Talk:Fullerton West Coyote Hills Development and Nature Preserve, Measure W (November 2012)
|This page is part of WikiProject California, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to California.|
|| This page is part of WikiProject Local Ballot Measures, a WikiProject that exists in order to organize, expand and improve Ballotpedia's coverage of local ballot measures, including local pension reform measures.
If you have any questions or comments please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
Comments from Angela Lindstrom
Yes it was wrong. I reverted it back to the version by JWilliams as he is not affiliated with me or this measure. I did not want to taint the page with biased information so restrained from editing the content of the measure description other than the titles of the people who signed the opposing view. I wrote you on 10/29/12. I did not receive a response from you. Please see the email below.
There are serious omissions of facts to just plain egregious errors with the versions I compared below. Here are at least 2 examples. There are other word-smithing of the description to bias the content heavily towards one side - the proponent's. In fact, it is very similar to their marketing material. 1) The Friends of Coyote Hills did qualify the referendum, hence Measure W, the subject of this page. 2) The 760 houses and shopping center are absolutely germane to this referendum and yet they were edited out of JWilliams post after 10/13/12. This development is mentioned on page 1 of the article being referended and yet only the more attractive half of the story to favor the proponent of this measure is published. I will add again, this important information was part of the page until someone removed it recently.
You do not identify yourself by name. Who are you?
- With respect to who qualified Measure W for the ballot, the version I wrote says, "The group that led the charge to collect the approximately 40,000 signatures needed to put Measure W on the ballot is called the "Friends of Coyote Hills". The group attempted, but failed, to qualify a referendum overturning the City’s approval of Pacific Coast Homes’ plans to build homes on West Coyote Hills." You removed that last sentence. I believe it is the case that "Friends of Coyote Hills" circulated more than one referendum petition. Is that correct? I also believe that only one petition they circulated did qualify for the ballot. Would you agree with that? The one petition that did qualify became Measure W. Did "Friends of Coyote Hills" unsuccessfully circulate a petition to overturn the city council's vote to build the extra homes? I realize that Measure W qualified for the ballot. The question here is about the petitions that did not qualify.
ALindstrom's response to the above questions. There is no single ordinance that approved Chevron-PCH's development plan. There is/was no "city council vote to build the extra homes". There are no "extra homes". The consideration Chevron-Pacific Coast Homes demanded (I say demanded as they threatened the City with a lawsuit if the City did not reconsider the development plan that was rejected in 2010) was the vested right to develop West Coyote Hills with 760 houses and a shopping center. Following that, the 2011 City Council's action to approve Chevron-Pacific Coast Homes' "project" which again is a development of 760 houses and a shopping center consisted of several ordinances: 2011-31 General Plan Amendment, 2011-32 Specific Plan Amendment, 2011-3168 Zoning Change, 2011-3169 Development Agreement, 2011-33 Tentative Tract maps. In July and August 2011, the Friends of Coyote Hills circulated 4 petitions to challenge the 2011 City Council approval action, one for each of these ordinances: 2011-31, 2011-32, 2011-3168, 2011-3169. We did not circulate a petition for 2011-33. 2011-31 and 2011-33 fell short of the required signatures to qualify, but 2011-3168 and 2011-3169 did qualify. In fact, in October 2011, the City Council rescinded 2011-3168 Zoning as a result of the referendum qualifying. They sent the other, 2011-3169 Development Agreement referendum to a vote. This is the what Fullerton Voters are voting on with Measure W. So when the City's special attorney retained on this West Coyote Hills development project wrote in the impartial analysis and stated "Those other actions are not the subject of this referendum", he is simply saying Measure W is a referendum on the 2011-3169 Development Agreement ordinance, not a referendum on the 2011-31 General Plan and 2011-32 Specific Plan ordinances. That is not the same as stating the "Friends of Coyote Hills" unsuccessfully circulate a petition to overturn the city council's vote to build the extra homes?", which is a false conclusion and misinterpretation. None of the individual ordinances alone "authorize" new or extra homes. Together they make up the sum of the City approvals needed to move forward with Chevron's development plan. That said, the 2011-3169 Development Agreement is very significant because if approved, it gives Chevron vested rights to develop West Coyote Hills (again, see page 1 of the Development Agreement) with 760 houses and a shopping center. If rejected, Chevron does not get the vested right to develop 760 houses and a shopping center on West Coyote Hills. Furthermore, if Measure W is rejected, the other project approval ordinances would become null and void, just like 2011-3168 already is.
From: Angela Lindstrom  Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:50 AM To: 'email@example.com' Subject: FW: FW: Please correct errors on the Fullerton Measure W page
Hi, Can you help with this issue? Thank you.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org  On Behalf Of Bailey Ludlam Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 6:44 AM To: Angela Lindstrom Subject: Re: FW: Please correct errors on the Fullerton Measure W page
Thank you for reaching out to us. I'm sorry that your e-mail to me didn't go through, it appears that there might have been a small typo.
I very much appreciate your comments. Our California content, including the Fullerton article that you identified, is under the supervision of User:Polycal. You can reach this user at email@example.com. Please contact User:Polycal directly to work out this issue.
If you have any other comments or questions, please let me know!
-- Bailey Ludlam Associate Editor, Ballotpedia www.ballotpedia.org www.lucyburns.org
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Angela Lindstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Hi, The email to Baily was undeliverable. Can you help? Thank you.
From: Angela Lindstrom  Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:07 PM To: 'email@example.com' Subject: Please correct errors on the Fullerton Measure W page
It appears that the proponent of this Measure W (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Fullerton_West_Coyote_Hills_Development_and_Nature_Preserve,_Measure_W_%28November_2012%29) has influenced the latest content changes on this page by redacting pertinent information and putting forth outright incorrect information. Although I just received a new ballotpedia account, I hesitate to make the corrections myself since it will appear biased. However, I would ask that the published version be reverted back to the last edited version by JWilliams on 10/13/12 (I believe he is part of your organization). Since no one in our campaign has influenced JWilliams in writing that version, it appears to me the fairest approach to resolving this problem,
Below is a link that compares the latest published version with the one that JWilliams published: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fullerton_West_Coyote_Hills_Development_and_Nature_Preserve%2C_Measure_W_%28November_2012%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1484513&oldid=1456437
You can see that very pertinent information such as the development of 760 homes on 180 acres and a 5 acre retail development have been redacted. You will also see that this statement: " The group attempted, but failed, to qualify a referendum overturning the City’s approval of Pacific Coast Homes’ plans to build homes on West Coyote Hills." was added in the latest version of this page. This is absolutely false. The reason there is a Measure W to vote on is because we did qualify the referendum.
There are other edits on the published version that favors the proponent's view. It reads like a page out of their marketing brochure.
I would really appreciate it if you can make the correction as requested. If not, I will make the change but only to revert the content back to what was authored by JWilliams.
Thank you. Angela Lindstrom
Reversion by ALindstrom
...and invited ALindstrom to discuss here. Polycal 09:21, 31 October 2012 (CDT)