City Council considering appeal of Oak Grove court order Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Nov 21, 2008 at 8:43 am
The Pleasanton City Council will consider what action to take at its Dec. 2 meeting in response to an order by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch that directs City Manager Nelson Fialho to sign and formalize an agreement the council earlier approved with developers of a 600-acre project in the southeast hills.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 21, 2008, 12:00 AM
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 8:43 am
"However, legal advisors said the sign development agreement gives the Lins another bargaining chip in persuading the appellate court to reject the Ayala appeal."
It is a two way street. If the document is signed, it can help the Lins as suggested above. If the document is not signed, it could hurt the Lins by being argued that they don't have vested rights in the development agreement.
Posted by Lorianne, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 3:46 pm
When is the Weekly going to glom onto the fact that a majority of Pleasanton residents could care less about the 496 acres of "free" land from the Lins? This piece of random information precedes EVERY single Weekly discussion regarding the Oak Grove property development or referendum. Hey, Jeb you can stop sugar coating this project. We get it, your newspaper wants to see those homes built. Try a little honesty for a change and stop pushing this we're so lucky to be getting this "gift" routine to make it all seem palatable.
When the people voted YES on PP they voted not only to save the hills they also said NO to the dangled carrot of the greenway trail fantasy. They didn't care for it, or didn't care enough to sacrifice something precious. If they'd have been allowed to vote on the referendum I'm sure it would have passed with an alarming majority (alarming to the Lins and the minority development-focused folks in this town!) hence, the Lin lawsuit to block it.
The Lins will obviously do (or sue!) whatever it takes to develop this property no matter how Pleasanton feels about it, the Weekly, sadly and for whatever reason, appears driven down the same path.
Posted by Winsum Losum, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
"Vested rights"......maybe. Don't forget where the Lins ended up when they tried to defy Measure D with their aquired property in North Livermore. In that business you've got to expect that you'll win some and lose some.
Should the Save the Hills referendum appeal prevail and the people have an opportunity to vote, a new Oak Grove plan may not pass muster with a more "objective" council or the new PP restrictions.
Of course they do have their lawyers on retainer....
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Lorianne, your comment
"When the people voted YES on PP they voted not only to save the hills they also said NO to the dangled carrot of the greenway trail fantasy. "
is faulty. PP said nothing about Oak Grove, the 496 acres, or anything of the like. Did you read the PP initiative? Tell me where it described to the voter what you purport? Or are you just making a W.A. extrapolation? Yes, of course you are.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm
The question at hand is whether the council will choose to appeal the judges order to the city manager to sign the document. The council has already indicated to the city manager to sign the document when they approved the project on a 4-1 vote.
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The chance of the majority of the council voting against the signing of the development agreement for the OG project is about zero. This council has run scared every time the Lin's attorney threatens a lawsuit and they will certainly appease him again this time. It is frightening when an attorney threatens to sue and could potentially take the City's precious funds in the process. The Lin family so wealthy, they could drain our city coffers in no time.
The majority wants the development and the majority will vote time and time again to move the development forward.
Regarding Lorianne's comments - I agree. The reduction in ridgetop building lots due to measure PP will reduce the gift of land to the City for trails and "open" space. At least that is what I heard Dolores B. say over and over and over. Fewer houses on the ridges will net fewer trails. And that is a trade I will make every day - and so will most of the folks I talk to.
Wait the council and the Lin Family know that! -- that's why they don't want OG to go to a vote of the PEOPLE rather than a Judge or a council!
Posted by Howard, a member of the Valley View Elementary School community, on Nov 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm
anonymous, you seem to not have your facts straight. The Lin family did not develop Kottinger Park. I've lived in this city for over forty years. It was built by park bonds and its contruction was financed by the city in 1968. Sounds like 'anonymous' is some sort of publicist person for the Lins. Before claiming they did something, why not check your facts first?