Pleasanton Weekly

Opinion - May 21, 2010

Letters: Pleasanton 2010 or Chicago 1930?

Dear Editor,

The proposed Oak Grove development, which is on the ballot June 8, has been the subject of bitter debate for at least several years. Advocates of the project tout the donation to the city of open space, scaling back of the original proposal to fewer homes, and fundamental property owner's rights. Opponents object to the destruction of ridgelines and century-old oaks, 8,000- to 12,000-square-foot homes and the successful ballot measures PP and QQ, which would prevent this sort of development. Both sides decry the "misinformation" and "misleading statements" put forth by their opponents. I have clear evidence of obvious visual falsehoods put forth by the project supporters, but some statements by Oak Grove opponents might be viewed as misleading as well.

As you yourself decide how to vote, whether you support or oppose ridgeline homes, please consider this: The developers filed a civil lawsuit against the citizen who spoke up against their project. In 1930 in Chicago, Al Capone ruled that city through intimidation; pay "protection" money or have your mom-and-pop grocery firebombed. We must, as citizens of Pleasanton, send an unmistakable message to anyone coming into our city that such tactics will guarantee their defeat, regardless of the alleged merits of their proposed project. I enjoy open space, too, and I support keeping our ridgelines free of mansions; but first and foremost, I support sending a message to developers that tactics of fear and intimidation don't fly in this town. Please vote No on Measure D.

Bob Grove


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 21, 2010 at 7:43 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Responsible voters will judge the project on the pros and cons of the project itself, not upon the personalities of those involved on either side.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 21, 2010 at 8:07 am

The developers filed a suit because of the lack of information and the use of misinformation on a project that had been vetted for four years and approved by a 4-1 council. It was their third development plan. The people who are against this will be against this no matter what this developer does. PP was designed to stop this particular project. There is virtually no other property in Pleasanton to which it applies. It was a political ploy.

Do you know who is paying for No on D? Both sides should be held accountable.

Vote on the merits of the measure. This area is zoned rural residential and will have development on it. The people who are in the forefront of the no campaign either have personal or political motivation NOT the interest of the people of Pleasanton.

Read about this and then go see the property. It is surrounded by homes. From First Street, turn up on Bernal away from town and then take a right on Hearst and go to the top. It will be crystal clear to you what this is about!

Vote yes on D

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields