There is more than a whiff of adolescence in Ms. Gustafson’s sour-grapes letter (Enterprise, Dec. 7). Pro-Shoreline has long been the initiator of low politics: smears, lawsuits and shabby political propaganda. She accuses others of the very practices she and her friends embrace so quickly, regularly and enthusiastically.
Mr. Grace lost because of his own record, not because his opponent pointed it out. The suggestion that Eggen’s mailer was unsupported by evidence is contradicted by the public record from which the mailer was derived. She claims Pro-Shoreline’s mailers are supported by newspapers and legal transcripts but she ignores the fact that these were written by Pro-Shoreline supporters. Her claim that her opponents represent “big money” and special interests is absurd. Pro-(developer) Shoreline is the camp of special interests and big money, like the massive expenditure from her camp to finance the lawsuits against our council and city. The cost to the plaintiffs is estimated to be about the total costs for all of the recent council races combined, yet Pro-Shoreline still withholds the identity(s) of the contributor(s). I made substantial contributions to the recent election and did so openly. I’m a retired Metro bus driver and have nothing to gain from the city. I want a City Council I can forget about; one that can be trusted to care for its citizens who have no “special” interests.
Pro-Shoreline is a developer-financed clique. Has anyone heard Pro-Shoreline ask about homeowner concerns? I have not. Instead they seek to impose their “vision” on the rest of us. Cottage housing is a clear example; overwhelmingly opposed by homeowners, it ended only when Pro-Shoreline lost control. Instead of attending to citizen concerns, they attack those who do, with lawsuits and smears, as they did with John Chang and Maggie Fimia.
Bronston Kenney
Shoreline
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
