Posted by Kurt Kummer, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:40 am

Tim, I think that the building you're referring to is the new Zone 7 demineralization facility. It's located on land owned by Zone 7, and the City of Pleasanton can't do much about it one way or the other.

Posted by Another Gatetree Resident, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Not to mention DROUGHT presents a concern greater than a "butt ugly" building.

Posted by My 2/100, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Grow up, Tim.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 7:53 pm

How does a demineralization facility help the draught? LOL

How is that an intelligent argument?

Tim is superficial but so are most in Pleasanton.....

Posted by Tim, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Kurt: You mean that if I own some property I can build whatever I want on it? I don't think so.

I think the plant removes salt and other minerals from water, thereby helping the drought. Why they couldn't do that in a nicely designed building is beyond me. The must have hired the Dublin BART parking garage contractor to design it.

To "My 2/100": I have grown up. I've lived in Pleasanton for over 20 years as well as many other places before Pleasanton.

Posted by Tim, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Thanks for watching out for us and asking about the indeed butt ugly building in town.

Unfortuneatly your simple observation brought out the big mouths in town that really make this town ugly!

Don't take anything personally - most of the comments were by the typical trolls on the forum.

Posted by TO Tim, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Correction...that was TO TIM.

Posted by Another Gatetree Resident, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 4:50 am

Cholo -- You miss my point. We have "Tim" whining about a butt ugly "water" related building when drought is a much bigger issue. I hate to say this, but Tim's post supports your "shallowness" perspective of most who now call Pleasanton home.

Posted by Get out, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 5:58 am

After we get rid of the ugly buildings, lets get rid of the ugly people.

Posted by observer, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 9:05 am

You people don't really have enough to do these days.

Posted by Unemployed, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 10:43 am

Wow, someone just woke up. The building has been there for over a year and you just noticed it? drive more starbucks or peets coffee! For me McCafe instead... can't afford expensive coffee!

Posted by D W, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 10:45 am

The ugliness at that intersection isn't helped by all of the State-related work from CalTrans and beyond (highway signs galore). Not good to have these spots near apartment buildings, homes, businesses, and even St Liz Seton.

As for the worst ugly, forget the buildings and the people. Let's get rid of the ugly talk radio shows, ugly ignorance of the issues, and ugly shoutdowns. Then maybe we'll find more beautiful ground with our lives let alone our properties.

Posted by Trolo, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 11:46 am

Cholo - If you think any of us are anonymous on this forum, you are mistaken. Please keep that in mind when you make inarticulate attempts to insult people.

Posted by Scott Curtis, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 10:18 pm

The demineralization facility is being built by Zone 7 to address the mineral content of the ground water (that residents often complain about in terms of taste and spotting shower doors).

As a separate public agency, Zone 7 does not have to get approval from the City of Pleasanton as to design of its buildings (just like BART, DMV, or the Alameda County Superior Court buildings in town).

Individual property owners, whether for homes or businesses, do have to go to the Pleasanton Planning Department for approval for new buildings or changes to current buildings.

Posted by Melissa, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Separate public agencies (for instance, like EBRPD and the California Splash water park) do have to get approval from the municipal government for buildings built within the city limits.

Posted by S**t Flows Downhill, a resident of the Ruby Hill neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 3:26 pm

The fact that cities have very little control over what public agencies build in the cities is another regrettable aspect of Califrnia law. In a number of states, cities have much more control (although not total control) about what gets built within thier boundaries. In many things, California law is based on top-down control(i.e. s**t flows downhill). It fits in well now, with the Socialists controlling the California government, because their whole belief system is about an elitist class dictating to the populus. Such as Jerry Brown wanting to dictate how many houses Pleasanton can or cannot have, or Sacramento dictating what your kids will learn in school (ensuring they are steeped in left-wing loonism).

Posted by Luke, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 3:35 pm

S**t Flows Downhill,

You've got that one right. You comment about the school curriculum is right on. In every grade (K-8) they are DRILLED with Martin Luther King info/propaganda, but get very little information about the founding fathers, the founding principles, or the Presidents (with the possible exception of JFK). After all, those people were a bunch of OLD WHITE MEN, seemingly the most villified creatures in this country now.