My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2018-05-07 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
AgdaPkt 2018-05-07 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2018 9:26:27 AM
Creation date
5/3/2018 4:24:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
5/7/2018
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
475
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1, need 7 member for balance and fair to all <br />1- we need 7 or more to keep things fair <br />2. More voices can be a good thing, within reason. <br />2. More info, like what the cost difference would be <br />1 We are too large of a city to have 5 council members. <br />#1 We need the additional representation, not a clique that votes in unison. <br />21 think they are doing a good job on most things. <br />1. If there are more people on the council their might be a better possibility that all the insanity of <br />building will stop or at least be kept under control!! <br />1 Strongly oppose. The minor cost savings pales compared to the advantages of having a wider <br />range of voices participate when making critical decisions that determine the future of our city. <br />This is not the part of our government that needs to be more efficient. It's a more democratic <br />process when more people help decide. <br />1 - Give more people a chance to serve. Besides, we will probably have to restructure our council <br />soon to vote by district. <br />2 - Let's go with 6 members!lf they can't break a tie by compromising then just forget it. <br />1 no. Why? I don't know a good reason to do so. <br />1 - we need a variety of opinions <br />2- consolidating power in fewer hands is not a good idea. <br />2. 1 see both sides of the argument, but defer to keeping things as they are. I don't think the cost <br />difference is that great. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.