Thi article wrongly implies that recent road repairs on Highway 84 are somehow a reason why District 7 needs representation on the town council on an emergency basis, appointed by the council. This is nonsense. The repairs and the highway were and are the responsibility of CalTrans, and the town has NOTHING to do with it. It’s a STATE highway.

There is no reason to rush in a candidate chosen by the council, none of whom live in the district anyway. This would simply be a usurpation of our normal electoral process and would lead to some essentially randomly-chosen individual having incumbent strength in the next election. That would be totally unfair to ALL Woodisde voters, because EVERYONE votes on each candidate, regardless of district. Incumbency is a powerful effect that has been documented both at the state and the county of San Mateo levels. Do the research.

There has never been a significant district vs. district dispute within the council, and there won’t be one in the next few months. The quality of our representation is completely tied to individual intelligence and rationality, and has nothing to do with what tiny fraction of tiny Woodside the council member happens to live in.

We don’t need hyper-local representation, we need GOOD representation, and the way to get that is to let the voters decide in November. The council should stay out of the electoral process. It belongs to the PEOPLE of Woodside and we can wait a few months to get the candidate WE want for the following four, eight, twelve or more years.

A couple sources of actual facts on the power of incumbency. Dave Tanner’s assertion is simply wrong.

From MIT:

Web Link

From the SM county grand jury:

Web Link