Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:16 am
"Howard Neely, a former school principal who withdrew from the City Council race for personal reasonsóbut too late to have his name removed from the ballotóreceived 4,312 votes, or 12.17 percent of the votes cast. He threw his support to Pentin and asked voters to cast their ballots for Pentin. If all of them had, Pentin could have received 11,905 votes, slightly more than Sullivan's, to win a council seat."
Are you just adding Pentin's total to Neely's total? To say that Pentin could have beat Sullivan "if all of them had" cast their votes for him instead of Neely doesn't seem correct considering that each person had two votes and cannot cast them both for one person. Perhaps "all of them had" cast their two votes for Pentin and Neely!
It would be more interesting to consider the following: 1) that the number of votes for Neely is close to the number of people who signed the petition to put PP on the ballot (I wonder who is going to show up at every City Council meeting and repeat this fact over and over as proof that Council isn't listening?) and 2) most of Brozosky's support came from developments in the southeast hills (Web Link).
Posted by resident, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:16 am
So now we look forward to business as usual from hosterman. She will continue to treat her constituents with contempt, she will ignore the wishes of the voters, she will refuse to address or reply to the residents. But, hey, she will use taxpayer money to attend national meetings so that she can declare the world nuclear free or whatever other nonsense she deems important. Dear Jen, how bout a trip to Alaska to commiserate with Sarah? You can take your kids, bill the taxpayers and call it business, just like Sarah. You are both ultimate losers.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:55 pm
In response to those anti-QQ people who were upset by the so-called "poison pill" in QQ, I'd like to point out the Council was being generous in writing QQ in such a manner that PP would still win if it got more votes and not that QQ would kill PP if QQ gained a majority. The point was to prevent conflict in case both won (as those measures did) with deferment being given to the measure with the most votes instead of the charge that Council is not listening to citizens.
Posted by Sour Grapes, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Nov 5, 2008 at 2:05 pm
So everything that goes wrong in Pleasanton is one persons fault.... Give me a break. Just like the President dosen't run the country alone, neither is Pleasanton run only by Jennifer. Step up and take responsibilty instead of placing blame. BTW she won by a wide margin which indicates she has likely won over past critics.
I'm really glad we don't have "the walking contradiction" as our mayor!
Posted by Another Gatetree Resident, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Nov 5, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Sour Grapes -- I'm not sure either candidate was the best Pleasanton could produce. All I'm saying is I see Ms. Hosterman to be ineffective and we're apparently stuck with her for another 2 years. Guess for many BAU is acceptable.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm
As the late '70s Meatloaf song goes, two out of three ain't bad.
Measure PP effectively beat QQ, and the combination of Cindy McGovern and Matt Sullivan, who both listen to voters, solidly trounced the developers' and Chamber's choice to replace both, Jerry Pentin.
Can't wait 'til Cook-Kallio and Thorne (if he's eligible for another term, not sure) come up for re-election in 2010--beat one of them/win just one more Council seat of someone who doesn't rubber-stamp Hosterman's ideas and guess what? She becomes irrelevant. She better take advantage of her next two years, because methinks her personal party's over come 2010. She'll probably run for State Assembly at that point anyway, since Torrico will be termed out. Watch--you read it here first.
And to Fred, why don't you take your juvenile name-calling back to grade school? Interesting how the Hosterman Weekly doesn't pull personal insults like that (I've seen that derogatory term referring to Brozosky used many, many times on this site).
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I think as the mayoral election showed, NIMBY-ism does not make a win. I somehow doubt that Sullivan and McGovern's support of PP allowed them to retain their seats. If you want true representation on City Council, then we should divide Pleasanton into four districts and each Council seat represents a district. Currently, Councilmembers have a responsibility to represent ALL of Pleasanton, to guard the public trust of the greater citizenry, and not to cave in to petty neighborhood v. neighborhood or NIMBY politics.
Posted by John, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:56 pm
2 or 4 more years of Hosterman is to many. The vacant and going out business signs all over Pleasanton are terrible. I understand slow groth but declining growth? Hopefully the City Council will stand up to her.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 6:59 am
Here's the text of the "poison pill" in QQ for those who missed it...
Section 5 Effectiveness
The initiative entitled Save Pleasanton's Hills & Housing Cap initiative, which appears on the same general municipal election ballot as this Initiative, shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Initiative. In the event that this Initiative receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Initiative shall prevail in their entirely (sic), and each and every provision of the other initiative shall be null and void.
Posted by Jason, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Hosterman is part of a policy decision-making group. They hired a city manager to who basically hires for all positions of which one is an Economic Person. That is/was Pam Ott. I don't see much results out of her over the years but besides be economic girl she is also secial projects gal for the city manager. She is quite politically connected as she is Jim Ott's wife, the CEO of UNCLE and the guy who is on Channel 30 talking literary stuff and currently sitting on the school board. Besides garnering business you also have to retain it. That has met with mixed results as well. So.....blame the city manager for not getting more business into town because heis the top dog. Also the Chamber is weak in that area too. Main Street has no personality because it has little diversity in types of businesses. It was more "Main Street downtown when there was a shoe repair place and a hardware store, etc., etc. Now it's restaurants and banks--ugh.......If I have any complaint with Hosterman and other council members it's their being attached at the hip to the city manager.
What he says, they buy into--that and what the League of California Cities spews out. The lovefest between Thorne and the League bothers me. it's taken his imagination away I think. Things seem simple to me---JUST DO THE RIGHT THING
Posted by Get over it, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Jennifer won by a significant amount of votes. Get over it. Seems like the nay sayers mis-calculated the effect Measure PP would have on the Mayor election. We live in a great city and most of us know it. Lets stop the negativity and move on.
Posted by Fact Checker, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Your reading of "this initiative" meant QQ. So, since they both pass they both take effect. There are however over 120,000 ballots left to be counted in Alameda County. So, we wait to see if the vote totals hold. The County has 30 days. Then, assuming vote totals stay same, the City Council would have to deal with reconciling the measures. So, the fun continues...
Main Street Diva,
PP doesn't ban houses on ridgelines. QQ can help clarify the definitions. Neither has any affect on Oak Grove, UNLESS Kay Ayala wins her appeal (unlikely). If she wins, then we would have a vote on Oak Grove.
Sorry, but it won't be Hosterman in 2010 for Assembly District 20. That would be Fremont City Councilmember Bob Wieckowski, Torrico's friend and likely hand-picked successor. The district is drawn to heavily favor Fremont, so it will be interesting what redistricting brings. You heard it here first.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 7:52 am
What I want to know is if "The Voice of the Community" is going to be catering to the 10,000 people who voted for Brozosky, the 8,000 for Pentin, the 5,000 for Neely, the 9,000 for no on PP, and the 10,000 for no on QQ just as vigorously as he did for the 5,000 signers of the Oak Grove referendum and the PP petition? Or does he just do that when it is politically convenient enough for him to retain his Council seat?
Posted by Another resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:00 am
Stacey, my thoughts exactly. However, based on the sharpness of some of his comments directed at Cook-Kalio at the last Council meeting, I'm not holding my breath. It was a good sound bite.
Don't be surprised if you see Cook-Kalio take a shot at Torrico's seat in two years. He supported her and gave money to her two years ago for her Council race. She has ties to Fremont by the hundreds of children she's had in her classes over the years.
Jerry, I can't help but wonder if there won't be some kind of lawsuit filed challenging PP once all the ballots have been counted.
Posted by Ann, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 1:38 am
Typical that the Pleasanton Weekly's focus is entirely on the Chamber of Commerce-funded candidates. It's less a newspaper than a mouthpiece for the special-interest businessmen in the Chamber of Commerce BACPAC.
The article features photos of the three Chamber of Commerce-backed people: two of Hosterman, Pentin (even though he lost!!!), Cook-Kahlio (who is not running this election)--and none of two the winners in this election, Sullivan and McGovern. (The hidden Sullivan group photo doesn't count.)
Posted by Karen, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Nov 8, 2008 at 8:33 am
Ann, I thought the same thing! Where were the photos of Kay Ayala's PP group, of Cindy McGovern's winning party, of Steve's concession, etc.
Looks like the camera only went to the candidates backed by the PW. Can we say, "Bias Reporting?" I thought newspapers were supposed to be neutral, or try to appear neutral. The PW is a bias supporter of the Chamber & BACPAC.
Posted by Just wondering, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 8:48 am
Karen, then to be fair, you need to also call out the Times for biased reporting as they made NO attempt to contact the candidates and Measures that they chose not to endorse. How can a newspaper make an informed endorsement without contacting the candidates or proponents of a Measure especially when none of their editorial staff live in Pleasanton?
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 12:18 am
Good comments. It did not occur to me that the Times did not cover the QQ/Jerry P/and Jen H parties. You are right.
One comment that the Times printed that resonated with me was that the Editor was dissappointed in the council's QQ measure put on the ballot to confuse voters. And that is exactly what it did. Lots of my friends said they could not figure out the difference, so they just voted "yes" for both hillside measures. I agree with the Times, that is not a good way to represent the public. Why didn't they just say "vote no" on PP?
Anyway, Hillside protection is way overdue - and the majority seems to agree on that.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 10:20 am
"to confuse voters" and "Anyway, Hillside protection is way overdue - and the majority seems to agree on that."
I think anyone familiar with the values and past voting performance of the majority of Pleasanton residents on local issues would only be fooling themselves if they believed that PP would have failed if it stood alone on the ballot and everyone argued PP on its cons alone.
If voters were confused then, well, we all deserve the government we get then for not becoming educated on the issue so we're not confused. I think about all the paperwork and reports and meeting minutes and hours spend following these local issues to read and get educated about them. Now try to imagine that times 11 (for all the state propositions) that one would need to investigate just to make a highly informed decision. It is a mountain of work that the average voter has no time to wade through! Perhaps then the very existence of initiatives on a ballot is what REALLY confuses voters, not that there's dueling initiatives. Perhaps the average voter therefore should really have no business making decisions upon issues they are not prepared for. Personally, I vote no on the majority of propositions for this very reason.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 10:22 am
"I think anyone familiar with the values and past voting performance of the majority of Pleasanton residents on local issues would only be fooling themselves if they believed that PP would have failed if it stood alone on the ballot and everyone argued PP on its cons alone."
I meant to add, the PP/QQ issue was never about "if" we want hillside protection, but "how" we should implement it.