I agree with you, Steve, about Chad's campaign potential.
But come on: << whether or not it was intentional, short-sighted or a mistake >>
Ever the diplomat. :-)
Oh, it was intentional, all right, although it was also short-sighted and a mistake. You can't break such a clear promise by accident. It turned the repeated promise into a deceitful lie, and it's OK to say that out loud, even for a diplomat.
I agree with you, Steve, about Chad's campaign potential.
But come on: << whether or not it was intentional, short-sighted or a mistake >>
Ever the diplomat. :-)
Oh, it was intentional, all right, although it was also short-sighted and a mistake. You can't break such a clear promise by accident. It turned the repeated promise into a deceitful lie, and it's OK to say that out loud, even for a diplomat.
My dad taught me to err on the side of honesty rather than accusation, so I try to find a way to give the benefit of the doubt.
I can just imagine someone saying 'Hey, we're allotted about 34,000 acre feet, we use about 22,000 and are getting better at conserving, and the new development would use about another 6,000 (guessing there), so the problem is solved without spending any money!'
I don't know if or when that statement was ever made, but I could see it happening. It doesn't make it right.
The bigger picture though is in regards to Chad. If Chad takes the approach that he has a smarter way and is looking out for you and me, he's going to have a much easier time getting buy-in, even from other council members, than if he takes the 'these people are a bunch of liars' approach.