请大家发信敦促市议会把CCSGI选票修改议题放入5月3日会议议程


关注Cupertino高密度    05/02     4211    
4.7/3 

自从库市理性发展公投CCSGI的选票说明从3月31日开始修改之后,抹黑公投的谣言越来越多。一个本意在于限制全市疯狂高密度发展的公投,一个本意在于还权于民,制约官商勾结的勾结,反而被诬蔑为要提高全市居民区楼高的高密度公投。我们希望市议会能在5月3日重新考虑公投选票说明文本。如果市府放弃这个最后修正的机会,我们作为CCSGI公投支持者,将会把市府带有严重倾向性,篡改选票说明,违反加州选举法的事情告上法庭。


希望更多人写信敦促市议会能够在5月3日讨论修正CCSGI选票说明的议题。模板如下:

TO: 
citycouncil@cupertino.org
cityclerk@cupertino.org

----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Councilmember,

   Your prompt response is appreciated on this very important issue.

   Supporters of CCSG Initiative deserves a fair chance to refute the claims in EC 9212 Report. Please send Mayor Chang an email to request to put the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on May 3rd Council meeting agenda. 

   By requesting to put the ballot question of CCSG Initiative for discussion, you simply agree to be fair and finally giving the supporters of CCSG Initiative enough time to prepare to refute the claims made in EC 9212 Report on building heights. I'm sure that you won't deny the citizens a fair chance as they well deserve.

   We just realized that May 3rd Council meeting is the last chance for the Council to amend the ballot question before the citizens are forced to pursue other legal action.

   On March 31, 2016, the supporters of CCSG Initiative did not know that the city would amend the ballot question based on a letter from Sand Hill. The public has no knowledge of the existence of the letter from Sand Hill's attorneys sent moments before March 31 Council meeting. The public has no knowledge that the staff would change the recommended ballot question in the staff report and prepared by the City Attorney. The public were surprised by the amended ballot question. All throughout the March 31 meeting, the amended ballot question was not never once displayed on the screen for all to see what exactly were being amended in the context of the full 75-word ballot question.
    Therefore, the supporters of CCSG Initiative were not prepared to argue against EC 9212 Report at all on March 31 since the last minute amendment was a total surprise. The public did not know why the outside counsel Mr. Perlmutter derived his false interpretation in EC 9212 Report at all during March 31 Council meeting. Without going back to study EC 9212 Report, the public was not given a chance to refute Mr. Perlmutter's false interpretation.

   In the morning of April 5, 2016 at 9 am, the CCSG Initiative committee were given a courtesy notice of the 9 pm special meeting called to change the ballot question to "increase to 45 feet". Scrambling to prepare for the meeting while juggling daytime jobs and family commitment, the supporters of CCSG Initiative was again caught by surprise. There was no staff report given in the 9pm special meeting to give any reason why the city decided to call a special meeting with no new evidence.

   The supporters of CCSG Initiative didn't read the argument in EC 9212 Report and the letter from outside counsel Ms. Bricks sent at 4:40pm on April 5 until after April 5 meeting. And as it turns out, EC 9212 Report and outside counsel Ms. Bricks made the same mistake of ignoring the important phrase "shown in Figure LU-1" and Figure LU-1 in Page 6 of the CCSG Initiative text. As Liana Crabtree pointed out in another email, the outside counsel who prepared EC 9212 Report most likely mixed up versions of the General Plan from Dec. 2014 with the most recent one adopted on Oct. 20, 2015.

   We plead that the Council give the supporters of CCSG Initiative a fair chance to refute false interpretation in EC 9212 Report. It's important that the ballot question of CCSG Initiative reflects the "true and impartial statement of purpose" in accordance to Elections Code.

   On March 31, we were surprised with a last-minute amendment with literally no time to study or prepare any rebuttal.. On April 5, we were surprised with a last-minute special meeting with again literally no time to study and prepare sufficient rebuttal.

   Putting the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on May 3rd meeting is only giving the citizens a fair chance to refute false interpretation in the EC 9212 Report and in the letter from outside counsel sent at 4:30pm on April 5, moments before the April 5 Council meeting. I'm sure that you believe in fairness and a through process. Please send an email to request the ballot question of CCSG Initiative be placed on May 3rd Council meeting agenda.
I would like to place this correspondence on the public record.

Sincerely your,
xxxxx