Dear Editor, I have been a longtime resident and have followed our city’s growth with keen interest. I pay great attention to things like the spike in housing due to a 10-year backlog of building permits and how many houses should get built in a year without the spike.
I read the Morgan Hill Times article “Candidates take a stance on growth” expecting to hear from all the candidates and get a fair and impartial view of their positions.
What I got was a surprise narrative on what growth should mean from one city councilmember who then endorsed one candidate in each city council race to complete his plan to control growth in our community to his definition and standards. That is a crock.
The article should have been postponed until all the candidates could give a statement and one was completely missed. Citing a candidate’s campaign website is not the same as interviewing a candidate.
The councilmember and his favorite city council candidate got the most coverage, so I hope there will be a follow-up article to complete the story that was started.
The narrative brought back an issue that was settled years ago: the Southeast Quadrant, which is not the same thing as the recent Catholic high school project just approved by our city council but is being highlighted again. I hope this will not be an issue for a second campaign season; it’s dead and we’re losing farmland without it.
I have never seen a story from the Morgan Hill Times that was this blatantly biased, and I hope the other councilmembers and the mayor as well as the other candidates get equal time to provide their expanded version of their narrative.