Campaigners are often so set in the righteousness of their views that they forget that the only people they need to convince are those few in the middle weighing both sides. Carson changed my vote on Measure H.
I see both advantages and consequences to building DiSC; my main issue was infrastructure, specifically the bike under-crossing. I was torn but until recently decided to cross the 50-yard line in support of the project, based on the developer's commitment to build the bike/ped tunnel (though I was getting concerned as some pointed out the wording in the agreement could allow the 'commitment' to be pushed off indefinitely).
Then Carson became the head of the committee to support the project he just voted to put on the ballot, as a coucil-member. I'm fine with council-members having opinions and speaking out, but I don't ever want to see such an intimate relationship between a party of interest and a politician, even if technically legal. Honestly, I may never have noticed, had Carson not chosen to become the developer’s proxy to sue Davis citizens over a ballot argument. Yes, the ‘No’ ballot argument is outrageous; also outrageous is the developer’s ‘Yes’ ballot argument, lawn signs, etc. That's the nature of ballot arguments!
Loss of political integrity on this scale trumps mere issues and must not be tolerated. I will not only vote No on H, but likely permanently against this piece of land and this developer. I will also get my exercise this fall by walking the streets of West Davis in support of Carson's replacement.
Vote NO on Carson.
Alan C. Miller