This mornings newspaper article focused on the language Steve used in his note card sent to city council. While the language may be considered arrogant by many, that is not why I feel so
strongly that the card constitutes ?“an act prejudicial to the Association?”.

The cards were part of a door to door campaign conducted by Donna Fudge, Steve Lange?’s attorney and wife of the broker for Watson?’s, Nadine Smith, a former clinet of Steve's, and her husband. Obviously, someone with a vested interest in a certain outcome cannot be expected to objectively present both sides on a issue. That is why such a canvass can never be equated to a vote or plebiscite. If I go door to door and five out of 10 homeowners agree with me and I then mail 5 preposted cards to City Council from those who agree with me, those who disagreed are conveniently ignored. I am thus able to create a completely false impression about the issue.

By the time the card campaign began it was obvious how the majority of those who chose to participate in the democratic process felt about the issue. 10% of the membership had signed
petitions requesting a special meeting of the membership. Those who called the meeting were determined that it be open and fair. Following a full and open discussion by both sides, a vote was taken. The vote was overwhelming against the rezoning request.

There is nothing more sacred to us as a nation and as a people than the use of the democratic process to decide issues. What Steve Lange?’s attorney and former client did was calculated to overcome that process by misrepresenting a canvass by interested parties as being equal to a free and open vote. The threat to neighborhood associations from such an act was not lost on the gentleman from CONA. He stated to City Counicl that only the open vote should be considered as representing the will of the neighborhood. If a one sided canvass can negate a free and open vote, why participate? Indeed, why bother to join the association at all?

By A Board Memeber

Greg Burton This Is Appalling

You have accused Donna Fudge of liaing about the truth and the responses she received from the people she spoke with in regard to the Post Cards. she said most of the people she spoke with (93%), that were either for or against the redevelopment of the Watsons area, were in FAVOR. There is no way to misinterpret what she said.

You are accusing Donna Fudge of only receiving 50% "in favor of redevelopment". If that were the case then she would have only been able to truthfully say that half of the people were in favor. You are accusing Donna Fudge of liaing under oath. Do you really believe that she would get up in fornt of everyone on Television and Lie?

You are also accusing her of only being interested in the redevelopment due to her husbands involvment in the brokerage aspect of the project.

You have heard at several meetings including, two Board Meetings, City Council, and the special neighborhood meeting for the CVS project that the Fudges have real estate interest that far out way any brokerage fee. You know they own a home very close to 4th Street which they have been restoring for several years. You also know they own a building on 4th Street that is less than a few hundred feet from the Watson''''''''s property.

What does practically everyone that was involved in this debate have in common with each other? Moat people have a Real Estate investment in the neighborhood.

Is that any different for the Fudge''''''''s? Not only do they have one investment, but they have two. Both being restored and both very close to the intersection of 4th & 9th.

Donna Fudge has no responsibility
to CVS. If she thought the redevelopment was going to be detrimental to her neighborhood and the value of her home and building on 4th Street she would not have done all of the work she did to tell the other half of the story.

How can you in good conchence make these acusations when you know better?

Let's not get carried away

I read the posting you are responding to and how do you know that Mr. Burton wrote it? Also- the author did not accuse Mrs. Fudge of lying. It seemed to me the point was that gathering signatures on a pre-printed postcard is not, and should not be, equal to participating in a democratic process like going to the meetings about CVS and voting. Most important the author pointed out that once the meeting presenting both sides of the issue was held, a vote was taken. And that vote was against the intrusion into the neighborhood.

TIMES ARTICLE

HAVEN'T READ THE ARTICLE YET - BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. THE TIMES REPORTING HAS BEEN SO ONE SIDE THUS FAR.