All I can focus on is that some of my constituents have sent me email saying, "Why now are we putting a $750,000 clause on it, and we have not done it in the past with all the different things. Aren't we taxpayers as well? Don't we have a fiduciary responsibility in the past?" And they're concerned that with this particular bill ... it's happening at this time.
The shock of learning that she does do email, particularly some email more than others prompts me to share the rest of the story from last Saturday.
Ms. Gilmore did not respond to the emails I sent her articulating several concerns I have with the constricted timeline for approval of a new ballpark. She had a chance on Saturday to address my concerns face-to-face about flooding, parking, and other potential problems that a new ballpark might create. She did not do so.
Instead, she insisted that she left a voice mail message for me a couple of days after receiving my email. I told her that I had been having problems with my voice mail but my email account still seemed to be working and she could have responded there.
She replied face-to-face that she does not "do email" because of the high volume of email she receives on various issues.
Last night I found out that not only does she do email, but she even publicizes email from constituents who are supporters of the Mayor's timelines when doing so serves her own interests.
So, I basically gather from this that if I want my views acknowledged, let alone represented, by a council member whom I voted for in the last election, I have to agree with her views on these questions.
In the end I agree with her comment above: it appears that all she can focus on are the emails of some of her constituents.