A Yes on D sign in my car attracted some bicyclists at the Golden Eagle staging area to the Bernal Park western ridge trails. They asked me why I didn't want to protect a ridge I obviously enjoyed hiking. I was dismayed to learn they had no real idea as to where Oak Grove was. After I informed them of its location and told them about the 496-acre parkland to be deeded to the city (and previously designated as a private golf course for a 100-home gated-community) their attitude about proposition D reversed.
I urge those of you in favor of D to make sure friends and neighbors understand the most basic tenets of the proposition. Be sure they know it is private land zoned as residential. Tell them to drive up Old Bernal on to the end of Hearst to view the land beyond. Notice the proliferation of No on D signs on this street whose residents are the only ones with access to the land. The street name should be altered to Nimby Drive.
The No on D group is currently in code violation, not having reported on a required 460 form, expenditures to indicate who has funded their signage and full-page newspaper ads. Who are the contributors, how much have they spent, and where do they live in relation to the property in question?
And regarding letters from school board participants, since when has serving on a school board (past or present) insured that you are only concerned with serving schools and not promoting your own interests? To characterize as insignificant the money a Yes on D victory would provide to schools is ludicrous. Does anyone think the school district would turn down the money?