Yvonne Fuller: Miller the best candidate
When reading Lee Zasloff’s May 3 letter stating Dan Miller’s 27 years of successful, community and government service somehow makes him not as worthy a supervisor as political newcomer Hilary Hodge, I felt compelled to reply.
Zasloff states Hilary will bring “fresh perspective” to the job. What does that mean? If Hilary has a “fresh perspective,” why hasn’t she demonstrated it by running for city council or becoming active on a city or county committee that deals with issues of homelessness, affordable housing, economic development, broadband, or community and senior center development?
Saying “we have a homeless problem, an affordable housing problem and an economic growth issue” is re-stating the obvious, with no new “fresh perspective” to stand behind.
Hilary may be passionate, but passion doesn’t solve problems. If being a proud progressive means having answers, then why are progressive-led cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles throwing millions at their increasing homeless problems? Same with Berkeley or Santa Cruz or Santa Monica? What about their unaffordable housing issues?
Hilary Hodge has no “fresh perspective” that will quickly solve homelessness, affordable housing or any other of Nevada County problems that haven’t been tried. Dan Miller understands that solving problems is a step-by-step process, not wishful thinking. Solving problems incrementally by building relationships to acquire funding takes time and experience, and Dan Miller has both.
Experience counts far more than hope and change. I’m voting to re-elect Dan Miller as District 3 supervisor.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.