(Palo Alto Weekly published this letter from CGF correcting the discussion of the No on E position taken by CGF’s Board of Directors. Where the last line says “Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors”, the Weekly failed to include the words from the letter that started with “On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors”. -Brian)
It’s unfortunate that the Palo Alto Weekly failed to consult with Committee for Green Foothills before incorrectly characterizing the CGF Board’s position, among others, as stating that “parkland should never be repurposed.” The CGF Board’s statement and supporting material specifically recognizes the need to balance competing environmental interests and makes clear that it examines the issues on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the majority of greenhouse-gas emission reductions that would be done at a loss of parklands can instead be done by a smaller operation at the Water Quality Control Plant with no loss of parkland that has been promised to voters for forty years. Committee for Green Foothills’ Board did not make a knee-jerk decision but rather a thoughtful one to support both action to fight climate change and to protect our local parkland and natural open space, by encouraging a no vote on Measure E.
Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors (CGF note: Weekly failed to include the words “on behalf of” here)
East Bayshore Road