(I had originally posted a comment on her blog but I do not expect it to get past moderation so I have posted a version of it here)
"But I can't say with certainty what the intent of the 39,016 people who voted in favor of the measure was. This was another reason that I felt that it would be important to put the measure back to the voters"Are you serious? She wasn't certain? Really? Who is she to have to be certain about a vote before she can deem it acceptable? How elitist of her. What royal family does she think she belong to that gives her the right to have to be pleased at the snap of her fingers? Somebody wake her up from her dream and remind her that she represents the people and that the people have spoken. She has no right to go against the will of the people. Doing that will cost tax payers another $65,000 added to the $130,000 tax payers paid the first time around.
I can feel the critics breathing down my neck as I type this. So let me address them. Yes it was wrong for it to be put on the ballot the first time witch makes it even more wrong to put it on there a second time. Just because it "only" costs $65,000 this time around it doesn't make it half as wrong. If you want to speak mathematically it is actually makes it one and a half times wrong. If that makes any sense at all. Using words like only or minimal does not actually minimize the actual cost incurred by the tax payers.
I think that some members of city council are using this issue to bring publicity to themselves and are using it to parade their own personal agendas. Why should taxpayers pick up the tab for their performances on the stage we call City Hall?
A little food for thought. Some of the best leaders have been those who do things for the people when the cameras aren't even on.