Our View: Picks for South Pasadena

SOUTH Pasadena politics will never entirely unravel themselves from Long Beach Freeway issues - not during our lifetime, at least.

[Karen OConnell]

The purpose behind the 710 Trucking tunnel is to bring a projected 100,000 diesel trucks through cities along the route from the LA & LB port planned expansion - WITHOUT ANY FILTERING of the diesel pollution from the "vent" towers, and dump those trucks onto the already congested 210.
Pressure for a goods movement route is coming from the ports and big business, and is not going to go away, but there is an alternative which Michael D. Antonovich has put forward: goods movement by electric rail line and inland port plan.
SB545, according to proponents, was the first step to clearing the way for the 710-trucking TOLL tunnel to be built. Putnam, and Cacciotti who supported SB545 in one vote or another now claim they are against a tunnel yet they supported the bill. And Cacciotti with legislative consultant Roos, have been strong proponents of this tunnel idea ever since it was first proposed at an informal meeting in July of 2002.
Since both Putnam and Cacciotti put their efforts towards the tunnel and not towards the intelligent alternative solution - goods movement via rail as people have asked them to do, I wont be voting for either of these guys in the upcoming South Pasadena election.

[WOW]

The neo-luddite opponents to the 710 Tunnel compromise now point to diesel pollution, as a reason to oppose the tunnel compromise. But these folks, looking for an emotional hook, fail to point to the already adopted an mandated diesel pollution control technologies, that will reduce harmful truck emissions by over 99% by the time this project is completed. If trucks are even allowed, which has not been decided????

Additional technology advances such as hybrid trucks and the use of alternative fuels, now being tested, will reduce these emissions still further. The facts are the one thing this extremist anti 710 Tunnel faction just can't stand on this issue. They depend upon emotional arguments to maintain the fear, so they can continue to spend millions in City general fund money on lawyers for their "casue" which is no longer to "save" South Pasadena, but to oppose any reasonable solution.

Intellectual honesty would require these folks to run on the platform that they oppose the 710 Tunnel compromise, because they prefer gridlock, wasted fuel, and local pollution on Fair Oaks?

Good sense and fiscal prudence says to vote for Putnam and Cacciotti.

[DUDE]

Hey WOW - got you - you tripped up,

The fact that the tunnel proponents promote Putnam and Cacciotti is proof that they know that both of these men are lying when they say they are against the tunnel. I'm guessing that WOW could be Putnam, Cacciotti, Suifentes or Ten or maybe running their campaign and know that the "we're against a tunnel statement " is just BS to confuse the voting public. All of these men knew they could not get elected if they were for the Ports trucking tunnel so they lie when they run for office, then once in, do everything they can to sell their constituents who voted them in under false pretenses down the river. Gotta wonder if money is going into pockets somehow here.

[WOW]

Tripped up on what? If anything, these attacks on Putnam show just how deluded and paranoid these hardcore 710 Tunnel opponents are.

Phil Putnam has alway been skeptical of the tunnel, he has worked to assure that any use of the tunnel option would not conflict with South Pasadena's oppostion to the surface route. But, because he has been open to seeing if this alternative might work, and permanently remove the threat to South Pasadena from a surface alternative, he in now villified by the extremist fringe on the Freeway issue. This faction has turned on him, apparently because he is viewed as too "unreliable", for the hard core of No 710 true believers.

The hard core no 710 Tunnel elements longer fight to save South Pasadena. They now fight just to fight.

If you support wasting millions and millions more in taxpayer money on more lawyers, if you support more gridlock on Fair Oaks, then definitely vote for a single issue candidate, over someone as effective as Phil Putnam.

[DUDE]

So...guess that eliminates Cacciotti, Suifentes or Ten. You work for Putman... or are him. Why did you (he) say in your campaign material that you are against the freeway (surface or tunnel) and here, now, say you are open to it. You are obviously strongly PRO TRUCKING TUNNEL and PRO PUTNAM - that says it all.

This plainly illustrates for all who read your comments why Putman is not trusted.