Posted by Sue, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Feb 29, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Finally a voice of reason!
" Roesch's interpretation, at least in his tentative ruling, seems overly strict. If indeed it follows the state code, our legislators should review the law to see if that's really what they intended when placing these requirements on petition proponents. Calling for a referendum should be easier than what Roesch has initially ruled."
Posted by wondering, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Feb 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Right you are, Sue. To heck with actually following the law. Let's just make it up as we go! Let's not really read the law, or even really pay attention. Let's just decide what we want to do, and do whatever we want, then complain about how mean the nasty people are who suggest we broke the law.
Posted by Sue, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Mar 1, 2008 at 10:21 am
I do not live near Oakgrove. I am not a primary supporter of the referendum nor do I share many of the concerns that they have. I do support their right to ask the voters to decide.
I have participated in past referendum. This grassroots group of Pleasanton citizens followed every good faith effort and the guidelines given to them by the City Attorney. The financing has been explained. No money was collected; a handful of citizens/neighbors paid independently as needed. They did not meet the threshold to file disclosure. There is no cover up; reasonably neighbors are typically the start of a call to arms.
The continued accusation of wrong-doing is malicious.
Frank, Stacey and Shelly you are bully's, we can not have a real community exchange of thoughts because no one reasonable wants to play with you.
Fast forward to childish response..................
Posted by Questioning???, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Sorry Sue, but the handful of neighbors that paid independently as needed met the dollar threshold ($1000, less then the cost of one Weekly ad) for having to file an independent campaign expense disclosure just like political action committees. And i think anyone can reasonably question whether at least one of these neighbors was acting independently when he was pictured with Kay turning in signatures at City Hall. Which then means Kay needed to form a Committee.
What's interesting is that Kay in a very visable manner called for people to follow the money. Please explain why that shouldn't apply to her side? If there's no cover up then why not disclose who these neighbors are and how much they spent? Sorry but it seems to me that what's good for one side should be good for the other side, period. Particularly, in light of all the statements made at City Council meetings by the opponents of Oak Grove.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 4, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Just checked DomainWeb. No word yet from the court on a ruling. I guess the Council won't be able to discuss the issue tonight and therefore we're looking at the November ballot if there are no appeals and the judge rules in favor of Ayala.