Deadline today to run for City Council, Pleasanton mayor Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Aug 8, 2008 at 7:34 am
With the deadline for filing election papers set for 5 p.m. today, the mayoral and City Council races are down to the wire, with Mayor Jennifer Hosterman expected to face challenges from at least one of four candidates who share similar views on hilltop housing projects and how City Council meetings should be conducted.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, August 8, 2008, 12:00 AM
Posted by Rush Limbaugh, a resident of another community, on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:22 am
We all know Steve Brozosky and Roberts will protect our hillsides through the expansion of water slides on hillsides. There is no doubt Brozosky will keep up his commitment to citizens by taking large sums of money from developers (see 2006 election) and using Karl Rove-like politcal tactics. I would also like to squelch the rumor that Brozosky played the part of "Larry Appleton" on the 1980's sitcom Perfect Strangers, that was a different guy, they just look similar.
Posted by Liz, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 8:58 am
Steve Brozosky is a bad choice. He had a conflict of interest when he was a council member. He was also on the transit board (Wheels) and while on the board, his company Government Outreach provided service to the agency. Isn't something like that supposed to go out to bid?
Posted by Brozosky for Mayor, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 10:16 am
That was such a weak baseless accusation then, and now it is just transparent and pathetic.
The fact that Brozosky saw a problem and found a way to create software to remedy the problem speaks to his value as a community leader. It sums up the type of leadership he showed on city council and on school board. Steve has been one of the most solution oriented representatives we have had in Pleasanton.
I think he should use his creation of the government software as an example of his effectiveness during his campaign.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 am
Did Brozosky make money on creating software for public use? Community leaders don't normally make money off the public like that. Anyone can make software that addresses a public problem. Brozosky isn't special in that regard.
How about the dud wireless network downtown that Brozosky supported? That's just a solution looking for a problem that didn't exist. Exactly how is the greater Pleasanton citizenry benefited by a wireless network only accessible downtown (well, not accessible yet!)?
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:08 pm
OK, so Brozosky didn't make money on the project is what you're saying. That's what I was asking. I noticed you dodged my questions regarding the wireless network, which was paid for by taxpayer money.
Posted by Don, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Stacey, I guess you do not have all the details on the wireless network. The downtown wireless network was a project being worked on by the city to allow the public safety personnel to get access to the city network in case of an emergency. Brozosky suggested that this technology could also support a public network.
Being a businessman, Brozosky realized the advantage of having wireless downtown so business people could use their laptops while dining with prospects which would improve commerce for downtown. It also allows our merchants during downtown festivals to be able to do credit card transactions. Brozosky used his experience and innovation to benefit the community.
This wireless network was enthusiastically supported by the city staff as well as the Pleasanton Downtown Association. I was at an event where Hosterman gave a speech about something in the city and she even publically thanked Brozosky for his forsight.
I remember others saying we should have wireless in the whole city and Brozosky spoke out against that. He said we should not be competing against the private sector for that plus it would cost the city a significant amount of money to install and maintain plus the technology would become obsolete quickly. Brozosky was so right about that. The cities that are trying to put in wireless in the whole city have their projects failing.
Posted by Brozosky for Mayor, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I did not dodge anything. I do not pretend to know everything, I answered what I have knowledge of.
I don't know of Steve's involvement on the wireless. It does however seen absurd to blame someone that has not been on council for two years for something that I believe was supported by the entire council and was probably contracted to professionals.
It still seems like a good idea. I hope if there is a problem with it they resolve it.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 1:01 pm
This statement does not make any sense:
"The downtown wireless network was a project being worked on by the city to allow the public safety personnel to get access to the city network in case of an emergency."
The statement doesn't make sense. The cops and fire need a downtown wireless network. But they don't need one for the rest of the city. What's wrong with their existing communication networks? Sounds like the poster is making things up as he goes along.
Posted by Don, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Frank, before you knock somebody else information, you should check it out. The downtown network is there to increase the size of the emergency operations center (EOC) in case of a large problem/disaster. It would be difficult to get everybody into a single building. This allows police and other city officials to access the city network from the downtown area whether through laptops or police vehicles.
The police and fire do have their own frequencies for dispatch/communication but that is different than accessing the city network.
I am sure the staff report for this item is still online, or you can call the City Manager to verify this information. I am not sure why you think I would make something like this up. Geez, somebody tries to answer a question based on real knowledge and then gets personally attacked. Frank, please fill us in on what you find out from the City Manager. We all wait for your fact check.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Saying that this doesn't make any sense is NOT a personal attack. You folks seem to have excessively thin skins because if someone raises a challenge to a statement you write, you immediately take it personally.
What you write above still really does not quite answer the point I raise about why only a network throughout the downtown area and not limited only to a smaller radius around the civic center complex. And why does the gathering point have to be around the civic center complex as opposed to more remote points in the city? And, no, I won't go study the city meeting minutes to get answers to what appears to be another city's folly with wireless networks.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Thanks for the information. That whole thing occurred during a time that I wasn't interested in paying attention to local issues (hadn't yet invested in a future here) so I only have a fuzzy recollection of it, but I remember Brozosky's name being attached to it. I remember thinking at the time that it was a solution looking for a problem and I'm still of that opinion. I took my laptop downtown about 2 months ago. I was able to connect to the Pleasanton wireless APs but there was no network available. I understand it is in "beta" still and not accessible. I did note the large number of other wireless networks downtown!
Brozosky for Mayor wrote earlier: "Stacey you always diminish the efforts of other but I have never heard of anything you have done for the community."
Unfortunately the validity of my (or your) arguments are never dependent upon whatever I (or you) have done or haven't done. Thankfully it is a Constitutional right for every citizen to be able to criticize elected officials; past, present, and future. No citizen ever needs to be able to be elected President, Mayor, etc. to earn the right to criticize the President, Mayor, etc.. No exceptions in this case either. Who cares what you've done?
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2008 at 10:34 pm
So, still no answer on why Brozosky promoted this effort by the city to provide emergency access to city network servers into an expanded downtown network. A limited wireless network in the vicinty of the city building complex is not equivalent to a downtown network for the casual laptop users downing their morning brew at Tullys. But businessman Brozosky thought what a good thing it was to expand this into some sort of city-subsidized wider network to all of downtown? Sounds like the same sort of folly pursued by many other jurisdictions, all of which are failing. Vote for businessman Brozosky!!!!
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2008 at 12:38 am
Come on now Liz, you shouldn't make a charge like that("I have met him in person one time and I felt he was dishonest")without an explaination(Well, you can around here, I guess. It's done all the time). A one time "in person" meeting and he leaves the impression
he's dishonest - How so? Don't leave us wondering!!!! Inquiring voters want to know.....:)
Also, how does giving something free of charge, with no strings attached, become a "conflict of interest"???
Posted by Linda, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2008 at 8:44 am
I don't understand Franks question. Supporting the downtown business community while creating a service for Pleasanton residents while enjoying our downtown sounds like an appropriate expenditure of City resource to me.
I can only think of one person that would have reason to make such a baseless libelous comment as the one made by Liz(?).............
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The whole issue about creating a wireless network has to do with siting ACCESS POINTS. This posting is an attempt to state some facts for Linda about wireless networks and how extending one to the whole downtown area, while the city only needed an limited range, may not make much sense based upon costs, therein rendering Brozosky's position as maybe not so smart as Linda thinks it is.
If you ever set up a wireless network in your house, you will understand what I write.
Each wireless access point has a limited range. Each wireless access point is hardwired to a router. Maybe about 100 feet or so is the range of the wireless connection. 4 watts of EIRP goes only so far. To extend these access points to the Pleasanton downtown area from the civic center greatly increases the cost and its complexity of the total network. After all, the city workers don't need to be at Tully's during the emergency. Hardwiring to each wireless access point is usually required or a wireless bridge design is needed to eliminate the wiring, and thus increases the complexity of the network, and therefore its overall costs.
So, if the city for emergency purposes designed a network for its users to arrive in the area around city hall and the police station, this cost would be minimal. To extend this same network out to a range that included, for example, the Rose Hotel, the cost would escalate substantially. And, remember, this would only benefit downtown and not the majority of residents throughout the city.
So, if Brozosky, the businessman, thought this was such a good idea, it is arguable whether the idea is good or just another folly that cities engage in promoted by their elected representatives.
Posted by Linda, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Thank you for the explanation. I guess when I first heard about the wireless I felt good thinking it was for me and you and any of us that may be downtown enjoying our cities ambiance. I don't resent that it does not come near my home, I feel I do get benefit if I want to. I have no idea of the cost but I can't imagine that it is too much in the scheme of things.
I often feel our tax dollars don't come back to us enough. I have always paid too much for my kids to do activities through the city programs . Other cities make the programs more affordable. Pleasanton has a cost recovery policy where if I sign up for any program the cost will factor in the use of facility and administration time, which I feel I have already paid for with my taxes. I was once told they must do so to pay the salary levels and benefits. Our City employees do retire young.
So I will say thank you to whoever is responsible for the convenience of being able to use my lap top while I sip my coffee.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2008 at 10:20 pm
If I'm not mistaken, Mayor Hosterman, some time ago on a TV30 Mayors Report, was praising this system as a "Down Town System" and she mentioned a person would be able to connect while doing business or having coffee/lunch downtown. I believe she said someone was working on it at that time.
With todays technology, what would one gestimate the cost to get such a system up and running. If it's within means and will benefit citizens and business people, I say go for it. We've probably piddled away city funds on less desirable things than this.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2008 at 10:36 pm
You've been able to connect? I couldn't connect to anything on the Internet.
In the grand scheme of things, it didn't cost that much, given that it only covers downtown. To me it is dumb not because of any fiscal impact, but because it doesn't really do anything perceptibly useful. It was like someone said "Hey cool! Wifi!" and then looked for a way to justify it.
"Hey cool! Lollipops! That will help prevent citizen blood sugar levels from getting too low!"