A letter to the editor two weeks ago suggested the current PP/QQ initiative situation is similar to the 1992 Pleasanton Ridge debate. However, the current situation is different, and to suggest it is similar to 1992 is doing a disservice to Pleasanton voters who are considering PP and QQ. In 1992, the pro-developer council-sponsored initiative was clearly not in Pleasanton's interest - thousands of homes were proposed with no quid-pro-quo for Pleasanton, clearly saddling us with infrastructure costs and ruination of the Ridge. This time, both initiatives purport to protect ridgelines, hillsides, and our quality of life. There are people I have long respected - all known for past efforts on preserving our hillsides - who are on opposite sides of the PP / QQ debate. (Tarver, Dennis, Sullivan, Arkin, Bengston, Combs, etc.) That alone should tell you this is not as clear-cut as the 1992 issue.
We are fortunate to have an intelligent and involved community. The full text of PP and QQ is in the sample ballot to help you decide where you stand. I found it much easier reading than I expected, and easier than dealing with all the "spin" being created. Personally, I am concerned about PP because of the exemption for 10 or fewer units and the wording on definition of a housing unit. I also had concerns about how QQ came to be on the ballot, and applaud that Matt Sullivan has the integrity to acknowledge citizen's wishes (he has my vote). When initiatives are this close I tend to vote no on both. However, what swayed my decision pro-QQ is that PP's key promoters, Kay Ayala and Steve Brozosky, moved and voted for the huge water park in 2004, against citizen's wishes, and thus were voted off the City Council.