My comments here apply to both the Calpine and Cisco projects, as they seem to go hand-in-hand. There are always long, noisy, and impassioned debates about the advantages and disadvantages of such proposals. But at the end of the day, it seems to come down to this: There are powerful (read monied) business and government interests that, barring any unusual and lengthy litigation, will prevail. Them that has the gold makes the rules. And we, the taxpayers and consumers, provide the gold that allows them to make the rules. On one hand it might seem we are on the wrong end of having our "community" trampled over. Yet, we truly enable it by living, working, and spending here. We all want (I think) to see the community flourish socially, economically, and culturally. That can only happen along a path of balanced and appropriately scaled development. What is balanced and appropriately scaled for one community may not be so for another. I think these are balanced! and appropriate projects. They will enhance the economy, add an educated and productive workforce, and thereby provide the basis for growth and value-add in several dimensions. Some may accurately argue that the blossoms are gone from Blossom Valley, and have been replaced by congested roadways, crowded malls, and assorted ne'r do wells. Well, the apricots are gone from Cupertino and Sunnyvale, the redwoods are long gone from Redwood City, and SOMA in San Francisco is now hip Media Gulch: replaced by the same kinds of things. Are we all better off for it? Maybe. Maybe not. But there's always Sonoma County. If anyone's interested, I'd be willing to sell you a nice 2BR, 2BA condo that is a 5-minute bike ride from Sonoma State for under $100,000. That happens to be 20% less than I paid for it nine years ago. I'm not complaining, and I'll understand and might even agree with the concerns I'm certain others will express on this topic. Nonetheless, I vote "YES" on these projects. !