Signage of the times

Coastsider: “In the last couple of weeks, signs supporting Patridge, McClung, and Muteff have sprung up on nearly every vacant lot and farm field on the Coastside. I keep asking myself, What do the owners of those undeveloped lots know about those candidates that I don’t?”

This caption makes it sound like only out-of-town developers support Patridge, Muteff and McClung. This is of course misleading. Have you not noticed the large number of signs supporting Patridge, Muteff and McClung on developed, occupied parcels? I can send you some photos of those if you like.

Comment 2 by Barry Parr  on  Oct 30  at  12:48am  •  All my comments • 

If the rule was “one acre, one vote”, Muteff/Patridge/McClung would be a shoo-in. I don’t know who owns those lots (Are they out-of-town developers? I didn’t think so.), but they’re outnumbered by small homeowners. And they need homeowner votes if they’re going to get what they want.

Clearly significant percentage of individual homeowners (and renters) know and respect Naomi and Bonnie from their numerous and significant community activities, or just like their politics. I’m certain this is true. But George’s strategy seems to be to whip whatever anger and unhappiness exist among those homeowners into a frenzy.

My point is that the acreage seems to favor M/P/M, but I also acknowlege that they don’t have 100% of the big, empty lot vote.

I guess if I were you, I wouldn’t worry so much about what owners of large undeveloped lots know about M/P/M that you don’t, since as you point out they don’t represent many votes. I’d look into what’s driving the anger and unhappiness of average homeowners that support M/P/M. That is, if you’re interested in reporting the complete picture.