PW hides their mistakes
Original post made by Franco, Vineyard Hills, on Jul 25, 2014
The print edition of this opinion piece showed pictures of two addresses: one with a brown lawn and one with a green lawn. Having identified these residences, the article leaves to the reader the conclusion. How grossly unfair! Two points: 1. where does it say that a brown lawn is a requirement or that a resident did not meet the 25% reduction because the lawn is still green? 2. The golf course uses recycled water - who is to say the address shown in the print edition did not use water picked up that reclamation plant to water the lawn.
And what was the purpose to list the addresses in the print edition? What was the point? To slam the resident?
Pleasanton resident will have his hands full trying to keep the Oakland teams
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 936 views
The House of Representatives performs history’s first repeat hara-kiri
By Tom Cushing | 0 comments | 251 views