLETELT FALSE IMPRESSION".

If thats not calling someone a liar I don't know what is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Item 2

From Board Members Posting.

"Someone with a vested interest in a certain outcome cannot be expected to objectively present both sides on a issue"

I believe I thourly explained that the Fudge's have the same vested interest as everyone that was in the debate

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE?

There may be a real estate fee involved. However, why would Donna Fudge help on a project that would hurt her economically by lowering the value of here real estate? She was not forced to show the other side of the story.

You can defend Greg Burton all you want, but he is SUPOSE to represent all members of NSNA and should not be posting lias about one of the members.

He can personally have his owen openion. I will never take that away from someone. But if he or anyone else is going to sign their posting,

-By A Board Member

Then it should not have lias contained within it about another member of the association!

better read it

for someone who doesn't read the artcles but responds first, you obviously have pre-conceived notions. I would characterize the articles as perceptive not "one side."

By Well read

It DOES say what it says

Have you ever heard of speaking in the hypothetical to make a point? I read it to mean that it was POSSIBLE, not that it was what happened. As a contrast to direct vote and participation.

Interesting, but not noted in the letter you find so objectionable, is that at the very time these post cards must have been circulated by Mrs. Fudge, she was also representing Steve Lange as his attorney to the board (?!)

The Fudges do NOT have the same interest as everyone else- as you point out, they also stand to gain a real estate commission.
Nothing wrong with the real estate commission but when so involved then should not be such an advocate and feign innocence. Again, the Lang mindset of wearing two hats, etc.

The Fudges do not live immediate to the project. I have heard they (or he) has an office nearby. A real estate office would benefit from increased, higher brow traffic at the Watson's site. I can not imagine that Watson's would be good for business.

On the other hand, the people who live on 8th, 9th, 10th Avenues and the adjoining streets, ARE different. They are in immediate danger of losing value on their HOMES. (Ask any real estate appraiser.)

Whoever wrote that letter did not call Mrs. Fudge a liar. That is not the way I read it.

I think thou protests too much.

Who are you

Who are you board member? Stand up for your yourself and your opinion!