Mailbag: Online video reflects meeting’s pro-undergrounding bias

Online video reflects meeting’s pro-undergrounding bias

In the June 21 Mailbag a letter writer in favor of placing Newport Heights’ utilities underground refers to a YouTube video that is supposedly “directly contradicting opponents’ outlandish claims along with local real estate professionals and a contractor” who has experience with underground connections, as if this video is the holy grail of information about undergrounding.

First of all, there was actually an attempt to bar me from entering the public venue where the meeting on pro-undergrounding was held (later I was told it was a mistake, and I was welcome).

Thus, it was no surprise that all of the speakers were of the same mind. No opposing voice was allowed. It was completely biased information without any pros or cons — just pro-undergrounding propaganda.

I can say that the video was edited to remove biased personal opinions expressed by an opponent. Leading questions were asked both by supporters and the videographer.

A single real estate agent gave her personal opinion about home values but she was not a real estate appraiser. No attempt has been made by the city to have an additional public meeting — where all sides could express their opinions — that would lead to an informed discussion with real questions answered.

To present this biased video as fact, contradicting real facts and questions repeatedly posed and unanswered by city officials, both on the city’s website and by email, is preposterous.

It is disingenuous for the letter writer, et al, to imply that this home-made, biased video in any way reflects official city position. Again, the majority of the Heights homeowners were actually disinvited — at least the 337 Newport Heights parcel owners are opponents of undergrounding, many whose names can be found on https://www.noundergrounding.com.

Joan McCauley

Newport Heights

*

Deal with Iran could ensure peace

As international negotiators zero in on a deal to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran, the chorus of anti-diplomacy voices is growing louder. Detractors who call for an end to negotiations are calling for war, and they know it.

A deal is our best bet to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — the alternative could be a costly and dangerous military conflict and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

A deal with Iran would set an example of what can be achieved through multilateral leadership, hard-fought diplomacy and international pressure.

It’s time for our elected representatives to listen to their constituents, who support negotiations with Iran. Let’s work toward a safer future — one with fewer nuclear weapons.

John Miller

Newport Beach