Town Square

Post a New Topic

Candidates for mayor, City Council share views on how they'd govern Pleasanton in years ahead

Original post made on Sep 1, 2010

Candidates for Pleasanton mayor and City Council in the upcoming municipal election on Nov. 2 took to the stage for the first time Monday to publicly talk together about their views on the challenges facing the community and how they would handle them if elected.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 7:54 AM

Comments (28)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Barry
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Sep 1, 2010 at 9:16 am

Go Cindy and Karla,

I feel we have been sold out by Hosterman, Cook-Kallio, and Thorne.
Business as usual!

I hope all the NO on "D" voters realize what is at stake this November. You all know who is on the side of the developers.

It's pretty obvious that they want to steam roll development at "any cost".

I don't think Pleasanton deep down is ready for all the bull dozers.

We need you out there voting again in November.

This is NO on "D" for the whole city....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by West Side Observer
a resident of Oak Hill
on Sep 1, 2010 at 10:34 am

Barry,

You live in alternate universe. Pleasanton, at the intersection of two Interstate freeways, is pretty much fully developed, as one would expect. The Lin's 51 homes on their own property is not development—especially when you compare their small project with the state of California's demand that Pleasanton build thousands of "affordable" housing units because of the recently adjudicated illegal, anti-developer, housing cap.

If you insist on dividing people along development lines, look at your philosophical cousins demanding affordable housing and protection of weeds. The damage they do to our way of life and to the economy far outweighs 51 homes on a hundred acres surrounded by a free 500-acre park.

The fact is Kay Ayala and Karla Brown cost us a ton of money and a ton of credibility to save their "viewshed." (And, so you know, Kay accosted me to sign her petition and she did just the opposite of what she claimed in her suit—no documents for me to examine and an incredible story of how the Lins would destroy the Pleasanton Ridge to which she pointed. She was a perfect demagogue playing fast and loose with the truth and the facts.)

Your vitriol is getting tiresome. The sky is not falling. Developers are not inherently evil. The traditional "selling out" is now old-style Pleasanton politics especially in the face of government, at all levels, selling out to Big bureaucracy, Big environment, and Big unions—far greater problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julia
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2010 at 10:57 am

Hey you folks in Pleasanton...remember the NEW MOTTO..."VOTE THE INCUMBENTS OUT" and bring in NEW BLOOD. This is the NEW BATTLE CRY to achieve a successful future.

Thanks for listening, Julia from Alamo


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 1, 2010 at 11:02 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Voting out all incumbents will not create a successful future. It causes more problems than it creates as staff more knowledgeable about governmental processes will be able to run circles around electeds who won't have the ability to know when they're being duped by staff.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Write In
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2010 at 2:39 pm


Well....................



I always vote, and 'usually' feel good about voting for least one candidate. ;-)


But, in the case of mayor, I think I will be using the "write-in" vote for the 1st time in my life, of almost 6 decades.



I will write my own name in.....not because I want to be mayor, but because I do want to vote - and at least in my mind, do my small part to show my complete and sincere frustration with those running for mayor.

P.S.

To Ms. McGovern - Those you represent on issues such as all the various referendums ARE a "special interest". Trust me - you are backed financially by a very vocal Special Interest.







 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Learn about the issues, discuss them to understand how others feel, and vote.

After the people have spoken, support those who have been elected for their terms.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Suzy Q
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2010 at 8:22 am

Mike, what happens when they promise one thing and deliver another? I refused to believe that is okay and normal for a politician to lie as part of a normal campaign. I taught my kids the truth is the only answer. If the candidates make false promises - vote them out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by What?
a resident of Amador Estates
on Sep 2, 2010 at 8:29 am

No one ever said you have the right to live anywhere you want. If you can't afford housing in a more upscale neighbor government should not force any community to set aside housing for lower incomes. If that is so, why does it not happen in Blackhawk or Ruby Hills. These additional building projects require a certain percentage of lower income housing. It is here in Pleasanton which is dominated by middle class. The requirement won't happen in the upscale communities because they are rich and can't fight it. I grew up poor and I fought hard to reach middle class. I am hispanic and I understand government should not give my people anything. We need to earn it. The Mayor and City Counsel support all social projects because they care little for the residents and what they want. They know "what's best" and that residents of Pleasanton are too stupid to decide on their. What has the Mayor of this town done for her community. She fell into the job because no one else wanted it. Vote her out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 2, 2010 at 8:30 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Then don't vote on issues, vote on the methodology the person used to arrive at their conclusions on an issue. Did they take the time to read everything? Did they ask good questions? Did they seek an understanding of the issue from all viewpoints?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Birdland
on Sep 2, 2010 at 9:02 am

Anyone who voted to block the last Lin family proposal are crazy. Even the Kay Ayala's out there know that we now face a much larger development and the city won't be able to negotiate it down now because of the house cap issue. We could have had a smaller development with money for our schools and open land, but with the new lawsuit and the housing cap issue we face a potentially larger development with no additional perks. The "hope" is that our vote will be upheld in court and that the new development won't happen. But the chances our vote will be held up is thin. The state already overturned our housing cap decision. Don't let people scare you into voting. I think our current City Council has done a great job. They take everything into consideration, including the quality of life here in Pleasanton and the overall impact decisions at their level make for the entire city. Look at Pleasanton. It is a great place to live. We have a very good mix of big business and small business. This helps us attract new residents and allows Pleasanton to benefit from taxes that keep our parks in outstanding shape, our schools are some of the best in the state and we have one of the safest cities in the country. Everyone wants to point at the current council or city staff like they are evil, but it seems to me that they have maintained and improved on our city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vote based on politics
a resident of Amador Estates
on Sep 2, 2010 at 9:49 am

Stacey,

Hosterman and Cook-Kallio don't read the staff reports or study the issues. They vote strictly on politics - and what is best for their political future (i.e. what gains the most campaign contributions).

If they studied the issues they would have known that they violated CEQA when they approved the Stoneridge Extension last year without doing an environmental analysis. This resulted in a lawsuit and delayed the project for a year. Now they spout off about NIMBY's obstructing projects! They epitomize what's wrong with our electoral system. I only hope for the sake of Pleasanton that people will understand this come November.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by confused about the comment
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2010 at 10:50 am

So the people you agree with study the issues and those you don't vote politics. How about people can look at the same issue and come to different conclusions? Can we have a substantive conversation about the issues instead of accusing people of being ruled by something else? How do you know who does their homework and who doesn't? If you read the supplemental environmental report you would know that thwere were virtually NO NEW FINDINGS! The environmental issues were dealt with by the county of Alameda because they were county issues NOT city ones! If you had done your homework you would know that!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 2, 2010 at 11:13 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I think Hosterman and Cook-Kallio were more than aware that there was a potential issue over CEQA. The letter from the County about the CEQA issue was addressed to Hosterman, after all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mark
a resident of Harvest Park Middle School
on Sep 3, 2010 at 12:16 am

Cindy and Karla will do whatever Kay tells them to do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by alma
a resident of Carlton Oaks
on Sep 3, 2010 at 8:17 am

Mark, I second your thoughts. I think "Minnie Kay" wears an ear piece at the council meetings with K on the other end telling her what to say and do? How does Pleasanton have 15 million dollars to spend on a new theater? Where is this money and the money for all of the Kay created lawsuits coming from? Just a thought.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vote based on politics
a resident of Amador Estates
on Sep 3, 2010 at 10:00 am

Stacey,

So what you are saying is that Hosterman and Cook-Kallio intentionally violated state environmental law to approve Staples Ranch (for political reasons, of course). Either way, we need to throw the bums out!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by confused by the comment
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 3, 2010 at 11:01 am

Again voted based on politics refuses to address the fact that the issues were addressed by the EIR, the County had the issue with environmental information. The supplemental was done to prevent a lawsuit that may or may not have merit. Anyone can sue. Doesn't mean they will win but it does suck up time and resources. Often people try to block project they never want to see built using CEQA, EIRs and emotion. The reason this took so long is there were a hand full of people who wanted to stop Stoneridge Extension at the cost of others throughout the city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Sep 3, 2010 at 11:59 am

A couple of years ago the County and the City Council majority negated a 2006 MOU between the County and the City that "create[d] a road map and set forth a timeline" for Staples Ranch development and the Stoneridge Dr extension and tied the Stoneridge Drive extension directly to Staples Ranch development. They did this even though *none* of the businesses planning to build at Staples Ranch required the extension to move forward.

Once the County and the Council majority made the development contingent upon the extension, they then tried to shortcut the planning process by OK'ing Staples Ranch EIR and CQUA documents that *did not* include the Stoneridge Dr extension - even though they planned to extend Stoneridge Dr with the buildout at Staples Ranch. What that meant was that none of the issues associated with the extension had been identified, let alone been addressed with a plan for mitigation.

It should not have taken a lawsuit to make the Council do their job.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 3, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

At one point in Pleasanton's history, a group of local leaders thought that metering the 680 off-ramp on Sunol Blvd. to discourage cut-through traffic was a good idea. They did a good job in aggravating local Pleasanton residents who were stuck in the backup created by the metering. No one thought that perhaps the traffic there also consisted of Pleasanton residents trying to get home. Angry residents showed up at Council meetings to demand the removal of the traffic restriction. And that's exactly what occurred.

Notwithstanding the fact that Pleasanton residents pay for City streets and therefore are entitled to equal access to those streets, the idea of building services inside Pleasanton which Pleasanton residents cannot access should be avoided. It makes absolutely no sense to develop a shopping center that cannot be accessed by Pleasanton. We'd be building services that benefit the residents of Dublin. We'd also be cutting those businesses off from the Pleasanton market. And that's why the settlement allows for the City to determine, based upon traffic conditions, when the extension should be opened.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Confused again
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2010 at 1:54 pm

A small group of neighbors who wanted a private cul-de-sac thought it was fine to divert work to home traffic to another neighborhood, convinced people that somehow allowing Stoneridge to go through would be detrimental to the city of Pleasanton. These neighbors wanted only what was they thought best for them and did not care that they were dumping on other neighborhoods. The Council who didn't do their job was the one that agreed to an MOU that only benefited a very small portion of Pleasanton and was against the General Plan. Good job to the council that has been able to see through this and make decisions for the benefit of the entire city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Barry
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Sep 3, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Dear West Side Observer,

Why do you hate American workers??? I guess you are one of those right wingers
who thinks everyone should be at slave wages with no benefits.

Republicans are ALL the same! You guys have nearly ruined our country!
Wars that you lie for, injured troops you don't want to spend a mickle to help! See your Sen. Simpson's recent comments...

Most GOP people are chicken hawks... You love wars you don't pay for or fight in (Cheney)...

I hope everyone knows all the facts before you think about voting Republican..

They hate America and most Anericans!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Whoa Barry....
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Barry,

Come on now. Those comments leave me shaking my head. So sad. I can read the 'hate' in your words. I love the way you just want to lump everyone into a box that you can direct your hate toward.

I guess we will eventually have someone that responds how Democrats are ruining the country, want Socialism, and the take over of everything in our life. That they never met a tax they didn't' like. That they believe government is the answer, etc, etc, etc………………... Darn, that list goes on and on too.

Try taking a breath, then work to solve problems versus spewing rhetoric.


Perhaps, these forums should just be shut down. They only go downhill after the first post. Sad to see so many hate filled people.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Sep 5, 2010 at 11:04 pm

Having lived in Pleasanton for forty years, I have seriously considered the motives and integrity of hundreds of candidates running for local office. Often those motives are not completely transparent----and at times seem self serving. Jerry Thorne is a candidate that can be respected, he cares about the welfare and well being of the entire city. A candidate that focuses on their own backyard is not one that will work for all of the city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2010 at 9:53 am

Liz, when you are done slobbering all of Jerry T perhaps you should recall that he was elected to office to represent the people, and he has not done his job.

He voted to put measure QQ on the ballot, which the Times newspaper editor called a *sleazy attempt to confuse voters with a gutless competing measure.* He campaigned for YES ON D which the same paper called him and the other council members *deaf to their concerns about hillside development* and the voters rejected BOTH of his leadership ideas in droves.

AND one thing I can't forgive him for -- he votes as a BLOCK with Cheryl and Jennifer. IF he had his own mind, and IF he did his homework he would NOT vote as a block with these two OVER AND OVER. Sorry I am NOT a Jerry fan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Long time acquaintance
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2010 at 10:41 am

Sharon, If you will remember when Jerry T. was first elected to the council Jennifer was in lock step with Matt Sullivan and the not in my back yard folks. Over the years she has learned to understand the big picture and now has the foresight to consider what is good for the entire city. Jerry is an independent thinker and always does what he thinks is good for all even if you don't agree with him. He always does his OWN homework.










 +   Like this comment
Posted by factchecker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Sharon, Jerry Thorne did NOT Campaign for Yes on D. He signed the ballot statement and then stayed out of the campaign believing that people knew where he stood by signing the For ballot arguement and that was enough. He was not part of the Farmer's Market campaign scene. Don't twist the facts.

Here are some recent examples where Jerry has NOT voted with the Mayor and Cook-Kalio.

Remember that when Cook-Kalio and Hosterman did not want to allow rebuttal arguements for Measure D, it was Thorne who supported having rebuttal arguements. Check the tape and you will hear Sullivan and McGovern publicly thanking him. Hardly voting as a block.

Check the Red Coats application to have music. It was Thorne who appealed a planning commission decision, much to the disapproval by the Chamber, to add conditions to ensure Red Coats was a good neighbor to surrounding businesses and residences. Matt Sullivan thanked him for appealing the application.

Check the recent meeting on the Staples Ranch SEIR when it was continued and the Mayor wanted to hear everything at a special meeting. It was Thorne again who offered a compromise. On the tape you can hear McGovern thanking him for trying to find something that works for all council members.

Specific examples where Jerry does what he thinks is best for Pleasanton regardless of how anyone else is voting. That's not block voting.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Barry
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Sep 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Dear Whoa Barry,

I retract my ALL Republicans statement... But, you most of you guys are so lock stepped and reactionary that it angers me.

Democrats aren't perfect but they don't harm the country like when the GOP gets in power... How can you defend W and what he and his cabal did to the country. I don't hear any new brilliant ideas coming from the right.. Just the same old same old... Pretty scary!
Palin???????????????? For God's sake, it's insane!

I miss Ike!

Take care...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Birdland
on Sep 13, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Noone who really matters reads this thing. Its just the same few crazy people getting caught up in Pleasanton politics and trying to sensationalize them. It doesn't have to be that intense. Pleasanton is a good city. Hosterman has only added to the security of pleasanton by fighting like hell to keep businesses downtown, create a financial surplus, and preserve open space while balancing the needs for economic growth. Yes on D would have created open space and given tax dollars to schools, and since it was A DEAL WITH LANDOWNERS, NOT DEVELOPERS, they are now free to develop their land basically however they want, because WE blew our chance to make a sweet deal with them. Hosterman is the most environmental politician pleasanton has ever seen, BUT she has managed to combine her personal beliefs in conservation WITH the economic growth and services Pleasanton needs...because she is a mayor with foresight, knowledge, and integrity. She's a good mayor...let her finish out her term limits and finish her business in Pleasanton the right way.


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

Good news for downtown Livermore and the performing arts
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,079 views

November Ballot Prop 2 – Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 999 views

Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 874 views