Morning Call ViewPoint, by teacher's union president Debbie Tretter. The paper's editor bent his own rules in allowing Tretter to make personal attacks based on emotionalism, as opposed to facts. It is disappointing when any elected official, let alone a school board director, denigrates those who are less fortunate and votes against housing opportunities. Saying that Armstrong denigrates poor people is simply untrue, and throwing mud against the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. Armstrong voted against bestowing a tax free status upon the Phoenix Mill, in a proposal of turning that commercial space into apartments. There was no claim that the Phoenix Mill would be affordable, on the contrary, it was presented as loft apartments, which would attract very few, if any children. He was joined in that vote by four other school directors, two of whom (Joanne Bauer and CeCe Gerlach) are known as very pro teacher. I believe that it's inappropriate for Tretter to be attacking an elected member of the school board with innuendo, and inconsistent of the newspaper to facilitate it.
UPDATE: The editor defended Tretter's attack on Armstrong by saying that it's "Her opinion." I have in the past been prevented, by the same editor, from even writing that someone used "propaganda techniques." I was told that such an accusation constitutes a personal attack, which is against their policy. I was to restrict myself to only refuting facts. It appears that Ms. Tretter was given more more freedom with her opinion. The editor told me that each piece is evaluated on a case by case basis. He apparently means a person by person basis. At best, the paper applies it's standards selectively, in an inconsistent manner.