NO PARCEL TAX NECESSARY & PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT NOT NEEDING A TAX? Schools & Kids, posted by doglover, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 10, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Hello, Archie and Jughead here. We live with Doglover.
We are so happy we can't stop wagging our tails.
Today we got real chicken as a special treat.
Doglover is celebrating because there's no need for the parcel tax. Doglover says the U.S. Calvary came to the rescue. We don't know what a calvary is, but we like it. Doglover says so of course we like it because we've had part of what makes a calvary in our dog food. Doglover says things we don't understand.
But doglover says there are things Doglover doesn't understand. There is no need for a parcel tax, but there are people who are complaining because it's not needed. They still want to pay the tax. .
Doglover says some taxes are necessary and they provide good things for all of us - police and fire protection, parks, clean streets and much more. We love fire fighters and police officers. They always smile at us and give us pats on the head. We love having beautiful parks where we can visit our friends and play catch the frisbee. We don't much like clean streets because dirty ones have food that the little people drop and sometimes we can get the food in our mouths before Doglover catches us and says NO. We've learned to swallow fast.
But the parcel tax isn't necessary, and if Doglover has to pay it, no more real chicken for us.
We don't understand. Why would anyone want to pay a tax when there's no need for the tax? That does not seem very smart.
Doglover said it isn't, but that smart people will vote NO on G.
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 9:16 am
It's a little known fact that I'm a dog-whisperer and a friend of dogs. The real ones that lick your hand and jump into your lap when you are feeling low. I don't love dogs like Props A-G. I feel a need to translate for 'Doglover' whose earlier barkings are obtuse. What 'Doglover' appears to be saying is that the dogs like Props A-G should be put to sleep quickly and humanely by compassionate and thoughtful people. The owners of Props A-G are selfish and hope to benefit by prolonging the agony of A-G and the pain they inflict on those they affect. A week from Tuesday, don't bark around the tree like 'Doglover'. Send a clear message to our State and local 'leaders' that we have had enough. VOTE NO AS MANY TIMES AS LEGAL!
Posted by Timothy, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 10:22 am
yes it is true about the turf and why do we need 2 full football fields 3 miles apart anyway? What a joke. When they both play at home on the same weekend have Foothill play on Friday night or Amador play on Saturday night or vice versa. Fremont has been doing it for years at Tak Fudenna. We need to wise up people. Today the Messiah came out and said we are now spending to much!!!
Posted by Casual Observer, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The reason why Amador and Foothill have new turf is because the original turf was improperly installed creating major flooding problems not only on the turf but also the track. It was becoming a safety issue. Maybe someone with knowledge of the original contract would be able to discuss the legal part of this and what the district did to recoup the original cost. Tim, as for your comments you must be completely unaware of the amount of use both fields get. They are just not there for football. You have band, soccer, lacrosse etc etc etc. That field is in use 75% of the time for both schools. If you eliminate one field where do you put all the kids and activities that will be displaced?
Posted by Tim, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I suspect that if we only had one field we could figure out a way to manage it and could make it work. Soccer could be played at the sports park with one of the 25 fields we have there or at one of our 3 middle schools who have facilities better than most high schools.
Posted by fields, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 1:50 pm
The original turf was installed correctly. That was not the problem. Artificial turf has a finite life of 8-10 years (with that previous technology) and the turf was starting to wear down at both campuses so the district replaced it at both schools. The drainage problems are caused by the clay soil we have in Pleasanton. With the new turf, they did a different base that should allow the area to drain better.
While it does cost more the put in artificial turf, it is actually cheaper over the longrun. No need to water, fertilize, mow, etc. Plus it is usable for more of the school year. A normal field is unusable for some time rain because of the mud. The schools do use the fields for their normal PE activities.
Posted by Casual Observer, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Tim, good observation regarding the Sports Park, however there is just one problem with that, high school soccer is played in the winter and most games are at night. The Sports Park and middle schools do not have lights and the field are closed when it rains.
Thank you fields for the information, but I will respectfully disagree with you on one aspect. The field turf was indeed laid correctly however the drainage that was installed under the turf was where the issue was. Both Amador and Foothill's fields were flooding as soon as the first rain fell on the field. I have seen the field at both sidelines and middle of the field have 1-2 inches of standing water. Both schools and district were not happy with the issue.
Posted by Tim, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I guess my point is that in order to reduce costs and I believe that to be necessary now and in the future there is not reason why would could not play the soccer games in the afternoons at the sports park and not at night under the lights like we do baseball games.
Posted by No Way!!, a resident of the Golden Eagle neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Well let's see...they only want $233 per year for four years....and they will tell you that's only $0.63 per day...BUT here's the REAL problem with this tax:
Our school leaders controlling the budget messed up - they couldn't balance the budget for today's requirements...and now we have to pay...NO WAY!
Let's see....$233 divided by 2080 hours worked per year equals $0.11 per hour! While not much you may think BUT shoule we reward those who mess up? Besides, at only $0.11 per hour...let them give it back from THEIR paycheck....after all...they are the one's who messed up!
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on May 11, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Yes on G: It would help if you could explain why one would vote for the measure when $6.7 million (more than the parcel tax would bring the first year) in federal funding is coming to the district. Enough money to allow the community time to assess the district's budget and fiscal practices, get it back in shape, and for the community to determine what might be needed in additional funding . . . if anything.
If there is no need for factual information, all I would need to do is type no over and over.