I see many yes on G signs on lawns. Schools & Kids, posted by Wondering, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 11:57 am
I have noticed a lot of Yes on G signs on people’s lawns. I have not seen one No on G sign yet, although there might be a few. After reading all the posts and articles on G I’d say the town is split on the issue (no duh, huh?). So why no ‘NO on G’ signs? Is it that nobody is making them? Is it that it is politically incorrect to put one on your lawn? Is it that people fear retribution or scorn? People seemed fearless with their Prop 8 signs on both sides, and I think both sides were as, or more, disgusted by each other. Will we find out that No on G were the sign silent majority? I know it’s a 2/3 vote so it won’t take more than say 10,000 no votes. Anyway people are blissful in their anonymity here and the No on G people are extending it to their lawns.
Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I have choosen not to put a No on G sign in my yard because I live in a neighborhood with many teachers. I value their friendships and don't wish to create any riffs in those friendships because of my views on the topic. If they ask me, I will be honest in my reply, but I feel no need to put it in the "open".
Additionally my children attend school and I do not want to risk any "outing" of them in any way. Yes, I understand most teachers wouldn't act any differently to them, but the small risk that one might is enough to keep me from displaying my opposition to G in the form of a sign on my lawn.
Given how politically active Pleasanton is, during any given election you can find several "Pro" signs on large numbers of neighborhood lawns, and seeing how few their are in relation to measure G, I think that speaks volumes to what to expect from Measure G's chance of passing.
Posted by Ann Martin, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on May 28, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I can't speak for every person who does not support Measure G, but I have been public in my opposition to Measure G, and because I am not personally swayed to vote one way or the other based on signs and ads, I don't think my spending money for a sign is going to influence anyone or anything except my checking account balance.
Also, I admit it, I'm cheap. If someone wants to give me a nice professionally made sign for my lawn that says NO ON G, I'll take it and put it up. I'm not worried about political correctness or incorrectness or retribution. I have friends on both sides of this issue and while I disagree with those who are for the parcel tax, I recognize that we all share the same goal - a desire for our children to receive a quality education. It is possible to disagree on this issue, but still like and respect those with whom I disagree.
The community will make its decision on the parcel tax, and I'll keep plunking away at the budget looking for ways to cut expenses that don't have anything to do with educating our children. While I believe it's always a good thing to monitor expenses, in this economy, it's more important than ever to be sure that every budget dollar supports our students. (I did warn you that I am cheap)
As for the yes on g lawn signs, there's another way to look at them and that is to count the yards that don't have signs! :)
Now I know that by posting something on the blogs, I've opened the door to all those who want to respond to my comments and I ask that you not take offense if I don't respond back until tomorrow. However, I have about a huge pile of senior grad night forms to cross reference against an excel spread sheet, want to put in an hour on the treadmill and I'm planning on attending the Amador Drama Awards event tonight so I will not be able to reply until tomorrow.
Posted by Billie, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 1:33 pm
If I were wondering about the proliferation of pro-Prop G signage, I might be more inclined to wonder about the cost of the pro-G lawn signs, as well as the cost of the special election, the campaign, the website, the spiffy mailers that have been sent out weekly, and the advertising in the local papers.
I might wonder why the pro-G folks collecting all that money to "save Pleasanton schools" haven't made arrangements to donate it to the school district instead. Because, really, whether or not Prop G passes, wouldn't the schools benefit more than the dump when the voting is done and all that campaign litter is thrown away?
Posted by Sandy, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The costs of holding the election and the costs of the YES on G campaign are completely separate, as required by law.
The pro-G campaign has collected private donations of (as reported on the Save Pleasanton Schools website) $60,000. It pays for ads, yard signs, mailers, and phone bills for the phone banking. I believe the website has been donated -- could be wrong, though. Oh, and water for the folks who walked precincts to talk to their neighbors about the measure. And a few snacks.
My yard sign was not free -- because I donated to the campaign. I am fortunate to be able to do so, as well as donating to the PTA at Alisal, and to my daughter's classroom. Others who cannot afford to donate can still get a yard sign if they want one. It will say YES on G, though -- none of our donors wanted to pay to make NO signs.
$60,000 spent on the campaign will result in $4.58 million dollars coming into the school district each year over the next 4 years, if the measure passes. My direct donation to the school is more than what I donated to the YES campaign, but it does not have anywhere near the same multiplier effect.
I donate time and money to the schools directly. I chose to donate to the campaign as well, because I thought it would improve our community to do so.
Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm Parent of Two is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Count me in the "What's the point?" column of sign-posting. And it's not just about Measure G. I've never had any political signage on my lawn, on my car, on a t-shirt, or anywhere on my person.
Why bother? Is someone going to change his/her vote because "that guy has a sign/bumpersticker"? Is anything POSITIVE going to come from it, or will it start arguments where none existed?
p.s. I also happen to live a couple of houses away from a PUSD administrator with his Yes-on-G sign. He has no idea which way I'm voting, and there's no reason to tell him. Isn't that the purpose of a secret ballot?
Posted by parent, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on May 28, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The parcel tax committee knew there would be no organized fundraisers against them and no opposition campaign that takes money. It is amazing they are wasting $60,000 to $80,000 on a campaign with no opposition that is spending any money. The district also spent a lot more of our tax money to have a special election by itself instead of at the May election. I would add that additional cost of the special election to the cost for the parcel tax campaign. All of this money could go to great use in the schools. Even one of our school board members talks about the great donations that San Ramon gets for its schools. We should be looking for donations to the schools instead of donations for printing, mailing, signs, and hugely expensive ads in the paper.
I feel sorry for the boosters clubs and PTAs if the parcel tax does pass. I would imagine donations to their organizations will go down significantly because people will feel their parcel tax amount will be their donation for the year. Then the parent organizations will be less able to fund the exact programs they want to fund and will rely on the district's bureaucracy. This parcel tax will be paying for raises instead of going to our great programs; including music and sports.
Posted by Big Poppa, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on May 29, 2009 at 5:49 am
I have seen exactly 4 signs in my neighborhood. The reason the school district is having the stand alone vote is that they are hoping for a low turnout of mostly for G voters while the no on G voters are hard at work trying to pay for all of the additional taxes and fees put upon us/them. For those who believe that additional taxes are the answer the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy are real. What a bunch of dopes.
Posted by pot calling the kettle, a resident of the Grey Eagle Estates neighborhood, on May 29, 2009 at 9:22 am
KGM- Some on both sides have been a-holes. Trying to say that all the no G'ers have 'yet to be elevated' is insulting too. They are the ones putting up the numbers and doing the research, mostly. Both sides have those that are name calling.
Yes on G- 'you don't care about kids, mean spirited people like you,' the list goes on
No on G- 'living in a fantasy world, ignorant' and so on.
Posted by KGM, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on May 29, 2009 at 9:31 am
I think if you read the negative (and I don't mean "no on g," but negative tone) comments on this page, you will see that my observation has merit.
And numbers and research have been put up by both sides. I spent a great deal of time trying to counter incorrect and unfairly presented information that was posted by the "no" side, until I realized that it was a never-ending project and decided to focus my efforts elsewhere.
Posted by pot calling the kettle, a resident of the Grey Eagle Estates neighborhood, on May 29, 2009 at 10:38 am
It's not about this page or that page. READ ALL POSTS (if anyone has that kind of time) and you will see negativity on both sides, unless you are too biased and think, "Yeah like guy does hate kids." or "Yeah that person is greedy" or "That person is living in a fantasy world." You have to be blind on either side not to see it.