" The Planning Commission's role is to weigh the different interests and to try to reach a compromise that works, at least in part, for everyone. They usually get it right in the end. They will figure it out. "

" The statement "the general plan update process has been used to argue both sides of that coin" is misleading. The vast majority of the Angwin residents realize that the General Plan Update is not the venue to discuss or argue about any specific project. However a small group of residents have used the GPU to further their own specific interests. PUC has not used the GPU to promote their project. They have been forced by SRA to respond to the attempted "taking" of private land through manipulation of the GPU. "

" PUC's mission is to SERVE the community at large, which it has been doing for more than a century. It's long-term survival is at stake and it needs to keep its options open. Reducing its options will reduce its ability to serve the community. Has anybody else in Angwin offered free rent on their property to the fire department or ambulance service? Or allowed the public to freely roam on their unfenced property? Or developed an award-winning child daycare center to the valley's residents? If PUC sells out--and there are residents in Angwin who could easily afford all of PUC's land assets--what do you suppose the new owners do with the property? Do you think it would remain unfenced and open to the public? Dictating that PUC's land be used for agriculture is the equivalent of dictating that a vintner use his land to build a school. Is it morally right to do that? "