Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letters: Irresponsible approval

Original post made on Jun 5, 2010

Dear Editor,

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 4, 2010, 12:00 AM

Comments (11)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by scooder
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jun 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Mr. Blank

Excellent points, just an example of many that can be made. I've often wondered why the Planning Commission's recommendations were categorically ignored by this mayor and City Council. It doesn't pass the smell test even from a mile away. Certainly the Yes on D campaign, and the competing measures that preceded this one, are wrought with clearly purposeful misinformation intended to confuse the voter. I'm reminded of Fox "News" in that respect. There's an underlying theme at play that has yet to reach the light. I believe GREED is a big part of it. Our city leaders and the monied interests who fuel their political endeavors should be ashamed. Me? I'm just angry.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dark Corners of Town
a resident of Country Fair
on Jun 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm

To 'scooder' - You are just as complicit in spreading purposeful misinformation on the other Town Square threads. Your underlying theme at play has yet to reach the light.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sickofit
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 5, 2010 at 6:53 pm

I looked at the Voter Pamphlete and it does contain the stuff that is in the letter. Sounds like a bad deal to me which is why I am voting No on D. Why didn't the City Council follow the rules and procedures? Is this another special deal for the developers???

In fact, the City Council 'incumbants' really need to be removed. Rather than put this on the November ballet, they decided to call a special election at a $90,000 cost to the city (putting it on the November ballet would have only cost about $15K according to the City). I guess when you spend that much money, you don't care anymore.

Vote No on D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 5, 2010 at 7:46 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Yet another perfect example of spin by the "out of context" method.

Anyone can check for themselves to see that Section 6.05 is about "No Conflicting Enactments".

"City shall not impose on the Project (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative, referendum or other means) any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition or other measure... that is in conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement that reduces the development rights or assurances provided by this Agreement."

What that means is that once this agreement is in effect, the City can't go back and apply future laws. For example, this is why Measure PP does not apply to Measure D (it was passed AFTER Ordinance 1961 was approved).

It would be completely ridiculous for any government to enter into contracts with anyone, pass new laws that are in conflict with those contracts then retroactively try to apply the new laws to those contracts. No one would enter into contracts with that entity!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sickofit
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 6, 2010 at 8:07 am

Stacey

That is from a different section of the section 6. Talk about spin.

What the letter is talking about is if the city can ask for any modifications to site plans or building locations or anything else. And the answer is just plain no.

It is a bad deal for Pleasanton.

Vote No on D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 6, 2010 at 8:27 am

Stacey is a registered user.

That's the only section 6.05 in the voter's guide!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 6, 2010 at 8:33 am

Stacey is a registered user.

sickofit,

You appear to have missed that I'm providing context to sections 6.05(c) and (i) by quoting 6.05.

Here's the full text of (c) and (i) that Mr. Blank left out:

6.05(c) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issues);

6.05(i) Impost against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or


They sure mean something different to what Mr. Blank is saying when put into context.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 6, 2010 at 8:34 am

Stacey is a registered user.

A future planning commission could not apply Measure PP to "control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements of the Project".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sickofit
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 6, 2010 at 8:49 am

I am no big fan of "Mr. Blank" as he has been on the Planning Commission way too long and should be removed.

But, in this case, even with context, I think he is right. From my read of the entirety of section 6, the planning department cannot make any changes to this development unless the developer agrees to them. So if they want to change the orientation of a house or change a design to make it look better, they don't have the power to do it.

I wouldn't sign this agreement if it were for me as it is way too restrictive and that is why I don't think it is a good deal for Pleasanton.

Get rid of Blank on the Planning Commission - I am for that - just as I am against Measure D.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Philip Blank is a liar
a resident of Val Vista
on Jun 7, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Stacey is correct. Read the text in the voter pamphlet. I cannot believe Mr. Blank signed this letter. Forget "out of context" - Mr. Blank's statements are outright lies. The catchphrase "So much for each lot..." in its own paragraph is blatantly false. The developer does not have "carte blanche." You made me do a double-take, Mr. Blank, but your claims seemed too bad to be true.

I found the truth -- in fact many more stringent design requirements -- in paragraphs 25-36, especially #26, starting on page PMLD-27 of the voter pamphlet.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Philip Blank is a liar
a resident of Val Vista
on Jun 7, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Stacey is correct. Read the text in the voter pamphlet. I cannot believe Mr. Blank signed this letter. Forget "out of context" - Mr. Blank's statements are outright lies. The catchphrase "So much for each lot..." in its own paragraph is blatantly false. The developer does not have "carte blanche." You made me do a double-take, Mr. Blank, but your claims seemed too bad to be true.

I found the truth -- in fact many more stringent design requirements -- in paragraphs 25-36, especially #26, starting on page PMLD-27 of the voter pamphlet.



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

Not so speedy trial
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 657 views