Town Square

Post a New Topic

Oak Grove landowners vow to proceed with development despite defeat at polls

Original post made on Jun 11, 2010

The Oak Grove landowners who saw their plan to build 51 homes in their southeast hills property above Pleasanton's Kottinger Ranch scuttled in Tuesday's Measure D referendum said yesterday that they remain committed to developing the 562-acre site.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:12 AM

Comments (55)

Posted by Joe, a resident of Avila
on Jun 11, 2010 at 8:43 am

The City council placed a Poison Pill in both the PUD and Development agreement. It stated if either document was over turned by a referendum, the other would be unenforceable. I am not an attorney, but this looks like more legal wrangling and bullying to me.


Posted by What Now, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:18 am

This is just great. Thanks to Kay Ayala and the short sighted NIMBY mob that sold this to the community, the decision on what will be built in our southern hills will be made in a court room rather than our Council chambers. Of course, for Kay Ayala, Steve Brozosky, Matt Sullivan, Cindy McGovern and the rest of Kay's mob, this has never really been about saving the southern hills. This has always been about political retribution and the November elections. We need to make sure that their plot does not work in November.


Posted by See It Now, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:39 am

"What Now" has it exactly right. Now that she has achieved her big win at the polls, Kay Ayala will follow up by announcing her run for mayor any day now.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:41 am

Stacey is a registered user.

In no way am I surprised by this. It was obvious from the beginning what the next move would be. I would've been surprised by other outcomes. The developer sued to ensure that the development agreement was signed. Ordinance 1962 was not referended by the State's legal referendum process, but by some maneuvering that may or may not be legally valid.


Posted by Here they go again, a resident of Valley Trails
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:42 am

Too bad the attorneys for the developer didn't read the city attorney's impartial analysis and are again saber-rattling. It says: "By their own terms, Ordinance Nos. 1961 (regarding the Oak Grove development plan) and 1962 (approving a Development Agreement for the Oak Grove project between the property owners and the City ) are linked. Ordinance No. 1962 provides that if Ordinance No. 1961 is set aside by referendum, then Ordinance No. 1962 shall be of no force or effect."


Posted by Lou, a resident of Beratlis Place
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:45 am

There were some posts before the election concerning this exact topic. One poster mentioned that it was in the best interests of the Lin's to lose on Measure D and come back and do what they want with the land. Now it seems this is exactly what's going to happen. Unless the voters continue their counter effort. But, there will most likely be a loop-hole found for development that won't need a voting measure.


Posted by Amy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:47 am

Regardless of the outcome, the KR residents are the real unfortunate victims of this process. Their property values must be plummeting because of this disastrous process. Who in their right mind would want to move to the KR area, especially on Hearst, given this uncertainty!?

A major role of City Planning is to preserve and protect property values. Looks like this roll is not being met.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:56 am

Spell Check: role and NOT roll!

you've been corrected...

eeh eeh eet, eeh eeh eet...


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:00 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"Councilmember Sullivan questioned the downside legally if the PUD is subject to a referendum and the development agreement is still in effect. City Attorney Roush said there may be a difference in the practical effect and the legal effect. The legal effect would be that you could still have a development agreement in place which it currently provides such as benefits and burdens but the PUD plan that is specifically referenced in the development agreement would be set aside. So the option open to the developer would be to come back with a new or different PUD plan to see if that plan could be approved by the City Council. Because that plan may look different this might bear on changes to the development agreement." Web Link


Posted by Fan of Shakespeare, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:07 am

Like has been said many times before, this developer will sue anybody for anything (Pleasanton is not the only targets of their suits).

As stated above, each of the ordinances had a clause that said it will not be in force if the other is set aside by referendum. Seems pretty clear to me. If the developer feels this was not a legal/valid sentence, why did they sign an "illegal" contract? The developer had lawyers looking at the document at the time of signing and should have held off in signing if they thought the ordinance was invalid. If they signed an agreement that they knew to be illegal, on those grounds the whole agreement should be null and void, even without a referendum. Perhaps the developers and their lawyers were going to throw out ordinance 1962 even if they won the election and they would have build all those homes without satisfying the terms of 1962 (i.e., not paying the fees and donating the land and building the trails). They might have been doing a "Signature Properties" kind of suit. Knowingly sign an invalid contract, build the houses, and then after the houses are built, have the rest of the agreement thrown out. The true colors of the developer have come out now and thank heavens we found out before the ridgelines were graded and the houses built.


Posted by Property perspective, a resident of Ironwood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:09 am

As a conservative property rights person, I'm finding the Lin's behavior a gross embarrassment. Yes, you are reading that correctly -- they are a GROSS EMBARASSMENT. I would have liked Measure D to have passed, but it didn't. I accept the will of the people because that's the way our system works. Someone needs to remind the Lins that here in America our rights come from the Constitution and are ultimately regulated by the ballot box, not by crass and devious lawyering. If they would like to develop Oak Grove, play nice with the community, play by the rules, and we'll okay your plan. No more cheap antics, please !


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:13 am

Stacey is a registered user.

As I wrote above, the poison pill language may or may not be legally valid and this will perhaps end up in the courts again to clarify it. The poison pill language is contained within Ordinance 1962, not the signed contract called the development agreement. Ord. 1962 was not referended by the State's legal process so it cannot be said with certainty that the developer signed an invalid contract.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:20 am

Lawyers in the US have been involved in denying rights to American citizens for tons of decades. The voters have also used the electoral process in favor of laws that discriminate against specific groups of US citizens.

What are the Lin's doing specifically that is illegal?

What do you mean by "play by the rules"? What rules are you referring to?




Posted by A KR Resident, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:36 am

To "Property perspective" I agree with what you say. I live on Hearst Dr and was obviously a NO on D supporter. I would have agreed to the development if the homes were a bit smaller, if there was a second exit from the development and if they had done something for KR community for the inconvenience caused in short if they had listened to the residents. To all those who are concerned about property values on Hearst Dr going down I would like to thank you for your thoughts but we are real happy with the outcome. It will take a few years for anything to come up and unless the developer works with the citizens of the this city we will oppose it to the best of our ability.


Posted by sickofit, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:39 am

Wasn't it the court who ordered the City to sign the development agreement? If so, I wonder if that might eventually get thown out. AFterall, wasn't it the same judge who initially ruled that the referendum was illegal only to have his judgement vacated by the State Surpreme court.

Nice to know that the developers are taking the high road here...probably the only folks who are getting rich are the attorneys.

Hmmm...let's see...over 500K for Measure D plus how much in attorneys fees???


Posted by Rocking, a resident of Danbury Park
on Jun 11, 2010 at 11:13 am

How about some affordable housing or some Section 8 up there. Kay is so acidic.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 11, 2010 at 11:36 am

YES YES YES...SECTION 8! HOORAY!

ARE WE ON THE SAME PAGE OF WHAT?


Posted by grrrr, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm

I do not feel this measure should have been on the primary ballot. To few voters turn out for primaries. This should have been on the November ballot, if at all. And hey to all you homeowner/landowners...how would you feel if others could change the rules after the fact and dictate what you can and can't do with your own property? Property you have owned and paid taxes on for years. In a community that you have supported for years? Slap in the face to the Lin's. I wouldn't give the city or community of Pleasanton a sq. ft. of land after being treated the way they have been treated.


Posted by local, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm

In fact the people who got the signatures for Measure D were advocating for this to be in the general (November) ballot but the Council majority, who favored the development, under the urging of the developer, put it on the primary ballot. This cost the city much more money to put something on this ballot but the developer and council majority thought this election would be the most beneficial to the development. So you can hold the city council majority responsible for it being on this low-turnout election.

As for changing the rules, the 1996 General Plan did have provision on not building on 25% slope area. The City Council override that provision for this development. Measure PP had to be done to not allow the Council to give overriding circumstances on ridge development. The 1996 General Plan also said that the city would come up with a ridgeline protection ordinance. Something that was not done before this plan was approved. The Planning Commission actually said the city should put a moratorium on ridgeline developments until they come up with the ridgeline protections as required in the General Plan but the City Council, on a split vote, voted to not put that moratorium in place. This could of all been prevented if the Council did the ridgeline protection ordinance when they were supposed to. So the developer really has the city council to blame for this delay and costly process, not the citizens of the city.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 11, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Why does anyone support that so few Plutonians vote? Maybe the non-voters have been inspired not to vote by Meg Whitman. She almost NEVER VOTES!

I bet Meg Whitman doesn't care what the Lin's do.


Posted by curious, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Local, remind me again who was on the City Council from 1996 to 2004? I believe Kay was on the Council for 8 years and no ridgeline protection ordinance was passed or even discussed during those years. Why then is the current council being blamed for not having passed an ordinance when previous Councils didn't get it done either? Seems to me the blame should start with Kay who had 8 years and Steve who was there for 4 years.


Posted by Property perspective, a resident of Ironwood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm

Grrrr, you do have a point. But I know that several people did trek down to the Council Meeting and ask for a November date but the Council refused to budge from a June date. Jerry Thorne really surprised me by sort of saying -- Want an election? Take June and choke on it! (Maybe he was having a bad day).


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 11, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Here's the Writ of Mandate from the suit where the Lins sued the City to have the Development Agreement signed: Web Link
Here's the Lins' reply brief: Web Link

Basically, the poison pill language only says that Ord. 1962 will be set aside if Ord. 1961 is referended. It doesn't say that it will be suspended if Ord. 1961 is referended. A judge agreed. Ordinance 1962 became effective 30 days after approval. So now there's a signed contract that spells out the terms to which both parties are obligated.

This could have all been avoided if the opponents referended both ordinances (and if the Council didn't throw a bone to them and add in the poison pill language).


Posted by local, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Lots of different people on the council during those years. There were also no ridgeline developments being proposed and my guess that without something being proposed, most council members did not even realize there was that provision in the General Plan. If you have ever looked at the General Plan, it is a pretty large document.

Once a ridgeline development was starting to be worked on, the Planning Commission, who is probably more familiar with the General Plan than the Council since they Planning Commission does go through development plans to a much deeper level, recommended to the Council that they put a moratorium on ridgeline development until they develop the prerequisite ordinance so the planning commission, developers, and council all knew what the rules were. The City Council in a split decision decided to not to do the ordinance at that time and did not endorse the moratorium.

This Council has not changed at all in that respect since they put the Council-sponsored initiative on the last ballot, QQ, which required a more in-depth ridgeline development requirements to be produced by December 2009. Measure QQ won, in addition to Measure PP, and the City Attorney indicated they were not conflicting measures so both must be enacted. But the Council who put this initiative on the ballot has not even started this process, even through they are mandated by the voters to do this. I remember when they were campaigning for this, Jerry Thorne indicated that QQ could require even stronger protections than PP so QQ was necessary. PP and QQ both passed but I guess the campaign rhetoric has been forgotten. Technically I believe the City could be sued for approving any ridgeline developments now since the voters did pass QQ but the Council has not acted upon it. This Council has such contempt for the citizens.

Those who have supported QQ, against PP, and supported D, and did not help the 5000+ citizens who signed the referendum in court to bring this forward, are all up for re-election in November (Hosterman, Kook-Calio, Thorne). It is time to find some people who truly represent the citizens. These people seem to be out of touch with the community and even have contempt for the voters.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm

So Stacey, I guess you are saying that the city should never approve any development in the Oak Grove area in the future as it would have this development agreement as part of it. The city does have the power to approve or disapprove a land-use action. I would be looking for something that conforms with Measure PP that was passed last year. If the developer says it is what they have already submitted, or nothing, I say lets approve nothing! As for our housing element and the suit on our housing cap, the concern from the lawsuit and ABAG is that we are not allowing for enough below-market units. We have actually greatly exceeded our requirements of very-expensive homes and this development will produce only expensive homes. ABAG is not going to require us to build more mansions.


Posted by Wondering, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 11, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Does anyone know how many below market units could be placed on the Lin property? And each must, by State law, be allowed to have a separate "granny" unit built on each parcel.
Looks like this situation may be a real opportunity to satisfy ABAG and put an end to that litigation.


Posted by What Now, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Property Perspective,
Your statement is an outrageous lie. I reviewed the tape and Jerry Thorne never made a statement even resembling that. Personal smears like that are not worthy of this community.


Posted by A Letter to the Lins, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 8:30 pm

Dear Lin Family and your Sleazy Pleasanton Lawyer and High Paid Flak,

If Measure D didn't matter then why didn't you say something sooner? Is this the way it works now? The people are asked to vote on an issue and then if you don't get the result you want you just do what you want anyway? You never said any of that in your $500,000 ad blitz! If you don't want the opinion of the voters DON'T ASK FOR IT!!! You could have saved a lot of time, trees and effort if we all knew you were just going to ignore the results of Measure D and start up the bulldozers - just like they do back home in Taiwan.

PS. You should get yourself some better flaks and lawyers. These guys are ripping you off!


Posted by sickofit, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:06 pm

It shows what the developer thinks of the democratic process.

Additionally, what a bunch of hooey. If they thought that the Development Agreement was all they needed, then they shouldn't have spent one single penny trying to pass Measure D. Why spend $500,000 if you have an ironclad development agreement? Because it probably isn't ironclad. The City Manager was 'ordered' to sign it by the same judge who made at least one already flawed decision in this case.

No, this is just more of the same. Attack, attack, and attack...except this time, it is not the hills of Pleasanton that are being attacked by the democratic process and the will of the people!

Our City council should strongly condemn this move but will probably not do so due to the three developer backed incumbents.


Posted by Jane, a resident of Avila
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:18 pm

It really is a shame that these developers from the Union Bank of Taiwan Union Enterprise Construction Company, interested in their own financial benefit, constantly are trying to overturn what clearly is the will of the people. The Lins appear to loathe democracy.

The Lins like to hurl lawsuits our way from 6,000+ miles away even if the voters approve anything, and I mean anything, that they don't like or reject something, that they want. The voters approved the Open Space initiative in 2000. What do Inderbitzen and the Lins do? Well, naturally, sue the citizens of course. Take a look. Web Link

Think of the millions in taxpayer dollars spent on the various judges and court system time with the Lins constantly filing frivolous lawsuits. Talk about abusing the U.S. legal system.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The Lins claim they have a legally-binding Development Agreement. Ordinance 1962 says it got set aside because Ordinance 1961 (Measure D) was referended so supposedly the Development Agreement is not legally-binding. There's still the matter of State law that outlines the referendum process. That process was not followed for Ordinance 1962. We have yet to see what the courts say on whether or not the State referendum process can be skipped like it was. Getting the Development Agreement signed was most likely part of protecting their rights and plays into any future arguments. The Oak Grove opponents were able to gather enough signatures to send Ordinance 1961 to the ballot box. Why would they not have been able to do two ordinances at once?

Lastly, our governmental processes _are_ being respected. It was never the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow a majority party to take away rights from a minority party. Winning at the ballot box just means that the majority won. It doesn't mean that the majority is right. That's why the Founders separated the judicial system from the other two branches of government. Respect for the process goes beyond respecting the results of an election. It includes respecting that parties who feel aggrieved can seek justice in the courts. Let's remember that the Lins are still US citizens regardless of where they live. They should be afforded their full rights as any other US citizen.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jane wrote: "The Lins like to hurl lawsuits our way"

I like this line. It can be re-written as thus: "Pleasanton likes to cycle property owners indefinitely through the planning process."


Posted by sickofit, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:54 pm

Stacey - you sound like someone from Davis PR. I have no issue with the Lins exercising their rights however, as american citizens, they should respect the will (expressed on more than one occasion) of the people. It might be different (although maybe not) if they lived here and were a part of the community but helas, they do not. They are being guided expensively by their attorneys. Hopefully we can finally put an end to this...but I suspect that with all of the Lins current legal maneuvering, it will be up to the citizens again (yes, via a referendum) to exercise their will. Our present City Council certainly won't represent the will of the people.


Posted by LOL, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Jun 12, 2010 at 1:41 am

If the will of the people is to create a separate but equal society, I doubt the courts would allow that. I don't see anything wrong with them taking the issue to court. It is their right to take the case to court. We still live in a free world, don't we? Or have we become Canada?


Posted by LetterWriter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2010 at 8:49 am

But Stacey, they keep losing in court! Doesn't that tell you something? Their arguments have no merit but they go to court anyway, trying to overturn the will of the voters on technicalities. I have spoken with many opponets of Measure D who said they would not oppose a development which conformed with measure PP. That is their best shot at developing this parcel. Let's see if they can do that this time or sell the parcel to another developer who will.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 12, 2010 at 6:43 pm

I must say that the majority can sometimes try to rob the minority of their legal rights!

Fortunately, we do live in AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL and just because somebody loses at the ballot box does not mean that they have no legal rights.

i rest my case...


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 12, 2010 at 6:47 pm

ps What's it like to meet up with people of color who have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money than you have and who can do what they please and frustrate you?

It's called ROPE A DOPE!

tee hee hee, tee hee hee...


Posted by LetterWriter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Cholo,

Don't be racist.


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 12, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Pleasantonians are basically a bunch of communists who use the democratic process to seize property rights from owners. Republican democracy as defined in the US Constitution and described in the Federalist Papers tries to protect against this but the direct democracy rules in the CA constitution have enabled the communists.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 12, 2010 at 10:11 pm

I think that the word is PLUTONIANS!

signed,

mark


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jun 12, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Please...just answer the question? A Chinese family is running circles around you and you don't know what to do? tee hee hee, tee hee hee...

I thought everybody in Ptown was a billionaire...I guess not!

PING! (no pun intended)





Posted by M., a resident of Downtown
on Jun 12, 2010 at 11:15 pm

M. is a registered user.

Communists? seriously?
Way to not know what you are talking about frank


Posted by Let it go, a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jun 13, 2010 at 2:32 am

Frank, direct democracy is not against the law. It was supported in this case by the Court of Appeals (not the Supreme Court previous poster). It protects us at times from a government bought and paid for by outside interests-a good thing.
Let it go. If people don't agree with you they aren't always "liberals" and "communists," just people who have a different opinion. Try turning off Fox News for an hour or two a day and take a walk with your grand kids, you'll feel better.
Also, when the Lins lost hugely in north Livermore after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to develop property outside Measure D they sold the property and moved on. Ya win some and ya lose some, it's the business they've chosen.


Posted by LetterWriter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2010 at 8:05 am

Cholo,

The Lins have spent millions on lawyers and court costs over the last 20 years and still no homes built there. I'd hardly call that "running circles" around us. In fact, they have been twarted by the PEOPLE of Pleasanton at every step of their illegal ways. And stop being racist!


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 13, 2010 at 7:46 pm

You fool.

"Try turning off Fox News for an hour or two a day and take a walk with your grand kids, you'll feel better."

I absolutely hate FOX News and everything it stands for. And you are a fool for lumping people in boxes. And what do you know about me to give me personal advice which has nothing to do with the opinion I expressed? Like I said, you are a fool as demonstrated by what you wrote.


Posted by can't believe, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2010 at 8:16 pm

The need to interject, comment or slam FOX news or those who may watch it every time there is a debate or difference of opinion on this forum (regardless of the topic)says a lot. Those of you who "hate" (your choice of words) fox news would be wise to pay it and its viewers less attention.

Debate the issues for a change.


Posted by Property perspectrive, a resident of Ironwood
on Jun 13, 2010 at 10:46 pm

Frank, I understand your view that Pleasanton is overflowing with communists, and you are right about the Constitution and a republic form of administration, but the level of communism maybe doesn't match what the local GOP folks told me recently. Interesting that they think the town is actually quite conservative but that there are a lot who sit on the fence on an issue by issue basis. That could give the appearance of what you are observing. I'm interested why you don't like Fox. Do you prefer Glenn or Hannity?


Posted by Really, let it go, a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jun 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Frank,
Take your blood pressure medicine and go to bed early tonight.....You'll feel better in the morning.
ps Name calling isn't nice.


Posted by Issues only, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm

can we get back to discussing issues not people or ethnicity?


Posted by yikes, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2010 at 8:19 pm

Just watching the city council meeting and am appalled at the sore winners(Ayala, Brown and the Martins) of the Measure D campaign. From what I can see the losers are showing they have some class and not whining about the loss while the winners are out there still name calling, etc. I was absolutely shocked at Kay Ayala's attack on the mayor. I guess this shows that you cannot buy elections but you cannot buy winning with grace and dignity either. Not sure which is worse. Time to let it go and move on.


Posted by Confused, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2010 at 8:57 pm

Again, I ask: how can it be that those who blame the Mayor of Pleasanton and some city council members of being socialists, communists... are the very same people who blame them for defeating Measure D and scuttling personal property rights of owners? Please, please explain this to me!

"Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Pleasantonians are basically a bunch of communists who use the democratic process to seize property rights from owners. Republican democracy as defined in the US Constitution and described in the Federalist Papers tries to protect against this but the direct democracy rules in the CA constitution have enabled the communists."


Posted by Confused, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm

To further clarify my question:

1) The Mayor *endorsed* Measure D, which proposed that the compromise be passed to allow the rightful property owners to develop their property within the guidelines.

2) This would argue that the Mayor is supporting personal property rights of the owners.

3) However, the Mayor has repeatedly been accused of being a Communist, a Socialist, anti-American, etc.

How is this reconciled to those accusing the city council?


Posted by dear confused, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2010 at 11:45 pm

Dear "confused",

Ms. Ayala was frustrated because the Mayor cares more about the loss of property values for the land owner, than what the citizens of Pleasanton have voted for 3 times - NO development on the ridges. The mayor won't listen to the people, and Ms. Ayala is growing tired of 'trying' to educating her. Wouldn't you?

BTW, the mayor does not know that the land owner cannot come back until 1 year after the referendum, but both Mr. Sullivan and Ms. McGovern knew those facts on the spot.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 15, 2010 at 11:56 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"cares more about the loss of property values for the land owner, than what the citizens of Pleasanton have voted for 3 times"

Hence, "Pleasantonians are basically a bunch of communists who use the democratic process to seize property rights from owners."

Protection of private property rights facilitates the generation of wealth in this country. And I'm not talking just about land.


Posted by OMG, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2010 at 9:23 am

I am disappointed on how quickly this forum has gone to personal attacks.

The No on D MAJORITY simply want the land owner to come back with a plan that respects Measure PP (no building 100' from the top of a ridge, no building on 25% slope, 10 houses or less). We ask ALL land developers to respect these ordinances - which as of Nov. 2008 ia a part of our General Plan.

ALL builders and future developer of: the Spotorno, Greenbriar, Ponderosa, Lund Ranch II or even the Lin/Tong group. NO one developer is being singled out.

Land use regulations are the back bone of city General Plan for smart and safe growth (and ours is no different). No one is taking over the Lin's land or taking it from them. So stop your whinning.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Preserving Disorder
By Tom Cushing | 73 comments | 2,130 views

Jim Kohnen Post Office Signed into Law
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 735 views

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 387 views