|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:18 PM
Hosterman opposes Arctic oil drilling, action against Iran at mayors' conference
Mayor, city win award for climate protection efforts at Miami confab
|
|
by Jeb Bing
Pleasanton Weekly Staff
| The 76th annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors wrapped up Tuesday at the Miami InterContinental Hotel where Mayor Jennifer Hosterman joined others in endorsing or signing a number of resolutions ranging from opposing U.S. intervention in Iran to supporting the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020.
The conference featured keynote addresses Sunday by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, and Monday by former President Bill Clinton. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, met with leaders of the mayors' conference but did not address the general session.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of the 1,139 cities in the country that have populations of 30,000 or more.
Hosterman, who has been active in the conference and its subcommittees, also signed on to the conference's 10-point plan calling for stronger cities, strong families and a stronger America. Housing problems, including foreclosures, rising fuel prices, the economic slowdown and federal and state funding cutbacks on key public programs affecting cities also brought support from Hosterman who called the conference "a great opportunity to come together and work together to address our mutual concerns."
Hosterman's signature was on Resolution No. 55, "Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge;" Resolution No. 81, "Support for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020, and on a resolution submitted by Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington, Vt., called "Mayoral No War on Iran Resolution."
The city of Pleasanton and Hosterman also won honorable mention in the 2008 mayors' climate protection awards category for their commitment to addressing the threat of climate disruptions which the mayors said can hurt the environmental and economic health of their communities.
Hosterman was actually a sponsor of the anti-ANWR drilling agreement with Mayor Martin J. Chavez of Albuquerque. The resolution, which was adopted by the mayors, asserts that even if drilling in the wildlife refuge started immediately, "the ANWR would only produce one million barrels of oil per day, but not until 2015 when all necessary pipelines were in place."
The Hosterman-Chavez resolution further states:
"The production of one million barrels of oil per day from the ANWR represents a mere 4 percent of anticipated U.S. petroleum consumption and 6 percent of all imports. U.S. reliance on imported petroleum will rise from 58 percent in 2010 to 65 percent in 2020 and 68 percent in 2025, and as such, the tiny fraction of U.S. imports from ANWR would only grow smaller with each passing year.
"Drilling for oil production in ANWR is not an answer to the nation's dependence upon foreign oil. The Arctic Refuge is the last piece of America's Arctic coastline not already open to oil exploration, and the Arctic Refuge is one of the world's last, true wilderness areas which coastal plain consists of a fragile swath of tundra teeming with staggering numbers of birds and animals, and a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou and the endangered shaggy musk ox."
In a report published Tuesday morning in the Calgary Herald on Alberta's response to the resolution, staff writer Jon Harding wrote:
"This latest outcry came not from green groups, but from political leaders of the largest cities in the United States who called for a crackdown on fuels they said would cause catastrophic global warming at the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors."
But Hosterman defended her position, telling Harding in an interview: "We don't want to be...promoting the use of fuels which exceed the greenhouse gas emissions that are currently put into the atmosphere by (conventional) fuels."
The resolution challenges the use of high carbon fuels such as tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale. Specifically it calls for:
* encouraging fuel lifecycle emissions analyses that include emissions from production, not just from burning the fuel;
* supporting federal and state guidelines for tracking the origin of various types of fuel;
* encouraging mayors to track and reduce lifecycle emissions from their cities' municipal vehicles, paying special attention to the use of unconventional and synthetic fuels.
"The mayors have once again confirmed that they're serious about combating climate change," said Mayor Marty Blum of Santa Barbara. "Not only will we give preference to clean, renewable energy sources, we are standing our ground when it comes to synthetic petroleum-based fuels that exacerbate global warming."
"Global warming is the one of the most critical issues facing our cities," said Mayor Frank Cownie of Des Moines. "This resolution shows our willingness to take action to move forward - not backwards which is where fuels such as tar sands oil will take us."
The High Carbon Fuels Resolution was submitted by Mayor Piercy of Eugene, Ore. and co-sponsored by Hosterman, Blum, Cownie and eight other mayors: Gavin Newsom of San Francisco; Larry Nelson of Waukesha, Wisc.; Douglas Palmer of Trenton, N.J.; Roy Buol of Dubuque, Ia.; Christopher Cabaldon of West Sacramento; Dan Coody of Fayetteville, Ark.; Will Wynn of Austin, Texas, and Beverly Johnson of Alameda.
As for the resolution opposing military action against Iran, Hosterman signed on to a document by the Burlington, Vt. mayor urging "a strong and large showing from mayors nationwide...a resolution (that) aims at avoiding another devastating war and calls for the use of diplomacy and for Congressional authorization before the use of any force."
"In these times when the Iraq war has sapped so many of our financial resources and cost the lives of our brave soldiers, I hope you will join me in voicing the determination of mayors across this country to stop a war with Iran before it begins," the resolution states.
The resolution, which had 20 co-sponsors, including Hosterman, urged the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues and end the violence in Iraq. It urged Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.
"These allegations are similar to the lead-up to the Iraq War and U.S. occupation, with the selective use of information and unsubstantiated accusations about Iran's nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of a case to the American people for aggression against Iran," the resolution states. "Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented to document that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack."
The resolution calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2020 followed similar efforts by a group of mayors at recent conferences to eliminate all nuclear weapons and stop the nuclear arms race. Hosterman walked with the "Mayors for Peace" group a year ago and signed on to this similar resolution, which again urges the federal government to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the Hiroshima-Nagasaki protocol, which could "conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."
During their concluding business session Tuesday, the nation's mayors debated and voted on other policy recommendations to forward to Congress and the new presidential administration. Among these were resolutions on bottled water, immigration, a national broadband policy on high speed internet connections and U.S. trade relations with Colombia.
In the midst of rising gas prices, increasing food costs and a weakening national economy, the mayors also released a survey showing the relationship between fuel costs, city budgets and mayors' climate protection efforts. Mayors are already leading on this issue in that more than 850 mayors, including Hosterman, have signed onto the mayors' climate protection agreement, which is a pledge for mayors to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in cities all over the country.
More information on the mayors' conference can be found on the organization's website at www.usmayors.org. Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2008 at 8:48 pm It makes one wonder what resolutions were "passed" at this conference that Hosterman didn't put her name on. And what is this "10 point plan" that we got signed up for?
|
|
Posted by what does she do, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2008 at 9:43 pm She lives in her own little world in the fact that she has no concept of reality outside of Pleasanton, and I would question what she knows about what Pleasanton wants. She opposes everything yet I have yet to see a solution from her. What solutions does she have for the Middle East?
|
|
Posted by Everybody, a resident of another community, on Jun 25, 2008 at 10:01 am This just in - Mayor Hosterman has agreed to pay the price difference for all Pleasanton drivers for the next ten years due to the increases caused by a lack of supply. Either that or she will come push your car whereever you want to go.
Wait..
What the...
|
|
Posted by Cosmic-Charlie, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 10:08 am Are you just as sick and tired of all this blather as I am! Global warming! The sky is falling! Carbon footprints! Alternative energies! Since when did we elect the Democratic party and their platform as mayor of Pleasanton?
Here's one for you... Energy consumption will increase by 50% in the next 20 years. This isn't something I'm saying, it's in that "Energy Report" the left has thrown our face at every opportunity. So let's assume it does take 10 years to get ANWAR oil delivered into our gas tanks. Don't you think it would be a good idea to have that stream of production available when the 50% is really hitting us?
I'm sorry if this simple little fact is disturbing, it should be. And to hear all of our politicians including our local mayor spew leftist propaganda in our face, from far away...is so disgusting.
Wake up and smell the roses. Throw all the bums out and get people into office are going to stay focused on Pleasanton. And I have said this before, as long as there are; streets to pave; limited growth and housing cap; schools to improve; libraries to fund; parks to improve and maintain...and I could go on and on and on. Oh yeah! Hey Jennifer, WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO GET OLD STANLEY BLVD. PAVED, MAYOR?
And the Iraqi war? From my point of view, the only two factions that really want us out of Iraq, are Iran and the Democrats. They say they support the troops? My ass! Pulling out is only empowering the supporters of terrorism.
But alas, this is the Bay Area. It must be naïve for me to think that anybody in their right mind would really subscribe to the blather. Isn't that right, Jennifer?
|
|
Posted by Do as I say, not as I do, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 10:11 am Let's see, Hosterman says that we should not be drilling in the artic (something she has not control over) for environmental reasons but personally she has:
1) Approved cutting down 1,000 or so trees in Pleasanton
2) Approved slicing off tops of hills for mega-mansions that will require lots of electricity and water
3) Drives a newer Lexus (instead of a fuel efficient car)
4) Has not installed any solar panels on her house (although she tells all developers they should do so)
5) Owns stock in oil companies
Even though I might agree with the Mayor on some of her "issues", I would at least have some respect for her if she practices what she preaches. Nothing worse than politicians who stand up and tell us what the right thing to do is but they do not do it themselves. Personally I don't think politicians should propose, or demand, anything they would not do themselves.
|
|
Posted by oil, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 10:16 am The reason we are in Iraq has a lot do to with oil. We consume a lot but do not produce enough. If we are to reduce our dependence on countries like Iraq and the middle east we must produce our own fuel and do some drilling in addition to conserve and use alternative energies. I see this as a balance of risk. The risk of something happening in artic vs. the risk of problems in the middle east. We know for certainty that the middle east is a highly risky area but we continue to reply on them.
|
|
Posted by Why, a resident of the Canyon Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 10:29 am I wonder why the oil companies would rather drill in ANWR than develop the areas they already are leasing?
|
|
Posted by Barbara, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Jun 25, 2008 at 11:27 am Please, Ms. Mayor, focus on Pleasanton not Iran! That's what we elected you to do!
|
|
Posted by Tired of Hosterman, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm Mayor Hosterman focus on Pleasanton? Are you kidding? That would totally disrupt her big plans for running for higher office, once she's done using the position of Mayor of the City of Pleasanton to aggrandize herself.
Didn't vote for her in '04, didn't in '06, either. Maybe in '08, enough voters will finally have figured out that Hosterman is a self-serving, Democratic politician who's way more preoccupied with seeking future, higher political office than in serving as the non-partisan Mayor of Pleasanton.
|
|
Posted by Saddened, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm I am truly saddened each time I read another article about the representation I receive from my mayor.
So many issues raised in the article above. Let's look at this one to start:
She signs up for Resolution No. 81, "Support for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020".
Does she really believe that if we remove our nuclear weapons, that everyone in the world will do the same?
Even in her 'utopia' of a world she must be trying to create, she has to know that once nuclear weapons were not part of our arsenal or that of our allies, that there would always be someone that would have them? That genie is out of the bottle for goodness sake. You have got to be kidding Ms. Hosterman.
Another one:
Then to say this was "a great opportunity to come together and work together to address our mutual concerns". Who's concerns? Her concerns? Was there a survey done of Pleasanton citizens that lead her to believe she is in the majority on all these 'issues' that were raised at the conference, and therefore speak to them while representing all of us for the city of Pleasanton? Wasn’t this a conference of 'elected mayors' - not of 'concerned private citizens'? I must have missed that survey.
Ms. Hosterman - You have every right to speak your mind. That is a right given to all of us, thanks to brave men and women in our military. Please don't tell me you want to take away their right to protect us from those that won't care what you say...or how you feel, etc. There are people out there that want to harm you, me and everyone in this country. Don't you understand that?
Please try to understand that we all want a peaceful world, but peace does come at a price, and can be shattered in the blink of an eye by those that do not share your agenda. Unfortunately, we have seen that time after time - haven't we?
I am sorry there are 'bad' people in this world but backing down from those that would harm us will do nothing to keep our Peace.
|
|
Posted by Bill Clark, a resident of another community, on Jun 25, 2008 at 9:42 pm I am not one from the Pleasanton area, but, so sick and tired of politicians who have forked tongues. Not all are like that, but, lately it's been a daily occurence - a person, supposedly elected by the people to represent them for their best interest, blabbing away for obvious partisan ideologies and future personal goals. We all know the general feeling that "politics is a dirty game", but I, a politically and essentially but trusting, uninformed citizen have learned much from recent years and especially this election year. I have one possible, but maybe naive, solution. Put a resolution to a vote that would make a policy for polticians to abide by after being duly elected. Other than the area or state represented, the D or R after a name only adds impetus to the usual "us against them". Disregard political party affiliations. Wouldn't that encourage cooperation, honesty, dedication to serve their constituency and country instead of their own or special interest groups' agenda? What is now in place may have been practiced for many years, but, think about it - other than their area of constituency, does the D or R after a elected representative's name help them to be honest or otherwise dedicated to service. NO! Do away with the proverbial "aisle" between these "factions". I would honestly cherish a reply about my humble opinion, especially from an incumbent or someone planning on running for office, or anyone smarter than I. Thank you and God Bless America!
|
|
Posted by Concerned Property Tax Payee, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 10:42 pm Wow. I thought we voted for some one to actually do something for pleasanton.
How about action for decreasing property tax based on the reduction of house prices in the past 18 months.
Stop wasting our time /money on things you are not elected to address.
|
|
Posted by Jack, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 11:20 pm Jennifer Hosterman has been a civic leader for well over a decade. Her record is clear. Her positions have been consistent with her personality. She certainly is not a flip-flopper, Jennifer is Jennifer. She served on our city council and has been twice elected mayor. Her interests in issues that fall outside Pleasanton's borders are nothing new. If anything that she has said or done the past four years comes as a surprise to you, it's simple, you have not been paying attention. And November's right around the corner...
|
|
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2008 at 11:58 pm I read this article and felt I would comment negatively about the continued positions that Hostermann takes in the name of Pleasanton in public conferences that relate to global and national issues. I respect her rights to her opinion but don't agree with her use of her Pleasanton mayoral position in promoting those positions. She is not appointed by these voters, who put her into her position, to represent those views on their behalf. Period.
But after reading this thread it drives me to the other side and pushes me to comment as follows. It's beyond me how after 8 years
of complete and total mismanagement of our nation by an incompetent who was manipulated by ideologues, mismanagement both domestically and internationally, that there are so many of you who still buy the propaganda starting with Saddam and his WMDs, of a nation made more unsafe by GWB policies, of a nation who has lost its moral position through its torture policies and intentional denial of due process, by its creation of the weak dollar to keep the appearance that we are globally competitive, promoting excessive consumption and its associated debt, with the consequences of oil prices going through the roof and our children's and grandchildren's future burdened with the tremendous debt created by this administration, how I can understand that there are still people who write the stuff you read above.
It's like the recent poll where 17 percent said the nation is still on the right path! You posters must be part of the 17 percent! I thought the percentage would be near zero!
(a copy of this post is found at Web Link, which is my unique web address.)
|
|
Posted by factchecker, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2008 at 5:33 pm This story sounded intriguing so a few clicks later I was able to find the resolutions on the Mayors website. First of all, this article is inaccurate. There was no resolution dealing with ANWR at this year's mayor's conference. Resolution 55, dealing with Arctic drilling, happened in 2006!! Hey, we have had an election since then and Hosterman was reelected. Second, why did this inaccurate title lead the story as opposed to the part about the City of Pleasanton winning an award? To me, it is nice to know that Pleasanton has been a leader on environmental issues.
The Mayor of Pleasanton is a part-time position and is there anybody that actually believes we would not have had a council majority vote in favor of these resolutions? If our Mayor wants to make the world a better place, good for her. It is no secret that she is for peace (is there anyone who is for war?!) and an environmentalist.
Maybe the posters to this forum wouldn't be so hostile if news stories actually reported the positive things the Mayor is doing for the city of which seem numerous.
With all of this negativity about people in public office, it is no wonder that so few people sign up to run for office.
The Mayor has announced her intention to run for re-election this November, so what is all of this talk about higher office?
|
|
Posted by a little bit of positive with your negative?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2008 at 8:39 pm The mayor attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors where they talked about, that's right, their communities as part of the United States. The mayors were from all around the country and talked about national issues that impacted their communities. Nothing is binding. They discussed many things and shared ideas. I think this is a good thing. It was nice to see Pleasanton recognized for our environmental efforts. Do we want a myopic mayor? I don't think so.
Has anyone looked around? Checked out the amenities in this city, looked at our parks, community areas, downtown? And this is what you complain about?
|
|
Posted by Theresa, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2008 at 9:43 pm Hosterman thinks she knows whats best for the people of Pleasanton more than the people of Pleasanton know what is best for them. We elected her to enlighten us, no? Fix the lights, traffic, pot holes and don't be so obviously self serving Jennifer. Really,I could care less what you opinion is on this. You would be the LAST person politically that I would invite opinion on re: any issues outside of those issues the CITY mayor is suppose to serve. And don't give me your typical answer you usually give when the people of Pleasanton call you out on this now all too often behavior. I do believe you have aspirations to move upward politically and that is Ok but don't try to use issues like this to make yourself look more important and powerful than you really are. It only makes people who might otherwise support you LOL or run the opposite direction.
|
|
Posted by hello????, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2008 at 10:32 pm Castlewood doesn't vote for mayor in Pleasanton. It's outside the city limits.
|
|
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2008 at 8:40 pm Makes you wonder when the last time some people have voted given that they may not know what jurisdiction they live in. Of course, the comment may be coming from just an interested party following Pleasanton politics and issues, like Cholo, although the post suggests otherwise.
|
|
Posted by Terri, a resident of the Foothill Place neighborhood, on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm Jack is 100% right: "Jennifer is Jennifer" ....positions consistent with her personality....not a flip-flopper... served on our city council...twice elected mayor....interests in issues that fall outside Pleasanton's borders are nothing new."
I totally agree with Jack and am aware of her opposition to drilling.
What I don't get is the REPEATED STUPIDITY of the people of Pleasanton to elect her. Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, Shame on me.
Plesanton is Stuck on Stupid. (and please know I am not talking about Jennifer here. she has been totally vocal about her positions)
|
|
Posted by New Guy, a resident of another community, on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:51 am WOW... I just moved to Pleasanton about 7 months ago. I had no idea that pleasanton people cried over spilt milk. You people elected her....TWICE? as far as I know, she hasn't lied to us, she hasn't cut any 'backdoor' deals that sold out the people of Pleasanton. She raised her hand and the majority of people got behind her.
America is fantastic, if you don't agree with your elected offical, then DON'T elect them again. We have the power right?
Pleasanton if amazing, and before I turn on the Mayor, I'm going to make sure I'm getting 'done wrong' first. I haven't seen the city transformed. I see tree-lined streets, beautiful parks, and wonderful people. I have lived in towns that change right before your eyes. Pleasanton hasn't....has it?
Again...it just sounds like the people writting these comments are angry....at the war, and the politics, and the system. But it seems that all of the aggression is aimed at OUR mayor. Why??
|
|
Posted by james, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 2, 2008 at 11:14 am
The answer to why is simple. She beat cetain people in prior elections. They are still trying to get even.
|
|
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2008 at 9:12 am At the Conference of Mayors, mayors get together and address concerns that the mayors have about national and international issues. All of the mayors - including the mayors of Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, San Francisco and Pleasanton. It is of enormous benefit to have a mayour that has a national reputation, like Jenifer has. It has in the past, and will in the future benefit Pleaanton. It will, among other things, help Pleasanton receive federal funds for local projects. If you don't like Jennifer on the issues, maybe you need to run, or get someone else to run against her in November. But, please quit whining!!!
|
|
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2008 at 9:26 am Lets see . . . since Jennifer has been on City Council and has been the Mayor has the City of Pleasanaton gotten better or worse? No pot holes, more parks, better schools, better downtown, Bernal property is being developed with more playing fields, Alviso Adobe is being built, Staples Ranch is moving forward, Callippe Golf opened as a top 10 course in 2006, money generated by Callippe is much higher thatn anticipated, downtown restrooms, Cheesecake Factory and P.F Changs have opened at the Mall, 2nd Bart station is being built at the Mall. . . Doesn't really seen like Jennifer has been focusing on national issues and ignoring Pleasanton. That's all for now. I will now go downstairs have some breakfast and enjoy another day in Paradise - I mean Pleasanton.
|
|
Posted by Cosmic-Charlie, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm I will admit I'm a critic of Jennifer, but having said that let me say this... I am in complete agreement with the last two posts, both are very accurate and articulated.
The problem I have is, not so much the mayors and the conference, it has to do with intention. I believe, Jennifer is not in it to make a better Pleasanton, the results are byproduct of her own ego and ambition, which in the long run, are deflectors of aim. Jennifer is in it for Jennifer, make no mistake.
|
|
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2008 at 8:41 pm Jennifer has ego driven ambitions and the poster presents this in a negative light. Jennifer has intentions that relate to herself. The poster admits that these ambitions have benefitted Pleasanton, but that her intentions are only intended for herself and not for Pleasanton, even though she is mayor of Pleasanton, has many years of service in Pleasanton on council and in other capacities, and so on.
Come on now. Give all of us a break here.
Should she be like Mother Teresa? Would it suit you if she acted like a teen-age girl who lacked self-esteem instead of a woman with self-confidence in taken actions that may be controversial? If she is not in it to make Pleasanton better, how can she possibly hope to achieve her personal ambitions and satisfy that ego of hers? Are you saying that in politics there should be no link between the person's self-goals and the goals of the electorate? Only Mother Teresa's need to apply!
|
|
Posted by Andy, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2008 at 7:23 pm Hey Mike,
I agree with you, Jennifer is the greatest for scoring PF Changs and Cheesecake Factory for Pleasanton. Man, with that sort of success she can take any position on national and global issues that she cares to adopt. If she scores us our own Pleasanton Fuddruckers ( I hate traveling for Dublin for my fix) I will personally clean her house for the next year.
I dig your perspective Mike. Pass the chips and salsa because we're living in a paradise of great restaurants.
Oh, and here's the thing Mike, the reason that folks are taking pot shots at the mayor for her position on complex national and global issues is that we think she doesn't have enough insight or knowledge to opine on those topics. The guy who picks up my trash every Friday doesn't have a second job running a Fortune 500 company. Get it?
|
|
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Jul 7, 2008 at 1:37 pm I think the fact that Jennifer is a US citizen gives her the right to have opinions on national and global topics. She's lucky enough to have the Mayor's Conference to share them and be heard. All US citizens have the right to have an opinion and be heard. I think it's important to have a place to bring global issues that affect us all to our town.
Well, on second thought, maybe we should all just defer to Andy to find out what topics are important or not to those of us living here. But first I'd like to know his qualifications for having an opinion?
|
|
Posted by Jennifer Sucks, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04 am Jennifer can kiss my ***. She was voted to be the mayor of Pleasanton, not the leader for world affairs. Jennifer: Please focus on issues only pertaining directly to Pleasanton such as our potholes, traffic, "going green", illegal immigrants, and trying to preserve our open spaces -- not developing large buildings on some of Pleasanton's only vacant land left. What a joke she is. Hopefully during the next election people do their research, and vote for the right candidate.
|
|
Posted by Nancy, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2008 at 10:16 pm I love it. Telling the Mayor to kiss yours, then saying she sucks, and can't even sign your name? And, oh, now illegal immigrants pertain directly to Pleasanton? I guess world affairs are okay if they are on your list. You are the joke!
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Oct 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm What about immigrants? Huh...
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
