Town Square

Post a New Topic

NO PARCEL TAX NECESSARY & PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT NOT NEEDING A TAX?

Original post made by doglover, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on May 10, 2009

Hello, Archie and Jughead here. We live with Doglover.
We are so happy we can't stop wagging our tails.
Today we got real chicken as a special treat.
Doglover is celebrating because there's no need for the parcel tax. Doglover says the U.S. Calvary came to the rescue. We don't know what a calvary is, but we like it. Doglover says so of course we like it because we've had part of what makes a calvary in our dog food. Doglover says things we don't understand.
But doglover says there are things Doglover doesn't understand. There is no need for a parcel tax, but there are people who are complaining because it's not needed. They still want to pay the tax. .
Doglover says some taxes are necessary and they provide good things for all of us - police and fire protection, parks, clean streets and much more. We love fire fighters and police officers. They always smile at us and give us pats on the head. We love having beautiful parks where we can visit our friends and play catch the frisbee. We don't much like clean streets because dirty ones have food that the little people drop and sometimes we can get the food in our mouths before Doglover catches us and says NO. We've learned to swallow fast.
But the parcel tax isn't necessary, and if Doglover has to pay it, no more real chicken for us.
We don't understand. Why would anyone want to pay a tax when there's no need for the tax? That does not seem very smart.
Doglover said it isn't, but that smart people will vote NO on G.
We wish we could vote.
We love chicken.

Comments (19)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 10, 2009 at 10:42 pm

WTF?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Clinton James
a resident of Apperson Ridge
on May 11, 2009 at 8:35 am

You certainly got the jughead part right. You seem to exhibit all the attributes of a certified meathead - nothing but hamburger between your ears.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by doglover
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2009 at 8:49 am

Clinton James
Archie here. Jughead is very offended that you would insult him and refuses to talk with you. You must be the kind of angry person who comes home and kicks the dog.
Doglover said you're one of those posters who contribute nothing but mean comments and we should feel sorry for you because being mean probably makes you feel important.
Hope you don't have a dog...that's who I would feel sorry for!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton
a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2009 at 9:16 am

It's a little known fact that I'm a dog-whisperer and a friend of dogs. The real ones that lick your hand and jump into your lap when you are feeling low. I don't love dogs like Props A-G. I feel a need to translate for 'Doglover' whose earlier barkings are obtuse. What 'Doglover' appears to be saying is that the dogs like Props A-G should be put to sleep quickly and humanely by compassionate and thoughtful people. The owners of Props A-G are selfish and hope to benefit by prolonging the agony of A-G and the pain they inflict on those they affect. A week from Tuesday, don't bark around the tree like 'Doglover'. Send a clear message to our State and local 'leaders' that we have had enough. VOTE NO AS MANY TIMES AS LEGAL!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Timothy T
a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2009 at 9:21 am

A clever, if horribly misguided, post on voting No on G.

I don't have a problem with people voting No on G but the facts in this one aren't even close to the truth. This is why we shouldn't listen to dogs to figure out how to vote.

I'm voting Yes, but please read the Prop for yourself to help you decide which way to vote. Voting one way or the other because of what anyone said in these forums is a cop out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Hart Middle School
on May 11, 2009 at 9:24 am

How much did those new athletic fields cost at Amador and Foothill High Schools. They were just put in again. What was wrong with the old artificial fields?
The fields in Danville at Monte Vista High School and San Ramon High School have not been replaced. Those fields are the same as Pleasantons.
When budgets are exceeded and money is continued to be wasted, let's just tax some more.
That money probably would have paid for some teachers.
Cuts have to be made. More tax is not the answer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WTF
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 11, 2009 at 10:18 am

Is that true about the synthetic fields at AVHS and Foothill? I am not sure what those cost, but I know they are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.... what a f'ing crock of horse dung.

Just when I was starting to give in to the liberal line "we need more money for the kids," someone snaps me out of it!

We are in the same position that Sacramento is in. Its not a revenue problem. Its a spending problem.

CUT THE CRAP OUT OF THE BUDGET AND QUIT BITCHING ABOUT REVENUE.

And you might want to fix how we send money to sac for education, and they somehow cant send it back...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Timothy
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 11, 2009 at 10:22 am

yes it is true about the turf and why do we need 2 full football fields 3 miles apart anyway? What a joke. When they both play at home on the same weekend have Foothill play on Friday night or Amador play on Saturday night or vice versa. Fremont has been doing it for years at Tak Fudenna. We need to wise up people. Today the Messiah came out and said we are now spending to much!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Casual Observer
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm

The reason why Amador and Foothill have new turf is because the original turf was improperly installed creating major flooding problems not only on the turf but also the track. It was becoming a safety issue. Maybe someone with knowledge of the original contract would be able to discuss the legal part of this and what the district did to recoup the original cost. Tim, as for your comments you must be completely unaware of the amount of use both fields get. They are just not there for football. You have band, soccer, lacrosse etc etc etc. That field is in use 75% of the time for both schools. If you eliminate one field where do you put all the kids and activities that will be displaced?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm

I suspect that if we only had one field we could figure out a way to manage it and could make it work. Soccer could be played at the sports park with one of the 25 fields we have there or at one of our 3 middle schools who have facilities better than most high schools.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fields
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2009 at 1:50 pm

The original turf was installed correctly. That was not the problem. Artificial turf has a finite life of 8-10 years (with that previous technology) and the turf was starting to wear down at both campuses so the district replaced it at both schools. The drainage problems are caused by the clay soil we have in Pleasanton. With the new turf, they did a different base that should allow the area to drain better.

While it does cost more the put in artificial turf, it is actually cheaper over the longrun. No need to water, fertilize, mow, etc. Plus it is usable for more of the school year. A normal field is unusable for some time rain because of the mud. The schools do use the fields for their normal PE activities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Casual Observer
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Tim, good observation regarding the Sports Park, however there is just one problem with that, high school soccer is played in the winter and most games are at night. The Sports Park and middle schools do not have lights and the field are closed when it rains.

Thank you fields for the information, but I will respectfully disagree with you on one aspect. The field turf was indeed laid correctly however the drainage that was installed under the turf was where the issue was. Both Amador and Foothill's fields were flooding as soon as the first rain fell on the field. I have seen the field at both sidelines and middle of the field have 1-2 inches of standing water. Both schools and district were not happy with the issue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm

I guess my point is that in order to reduce costs and I believe that to be necessary now and in the future there is not reason why would could not play the soccer games in the afternoons at the sports park and not at night under the lights like we do baseball games.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No Way!!
a resident of Golden Eagle
on May 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Well let's see...they only want $233 per year for four years....and they will tell you that's only $0.63 per day...BUT here's the REAL problem with this tax:

Our school leaders controlling the budget messed up - they couldn't balance the budget for today's requirements...and now we have to pay...NO WAY!

Let's see....$233 divided by 2080 hours worked per year equals $0.11 per hour! While not much you may think BUT shoule we reward those who mess up? Besides, at only $0.11 per hour...let them give it back from THEIR paycheck....after all...they are the one's who messed up!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by G. Carlson
a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Happy Valley
on May 11, 2009 at 7:30 pm

I have no idea why everyone keeps talking about measure G as I believe it is a dead bill and stands no chance of passing. What is the next step?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Yes on G
a resident of Foothill High School
on May 11, 2009 at 9:38 pm

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES ON G!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NO TAXES
a resident of another community
on May 11, 2009 at 9:42 pm

"I suspect that if we only had one field we could figure out a way to manage it and could make it work"

And even better if we had no fields we could make that work to.

Benjamin Franklin had no schools.
Abraham Lincoln had like 1 year.

Founding fathers did ok.

HOME SCHOOL NOW VOUCHERS NOW. Stop liberal tyranny.!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 11, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Yes on G: It would help if you could explain why one would vote for the measure when $6.7 million (more than the parcel tax would bring the first year) in federal funding is coming to the district. Enough money to allow the community time to assess the district's budget and fiscal practices, get it back in shape, and for the community to determine what might be needed in additional funding . . . if anything.

If there is no need for factual information, all I would need to do is type no over and over.


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

Email:


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

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 32 comments | 2,188 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 875 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 691 views