Town Square

Post a New Topic

Measure C Passes With 35%

Original post made by Joe on May 6, 2009

According to an article in the Contra Costa Times by Eric Louie of the San Ramon Valley Times...There are 81,150 registered voters in the San Ramon Valley and 39,271 took the time to vote. That is 48% cared about the schools or taxes. Measure C passed with 73% approval which means that only 35% of the voters care about money being taken from them. Is it no wonder that none of our neighbors to the north seem upset about the Fire Chief's pension?
I think the voters in Pleasanton know the facts about Measure G and they will vote in sufficient numbers. So if the Yes-G people are gaining hope from the San Ramon vote, DON'T. This is a bad tax for salary raises and the people know it.

Comments (20)

Posted by Diana, a resident of Harvest Park Middle School
on May 6, 2009 at 12:07 pm


San Ramon had a very effective argument saying:

"San Ramon needs this parcel tax because even with it Pleasanton gets A LOT more money than we do!"


Posted by ChangedmyMind, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Apathy is part of every election and it is a shame. To Diana, Pleasanton will not get A LOT more money if Measure G passes and we show the state a willingness to pass a parcel tax and then it will be on the property owner's shoulders forever because the tax will be renewed, as has already been demonstrated, again and again and...


Posted by Barbara, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 6, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Was against a new tax. After reading all these blogs, I am all for it. Can't believe what the anti group is trying to sell. I am not buying - show a little class. Congratulate San Ramon for 70% passage rate. Enough already.


Posted by go San Ramon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Yeah, San Ramon and every other city too...sorry No on G people, You're going down!!! Are the people of Plesasanton so much worse off than people in these other cities that they can't handle another tax??...I don't think so. People understand that schools are one of the most important thing in the community, and even if you don't agree with everything the board does, it still benefits everyone to pass these taxes. Yes on G!!!


Posted by Stu Gazzo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 2:30 pm

You all keep ignoring the fact that most of the voters did not even vote. I think that goes to the heart of the budget troubles the government is having at all levels-schools, police, fire, state, county, city. Nobody cares until it really starts to hurt the wallet, but by then its too late.
Now here comes Measure G which affords the voters of Pleasanton an opportunity to stand up to the employee service unions and put an end to being held hostage. Its a Golden Opportunity, don't waste it by believing all the scare tactics used by PUSD or someone from San Ramon who should be worried about those magical pensions that they are paying for. Ya, I read the other post about the Fire Chief.


Posted by Concerned, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Never underestimate the stupidity or indifference of the average voter. That is why we get screwed by the politicians and the public sector unions. I hope there are more intelligent people like the ones on this blog. If we cannot get a 1/3rd vote to block G there is no hope for us. We may as well leave the People's Republic of California. I am hopeful but still fear the worst.


Posted by holy drama batman!, a resident of Birdland
on May 6, 2009 at 3:53 pm

"If we cannot get a 1/3rd vote to block G there is no hope for us. We may as well leave the People's Republic of California. I am hopeful but still fear the worst."

Isn't that a BIT dramatic? Oh my gosh! If the city rallies around education the way San Ramon did, we're all doooomed!

It's not the coming of the apocalypse, it's a 4-year, $233 tax to support public schools (and their teachers) through a recession.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on May 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm

Parent of Two is a registered user.

I'm tired of the parcel tax advocates positioning this unnecessary tax as a way to "support public schools". This is a way of perpetuating poor finanical planning by giving more money to administrators who have been proven to be incompetent financial managers.

If you give money to drunks asking for money in front of a liquor store, then by all means, vote yes. If you walk past them (and tell your kids to steer clear), then you should be voting NO on this tax. Look closely at the administration and you'll see bureaucrats that got drunk with our money, and have their hand out for more.


Posted by resident, a resident of Birdland
on May 6, 2009 at 5:41 pm

So let me get this straight: Teachers eat their young (other post) and administrators are the town drunk.

Who are the counselors? ... the town whore?? And the custodians who are facing job losses? I know! How about the grim reaper? I'm sure we could fit in a Hitler reference in here somewhere to add to the demagoguery!



Posted by just homeschool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 5:47 pm

thank you resident!! These posts are truly absurdity. Really people, have you ever lived anywhere where the school district and administrators actually did suck? I have, and it's a lot different than it is in Pleasanton. It seems like you may have lived here for too long. If you are this disgruntled, then either move or homeschool. Nobody really needs your kid in the schools if you hate it this much. Homeschooling is for you!! Apparently you could do a much better job, so do it!


Posted by WonderWoman, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Okay, has anyone noticed that the postings in the last few days have gone from discussions with information to just ridiculous stuff?
I detect a bit of leg pulling. Or it could be that some people are deliberately posting offensive or insulting comments to get a rise out of people or to portray other posters (both for and against G) negatively?
The people who have been trying to have a discussion about the parcel tax on these blogs have been trying to keep the discussion civilized and even inject a little humor at times.
Let's all stop being fooled by these bogus posts. They're just an annoying distraction from an issue that matters to this community.


Posted by Add to resident, a resident of Castlewood
on May 6, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Resident: you forgot to mention that the voters are lemmings ;)


Posted by Russell, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 6, 2009 at 8:25 pm

"thank you resident!! These posts are truly absurdity. Really people, have you ever lived anywhere where the school district and administrators actually did suck?"

Exactly my point. I've lived in a bad district too. I hope some of these posts are coming from trolls or children. They don't know how good they have it. Whether measure G passes or fails I hope we don't loose sight of the fact that we have good schools and teachers here in Pleasanton, and it is part of what makes the town a great place to live.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 6, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Russell,

you rock with your intelligent posts.......not!


Posted by Action speaks louder, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 6, 2009 at 9:13 pm

"I'm tired of the parcel tax advocates positioning this unnecessary tax as a way to "support public schools". This is a way of perpetuating poor finanical planning by giving more money to administrators who have been proven to be incompetent financial managers."

I'm tired of people posting slanderous statements about a district that has consistently demonstrated conservative fiscal planning. Your one liner is not holding up it's argument- PUSD was the one district in this area to NOT have a parcel tax last year because of their good financial planning.

Where were all the postings on this website when that was going on? Figures, when times are good, there is no interest in how the schools are run.

Comments like yours may help you justify why you wont vote to invest in our schools, but I see them as a way to bury your head in the sand and not have to face the truth about what the state of California is doing to public education.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Apperson Ridge
on May 6, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Let's repeat Joe....Measure C passed. All people had to do was mail in their vote.

Measure G is not about salary raises. Stop showing your ignorance by posting lies to scare the voters of Pleasanton.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 6, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Actions: The district has been neither conservative nor planners. The only one liners and emotional arguments are coming from the yes side. I looked for the pertinent data. Show me data where I'm wrong; I'll correct what I've stated. I'll even vote for the tax if you can do the same homework and change my mind.

PUSD gave three years of raises that could not be sustained without continued COLAs from the state and/or growing enrollment.

They had a plan for a 7% reserve and abandoned it, because they gave raises they needed to cover first. That implemented reserve could be incredibly useful now.

This administration was handed a solvent district. Stating $x in matches $x in expenses does not indicate a budget is sustainable. Assumptions about COLAs and enrollments are made to speculate about future sustainability.

The district intended to have a parcel tax (and I don't have the date) a couple years ago, and decided against it when the survey indicated there was insufficient support for it to pass.

These are all facts.

If you believe the state caused the district's problems, vote yes on 1A and B--you won't need Measure G.

Solutions other than cutting CSR and raising a parcel tax have been offered and ignored. Pleasanton voters can hold the district to the kind of expectations they have for our community's children by voting No on Measure G.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on May 6, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Parent of Two is a registered user.

So, Kathleen, what you're saying is that we handed the district a big bag of cash years ago, and they didn't plan for the possibility (likelihood?) of an economic downturn, and are coming back for another bag of cash to cover their lack of financial planning (and will probably mis-manage this bag of cash too)?

And there are people ready to hand over their money? NO! People in Pleasanton aren't that short-sighted and simple-minded, are they?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 6, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Action wrote: "a district that has consistently demonstrated conservative fiscal planning"

If the District is such conservative planners, how come they have a big fat ZERO in funding their $11MM liability for retiree medical benefits?


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on May 6, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Parent of Two is a registered user.

Oh, and to "Action speaks louder", your screen name is exactly correct.

The financial mismanagement by the district, their subsequent lack of motion towards a non-tax solution, and their deliberate waste of taxpayer money for a special election means that we shouldn't give them any more money until they get their financial s*** together.

Their irresponsible actions have spoken loudly to me. Why aren't you listening?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 1,060 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 864 views