Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2007 at 8:50 am

"They explained their strategy to pass laws that will make it impossible to develop the property, thus forcing the property owner to give all their land to Pleasanton in order to avoid having to pay taxes on their now worthless property," Dennis said.

Haha, is that really what was said? As if the Lins don't have enough money to pay the taxes. As if they would just GIVE the property over to Pleasanton. Eminent domain actions like that result in MONETARY EXCHANGE. Pleasanton, don't be foolish. You can't pass laws like that.

Posted by Becky Dennis, a resident of the Foxborough Estates neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Hi, Jeb -

I am not the chair of Keep Our Park. We are well led by Parks and Recreation Commissioner Jerry Pentin. Please print a correction in you next issue. Thanks.

Posted by dave osl, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2007 at 12:43 am

Councilwoman McGovern and retired Navy officer Abernathy are right. 10 to 20 years from now we won't want to see monstrous mansions on those beautiful hillsides and Pleasanton should retain its uniqueness by continuing to manage growth with great care. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could preserve that openspace for all the critters currently residing there and keep the natural ecology intact for people living in this community decades from now? I think we could get more creative and figure out how to buy people's land to preserve our waning openspace when it's in the interest of future generations.

Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

If the last poster actually researched what the visual impact is likely to be, he might not so readily buy into the propaganda statements and instead may realize that the existing Kottinger Hills development will continue to be the most visually obtrusive on those hills.