Letters to the Editor

Dan Carpenter holds fuzzy positions on key issues like oil trains

Jim Borland (“Let’s raise the level of discourse in local elections,” April 24) recently challenged my assertion that Dan Carpenter is mudslinging (“District 3 supervisor candidate Dan Carpenter turns to mudslinging,” April 18). Really, Jim? Have you seen Carpenter’s latest mailer attacking Adam Hill? Have you seen the awful Facebook posts Dan’s supporters have put up? Have you listened to KVEC or read Cal Coast News? They are the very essence of mudslinging.

What bothers me even more is Carpenter’s fuzzy positions on key issues, like the proposal to bring hundreds of oil trains through our cities.

I called Dan and asked him about that issue. He said that “as a candidate,” he is not in favor of the oil trains. But if elected, he couldn’t tell me how he would vote and would have to look more closely at the property rights of Phillips 66 vs. the health and safety issues. He told The Tribune the same thing (April 10).

Sorry, Dan. That is called a “waffle” in politics. You can’t claim you are opposed to something to get votes BEFORE an election, while also claiming you aren’t sure how you would vote AFTER the election. But then again, flip-flopping is what you’re known for on the SLO City Council.

The District 3 county supervisor could be the swing vote on the oil train proposal. I agree with The Tribune that Adam Hill deserves another term in that position.

Alan Thomas, San Luis Obispo