Town Square

Post a New Topic

Narum Continues To Post Signs Without Permission

Original post made by Pat, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2013

Here we go again with signs. I have noticed, those who point fingers at others; do the exact same thing, they have accused others of doing.
Narum keeps placing her campaign signs, either where they are not allowed or without permission.

Comments (30)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm

. I saw narum sign in unauthorized and unpermitted location too. Shouldn't someone who run the campaign 3 times know the rule better?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy Allen
a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 14, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Hi Tim and Pat,

I am Kathy's campaign manager and just saw your note. To our knowledge, Kathy's signs are only posted where she has permission. If you are aware of any signs posted without permission, please e-mail Kathy at kathy.narum@yahoo.com and we will take care of this immediately. Rights of property owners are very important and that is why we have asked permission in all cases where Kathy or I have posted signs.

We ask the same respect of your team. I personally know of 4 signs that have been posted illegally from Miller campaign, many along Valley, as property owners have contacted us to say they never gave permission. We ask that you remove any signs you posted illegally, if owners have not yet removed for you. They have removed your signs twice in the past week or so as your team continues to put them up again. Putting signs up on private property is illegal and private property owners are very concerned about Miller signs appearing on their property.

Again, if you know of any illegal signs on our side, please contact us immediately as we we are not aware of any and want to take care of this immediately. And we appreciate your team following the same rules. Thank you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2013 at 9:34 pm

Nancy,
Since you are Kathy's campaign manager, perhaps you can tell me why I just got a recorded message PAID for by the Chamber of Commerce of Pleasanton, where Jerry Thorne recommended I vote for Narum. How much did that cost? Will it be reported as a donation to her campaign, and will Kathy pay or the Chamber pay the $10,000 fine for dialing my number, which is on the "do not call" list?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Coincidence
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2013 at 9:55 pm

Nancy,

I noticed a couple of the Narum signs in the Mohr/Santa Rita, Valley area were taken down right before this blog came out, what a coincidence!!! If the property owner has issues with some campaign sign being put up incorrectly, it is important for the property owner to contact the candidate, all the candidates are nice people, in my opinion. They will for sure will take care of this issue immediately.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shiela
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 14, 2013 at 10:03 pm

I wish Narum and Sanwong would be more considerate and respectful of property owner's rights. I am so tired of all of the negative comments etc.. tired of all of the nasty comments flying around. Let's get it together folks! Developer money, Union money; is this what we as citizens want for our Community?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sherry
a resident of Country Fair
on Apr 14, 2013 at 10:03 pm

I got a call too and I hate robo calls! Get me off your list! Tacky use of a Mayor's title to now use him for your cheap ads. Shame on him.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 14, 2013 at 10:40 pm

Hi Jim,

Thank you for asking about a call you received from Mayor Thorne endorsing Kathy Narum.

All 4 candidates, including David Miller, interviewed for endorsement by the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce. Kathy Narum was selected for endorsement because of her many years of experience and leadership within the city.

As the candidates know, any activities pursued by the Chamber are done by the Chamber and with their own funding. There is no communication with the candidate or their staff about their efforts. If you have any questions about the campaign the Chamber ran, you should feel free to reach out to them directly as our campaign team had no involvement.

We are proud that the Chamber, the Pleasanton Weekly and that Mayor Thorne (as well as former Mayors Pico and Mercer) have all supported Kathy Narum for the City Council. They have all seen her in action over the years and know she brings much experience and independent leadership to this role.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John D
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Apr 15, 2013 at 8:32 am

To Jim (posted above) -

Unfortunately political calls (which means those annoying robo calls) do not fall under the Do Not Call List rules. Go here Web Link and look under #23.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jason Q.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 8:59 am

The Pleasanton Chamber PAC almost always endorses left wing loons. Two prime examples are The Hippy Mayor (Hosterman) and C(r)ook-Kalio, both of whom are worried a lot more about national politics than Pleasanton, and both of which are union pawns. So the fact that the Pleasanton Chamber PAC endorsed Narum will cause me to look much more closely at her record to see if she is another left wing loon and/or union pawn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Common sense citizen
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 9:58 am

Hey Nancy,

Why don't you ask Kathy why she thinks a road is a structure?

Since when? Utter nonsense.

She won't be getting my vote, nor a lot of others, either.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 10:04 am

I too hate Robo calls. I just asked my Husband what he thought of them. His answer "I HATE THEM".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 15, 2013 at 1:03 pm

I am more concerned about the secret vote deal. Since it is a mail in ballot, it has my name on it and requires me to write down my address, and sign it! How anonymous is the vote really is?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chemist
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm

I don't care where Kathy Narum places her signs. I DO care that she is backed by tons of developers who are salivating over building high-density housing in Pleasanton. Even if we are unable to keep the high-density housing OUT OF PLEASANTON, we should elect people who will be asking developers to pay for all the infrastructure, schools, etc., and not burden the taxpayers. David Miller is the ONLY candidate we can trust to protect the taxpayers. Kathy Narum will be on the developer's pay back list.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 1:35 pm

"David Miller is the ONLY candidate we can trust to protect the taxpayers"

Hamilton is better

David Miller is a tea party types, and the two ladies are for high density housing.

Hamilton, while not perfect, is the best person for the job.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 5:36 pm

When is a sign not a sign? Should we dare ask that question?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 7:37 pm

It seems to have become fashionable to bash anyone associated with the Tea Party while our state Democrats have done ABSOLUTELTY nothing to help solve some our biggest issues: fiscal responsibility in general, the unfunded pension liability at every level of state government (including the Pleasanton Unified School District which is in bigger trouble than need be because they have chosen to ignore the red flags - probably in hopes the Teachers Union can solve their problems (and the CTA is trying to just that and it will happen at the expense of taxpayers, school budgets, and education in general). And it will happen!

For those of you concerned about class size reduction you should just "forget about it". It won't happen beyond the next election cycle (a prediction from the CTA). Why? The answer is the cost to fund pensions is about to suck 4.5 billion per year from school district budgets and the union doesn't want those dollars to come from teachers salaries, bloated teachers benefits that were enhanced in 2002, or teachers pensions. In technical terms, according to the Prop 30 language, that money does stay in the classroom because it goes right into the teachers retirement account.

For me this would be much less of a problem if the Teachers Union hadn't promoted legislation that diverted BILLIONS, actually TENS of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, from the their own retirement plan - to increase their own benefits. And now, because those very same benefit enhancements are greatly responsible for driving their own pension plan (CalSTRS) into the ground, they want taxpayers to give them even more money. The 4.5 Billion that CalPERS & the CTA wants, every year for the next thirty years, won't pay for one additional teacher nor will it reduce class size. The opposite is about to become reality.

CalPERS is projecting an increase of 50% over the next six years to pay for the pensions of their members even though we already pay twice the original cost today (CalPERS increased pension costs also impact the cost of non-teaching school district employees.

While some private sector employees enjoy a 3% match toward their 401k, our public employees are receiving, or about to receive, what amounts to 30-50% of pay being contributed to their retirement accounts (partly because their accounts can only go up in value because the state/pension system says so) - as opposed to private sector 401k plans that have lost significant value. The only way that can be sustained is by increasing taxes, reducing services substantially, or a combination of both. Get ready for the constant attack on your bank account to fund public employee retirement accounts for people that can retire at age 50, 55, or even 60 with full pay and lifetime medical benefits.

Prop 30 has already become known as the pension tax, and rightfully so. That's where the money is going to go. And when the tax expires (part of it expires in 4 years and the remainder expires in seven years) what happens then?

IMO, we need to forget about our former allegiance to a democratic party whose moral & fiscal compass has been stolen by the campaign dollars and political clout of the public employee unions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lou Skunt
a resident of Carlton Oaks
on Apr 15, 2013 at 7:56 pm

Arnold-

TLNR


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rollercoaster land tycoon
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Apr 15, 2013 at 8:10 pm

It seems to me that only Miller is the expansionist supporting building rollercoaster streets up and down the mountains greater than 25% all they way through the hills of Livermore and to highway 84, expanding Pleasanton's size so that the city has fees for outsized pensions.

Of course, Miller lives near the end of a cul de sac so it won't affect him.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Reader
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 15, 2013 at 8:41 pm

Dear Lou Skunit,
If you've read one of Arnold's post, you've read them all. Translation: Pleasanton/Cal/US ... unions are bad ... exorbitant salaries/pensions ... unsustainable salaries/pensions ... garbled facts, distorted stats ... lack of logical reasoning ... a tsunami is coming. There! You'll never need to read another post by the chicken little tea party alarmist.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 9:21 pm

Sorry Reader, but what I've really said is that the pension issue is a huge problem that the unions want to downplay to their own benefit; if pension costs increase the amount of money to increase wages decreases. The "PUBLIC" employee unions want the wages to increase, which also increases both the current cost and the pension payout, and the hell with the taxpayers. The unions aren't at ALL concerned with the funding level of pensions decreasing to very alarming levels because they believe the employer (taxpayer) is ultimately responsible for the full payment of the ridiculous pension payouts taxpayers are funding. Both CalPERS and CalSTRS, and all the "PUBLIC" employee unions say the taxpayers WILL pay because it is in our states constitution that anyone that works one single day is entitled to a pension payout that every reasonable person thinks is unsustainable. Rubbish.

The taxpayers are being fleeced.

Reader, you said: "If you've read one of Arnold's post, you've read them all. Translation: Pleasanton/Cal/US ... unions are bad".

I've never said that. I support private sector unions. And I'm not concerned about the unions from other states, most of which don't earn anywhere near what "California PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS" in pay or pensions - not even close and not by a long shot. I also draw a distinction between, as a recent former Democrat mind you, Democrats nationwide and the democrats here in California. Unfortunaely the California Democrats can't get elected or promoted unless they do what the unions tell them to do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Arnold said,

"...Why? The answer is the cost to fund pensions is about to suck 4.5 billion per year from school district budgets and the union doesn't want those dollars to come from teachers salaries, bloated teachers benefits that were enhanced in 2002, or teachers pensions. "

I say baloney. Pleasanton doesn't have money for small K-3 classes because Pleasanton excessively restricts building. Dublin has unionized teachers with large, generous pensions. But Dublin has small class sizes. The reason PUSD has such deep funding problems is because of Pleasanton's building restrictions, not because of pension obligations. Do you get that Arnold?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rollercoaster land tycoon
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Apr 15, 2013 at 9:48 pm

Small K-3 classes aren't at PUSD because PUSD squanders what money it has on administrator salaries rather than teacher salaries. Also it has borrowed so much money over the years that building fees go to pay down that debt. None of the developers trust PUSD because of the entire Signature Properties Neal School fiasco where PUSD sued the developer for fraud. The Board of Trustees majority (3) doesn't believe small classes for K-3 classes areimportant and don't value individualized instruction. That is why the Board just hired a bunch of instructional coaches.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 9:55 pm

John, your argument is false. The Dublin Unified School District, as well as all School Districts in the entire state of Ca., will suffer from the same financial drain that is the increased cost of pensions/unfunded pension liability payments.

The pension burden is so large there is just no escaping the problem short of serious reform.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 10:02 pm

Posted by Rollercoaster land tycoon, "Small K-3 classes aren't at PUSD because PUSD squanders what money it has on administrator salaries rather than teacher salaries."

Rollercoaster, it doesn't matter. Read my previous post. You're fighting over money that wont be there in two years anyway. The money for both reduced class size and administrators salaries is about to go toward pensions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lou Skunt
a resident of Carlton Oaks
on Apr 15, 2013 at 10:17 pm

Arnold, yes, the taxpayers are on the hook for the pensions they approved via passing Senate Bill 400 in 1999. for all those with 20/20 hindsight who now say they knew it was "unrealistic and unsustainable" from the get, you're about 14 years late to the game. SB400 could have and should have been at least tweaked in a few ways to ease the current burden. the easiest would have been to only include the new formula for as many years as you put into it. a huge part of the problem was that a fire fighter who had been paying into a 2% @ 55 or similar formula, was instantly bumped to 3% @ 50. the problem was that people like you who were receiving 18-20% returns on your 401k's didn't really care that the lowly public employees were getting a pension kick. but again, i'm sure you knew it was bad news at the time right?

regardless. this is a democracy and majority rules. SB400 passed and we owe what we promised. we're already screwing new public employees as tiered pension formulas are becoming the norm in collective bargaining. to be fair, it is not just the taxpayers that are paying. concession bargaining is also the norm for public labor groups. they are receiving reduced pay to help with the unfunded liability, but tea partiers like you will never be satisfied until the worker is paying for 100% of the voters mistake.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Las Positas
on Apr 15, 2013 at 10:44 pm

Are we really talking about signs again?? Who cares where Narum or Miller for that matter place their signs when we have serious issues facing Pleasanton. What about the unfunded pension liability? What about the forced high density housing coming to Pleasanton? And regarding that high density housing... there will be more coming in the future beyond the areas recently rezoned as a result of the lawsuit Pleasanton lost. If you want to talk about important issues regarding the candidates lets discuss all the developers backing Narum and the PUBLIC unions backing Sanwong? Enough with the signs! Focus on what is really important and at stake in Pleasanton!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2013 at 11:40 pm

"John, your argument is false. "

Bull. Dublin schools have small class sizes and the district is flush with cash. Pleasanton k-3 classes are large and the district is strapped for cash. It is not because of pensions. It is because of development restrictions. Do you get that?

" will suffer from the same financial drain"

You're talking about some future problem. I'm talking about the present. Every problem is not a pension problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rollercoaster land tycoon
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Apr 16, 2013 at 12:31 am

Pleasanton K-3 classes are large because Pleasanton trustees haven't been able to get their act together to build an actual school for the last 12 years or so.

In the first place, Pleasanton trustees have no idea how to apply to get state funds to get a school built. They don't have anyone on staff that knows how to work the process. It's the blind leading the blind over there.

Next, even if they did, they won't because they don't want to build any schools. They just want to keep packing the kids in classrooms like sardines.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2013 at 8:37 am

"Rollercoaster land tycoon",

Just five years ago, class sizes were still 20 students in K-3. Teachers were fired because there wasn't enough money to pay them. There was space for them, just not teachers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 16, 2013 at 10:09 am

To Common sense citizen,

Wanted to respond to your question a day or so ago about why anyone would think a road is a structure. The letters to the editor written by Cindy McGovern and Anne Fox in Friday's Pleasanton Weekly did a better job than i ever could saying why a road is a structure. Cindy and Ann were instumental in crafting measure PP and getting it passed. They said roads (as well as homes) were never intended to be on slopes more than 25%. The intent of PP was to protect key ridges and hillsides from building of either. A road can be just as distructive to a view as a home.

It sounds like those within PP team now have 2 different perspectives on this and the Council will need to make a final decision. I hope the Council protects the original intent of those who co-authored PP and protects our hillsides.


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

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,486 views

Not Endorsements
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,080 views