As Shakespeare wrote in “Henry the Fifth,” “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more…” In the Jan. 23 edition of The Independent, John Lawrence makes another sophomoric attempt to mislead the readers by proposing the ridiculous claim that my previous letter is in accord with his claim that opponents of the city’s development plan use “… underhanded efforts with negative attacks…”
How could he unintentionally misread the letter that made the point that he, John Lawrence, was a clear example of the use of negative attacks and bullying against those with whom he disagrees, and implicitly suggest that if he desists, the dialogue regarding the development of the city will proceed far more civilly? Now, with his newest letter, we have a modestly ambiguous example of his attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue with which I sought to identify and clarify his technique last time.
Mr. Lawrence is, by his own implicit confession, a minion, a minion of those groups seeking to plunge ahead with the city’s plan despite numerous voices saying whoa there, city leadership, we want to have a voice in what happens in downtown Livermore. We live here too, and many of us are not in total agreement with the plan you are so adamantly and passionately pushing, and, in fact, we have some serious reservations that deserve honest consideration.
To make the point completely clear, I am not a member of any group. I am not a minion. I am simply an independent voice that supports the idea that the people have a right to be heard because it is their city! The city council members comprise about 5/100,000 of the population and were hired to conduct the administrative business of the city efficiently and honestly, not to set themselves up as the sole arbiters of how the city is to evolve. The depiction of the layout of Stockman’s Park in the latest edition of the “Official Community Newsletter” is a conspicuous example of arrogance and betrayal of the trust that many residents of Livermore accorded to the city council.
Finally, the conclusion Lawrence reaches is completely astonishing in its total disingenuousness. My missive was in support of a “No” vote on P; that support has not waned in the slightest.