Laurie Smith and Kevin Jensen sat down with The Mercury News for an on camera interview. If anyone is still on the fence about voting, it would be worth a watch. It was eye opening to see both candidates without a political filter. The interview is here: Web Link

Dunno how many actually read Measure AA, but it is an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink-hodgepodge that doesn't actually specify that it will do anything, except collect more taxes. Many potential projects are identified; which ones might be completed is never definitively stated. What an exercise in subterfuge. Some of the things it mentions have been done via private donations in the past. This is a mess. I recommend voting no on this one and forcing proponents to come up with definite, smaller projects where money -- $300 million of yours -- can't so easily be hidden via corruptive practices. I suspect the true hidden purpose here is to take over projects for city governments, money-wise, so that they can use their own money for other things. Let's face it; if so that's dishonest government.

I couldn't disagree more with Jes' Sayin's comments. I appreciated the list of proposed projects, providing transparency and a clear explanation of how the money would be spent and how each city/county would benefit. I feel the money would be very wisely spent and an invaluable investment in the future. Jes' Sayin' sounds as if he's purposely misinterpreting the proponents' statements. The only voters against this measure would be real estate developers who have set their sites in a massive way on the Peninsula, and/or TPers who are automatically against fees of any kind for any reason. The Bay Area tradition has been preserving the environment and that should be continued with Measure AA.

Given the increasing use of mail-in ballots, suggest that these recommendations be published much earlier... similar to other local news outlets.

Vote Laurie Smith and this could be you the day someone in your neighborhood goes against her.

Web Link

Do you dare? The deputies say they have no confidence in her, why should you?
Web Link

I too watched the Mercury News interview and believe Mr. Jensen is the better person to lead the Sheriff Department. He came across sincere, honest and well qualified coming up through the rank and file. He has the backing of all our local Law Enforcement including our own MVPD. When I factor his credentials, backing of Law Enforcement and our very own Deputies and Correctional Officers I can't vote for Laurie Smith. I am surprised the Voice endorsed the incumbent when the Mercury News stated it was time for her to RETIRE.

Laurie Smith. Long and verified track record of giving concealed gun permits to those who give money to her.

Note also when an organization doesn't endorse her, it's because of a small group in leadership... Are we to assume that if an organization endorses her it is the same? Or that magically that everyone in the organization is for her?

I strongly urge a NO vote on AA for the following reasons. A lot of the "open Space" is not open to the public as it needs certain things done before it can be opened. The MROSD has shone a strong tendency to use its money to acquire property but not fix up the property it already has so it can be open to the public, the purported reason for its existence. I also feel that the open space usage rules are narrowly drawn to cater to an extreme element and not the general public. No camping, fishing, bow hunting, ORV's, and very limited horse and trail bike usage. Everyone pays but only a few can use. I would support if all traditional outdoor recreation usages were accommodated and not just the extremely selfish ones currently allowed. Vote NO on AA.

I completely understand your opinion. I appreciate that you said it politely (well except maybe that "selfish" remark at the end). But, I have to disagree.

The idea behind open space is not always that it is open to the public.

It is open space because there is no development. It is meant to be nature - plants/grass growing because it belongs there, rather than plants brought in from somewhere else to make the area look pretty.

It is open space not to be trampled and littered by the public; not to have the animals overfed or over-run by a specific breed. It is meant to have animals policing themselves because they are free and unencumbered by people.

We need more open space, whether the public is allowed on it or not.

I recommend a YES vote on AA

Sheriff Smith is pretty sick to to be using Sierra Lamar to promote herself. She has an arrest but no conviction. Obviously she has gone into panic mode to be invoking a presumed dead girl to help her win.

Ann B's comments suggest she never saw Dave Price's incisive May-5 Daily Post editorial on how badly crafted Measure AA is, or the many thoughtful supporting letters it prompted.

No one, or almost no one, opposes MROSD's overall mission and preservation efforts. That isn't the issue AT ALL with AA.

1. AA raises funds via bonds. Bonds are a mechanism for spend-now pay-later expenditures, like school construction. With this financing method, interest payments equal or exceed funds spent. The "$300 million" for MROSD costs taxpayers $600 million or more. But AA's proposed projects have no particular timetable. Why not just raise 300 million, by the same tax source, over time, without the expensive interest?

2. Priorities and expenditures are vague AND subject to revision after AA takes effect.

3. Questions have been raised about MROSD's current expenditures, on top of which its expensive bureaucracy with high salaries has hired consultants for planning tasks that other organizations would do in-house.

Backed by an extraordinarily lavish $550,000 advertising campaign that yields more-than-daily mailings (all ultimately to be paid with our tax money), AA was "spun" as a feel-good Open-Space-District endorsement that people WON'T examine closely. Shallow rhetoric above about "the only voters against" AA show this strategy working.

I've actively supported MROSD for decades, but I voted against AA.

Big thanks to Transparency and Robert for your comments on the Open Space issue.
Your comments are important, and are exactly what we need to be considering.
I just wish we'd entered into this discussion long before voting day. Your careful and
well-worded comments are valuable to this process.

Grateful: I take it your lament was meant for the Voice staff (since this article appeared on this web site less than two days ago).

Public controversy over Measure AA was prominent a month ago in other media, as I mentioned.

I voted exactly the opposite of what your liberal bosses told you to publish.