Because these local city clerks never just keep their own counsel when it comes to the performance of city business — even though as elected officials they’re very much supposed to — we’re wondering who helped ours come up with the cynical idea of misnaming the November airport ballot vote as “Measure B”?
Apparently that’s what they’re doing. The aim of course is to glom onto the wild popularity of the original 2001 measure in order to help get their new dream-terminal through. It’s all about exploiting the name recognition and good will that’s attached to the other, real one.
Their preliminary advocacy statement even deliberately conflates the two by falsely claiming further protections for the residents if you eagerly vote their way. Just like what the real Measure B did, but won’t any more if this stupid thing goes through. There’ll be no more “referendums” if that terminal plan wins in November.
But what’s in a name, right?
(No? Ask them then why they named it “Measure B” in the first place! Is there a “Measure A” on the same local November ballot?)
Keep in mind that this is the same city clerk who last month tried to evade the reality that not all multi-residential tenants on the Landlord-Tenant Commission are tenant advocates. That’s because some of them are indeed landlords — such as her own daughter, who was one of the applicants!