Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton to use stimulus funds to develop Climate Action Plan

Original post made on Sep 28, 2009

Stimulus funds totaling $107,216 have been allocated to Pleasanton for use in improving energy efficiency and creating jobs locally.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, September 28, 2009, 6:45 AM

Comments (28)

Posted by mark, a resident of Valley Trails
on Sep 28, 2009 at 8:50 am

what a waste of tax dollars ... how is this innovative? just another subsidy for govt consumption. until private business' become interested in alt energy, the best we'll see is solar roofs on schools.


Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 28, 2009 at 9:10 am

Its kind of a chicken / egg problem. Private business doesn't want to be an early adopter. Allowing the government to subsidize the development of the product through sales, makes it more likely that private business will adopt later once the price comes down, the reliability goes up, and the technology is more mature. Personally if the government is going to spend our money, I'd rather see them spend it on things like this over entitlement programs.


Posted by !, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 9:55 am

The "Stimulus" budget (which is having the exact opposite effect) was designed largely by domestic terrorist Jeff Jones, founder of the Weather Underground.

So it should not be surprising that this Stimulus Package would only stimulate a leftist-controlled government at the expense of the private sector.

Web Link

Would it be a stretch to ask McNerney to explain what the return-on-investment is regarding the climate change investment? No one will ask him because the ROI is simply not there. In fact, it will further damage our economy...but people like McNerney simply don't care or this is his deliberate agenda.

See article below.

Web Link


Posted by SG, a resident of Val Vista
on Sep 28, 2009 at 12:22 pm

What a waste of money!! That money should be used for the schools. Mr. McNerney should go volunter at Donlon School and see how the teachers spead themselves thin trying to teach 1st and 2nd graders. I would like to see him trying to give individual attention to the children who really need it and still maintiing control of the class. I volunteer and I notice the difference this year with 5 more children. I won't be voting for McNerney again. I didn't think McNerney would go the socialist way like Obama. What a disappointment.


Posted by Change in Opposite Direction of Obama/McNerney, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm

You are indeed wise, SG.

Please help spread the message that Obama's and McNerney's "Change" is a change away from the U.S. Constitution and everything that has made America great in the past.

Conservatives want "change" as well...except we want "change" toward what our Founding Father's intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. We are FOR "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ALL of which the Obama Democrats are against!


Posted by Just Wait, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm

November 2010!


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 1:05 pm

"We are FOR "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ALL of which the Obama Democrats are against!"
I am an Obama Democrat (I guess, since I'm a Democrat and I voted for Obama), and I am for ALL of those things, too!


Posted by "Change in Opposite", a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Hey "Change in Opposite" - you got your Foundinmg Fathers documents mixed up. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Maybe your understanding of what Obama and McNerney are trying to do is likewise ill informed.


Posted by change in opposite..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit..." was literally in the Constitution. I know my docs very well, you flaming lib. The latter is in the Preamble which is a doc you probably use in your restroom, similar to Obama.


Posted by Patriot Liberal, a resident of Downtown
on Sep 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm

"Conservatives want "change" as well...except we want "change" toward what our Founding Father's intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. We are FOR "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ALL of which the Obama Democrats are against!"

When people make statements like this, I feel sad for them, as it seems they have all but lost respect for the very rights they think there loosing.

Also, this is Bigoted thinking, as people are putting ALL Democrats in a box and making broad assumptions.

This very type of thinking is truly dividing our Country and the People of this beloved Country.

What is even more sad, is that their is a overwhelming number of Christian Conservatives standing behind this intolerant judgemental thinking.

This is going totally against the teachings of their SUPREME FOUNDING FATHER!


Posted by "Change in Opposite", a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2009 at 2:14 pm

"Opposite"

Here's your quoted text: "Conservatives want "change" as well...except we want "change" toward what our Founding Father's intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. We are FOR "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ALL of which the Obama Democrats are against!

Sounds like you were inferring that "Life, Liberty, etc" is indeed in the constitution, but then again, I'm just a dumb liberal.

Here's the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

When they wrote this, I wonder if the Founding Fathers thought it gave license for people to insult others who disagree with them? Nah! I think they hoped people could debate issues and disagree respectfully. But as I said, I'm just a dumb liberal.

What I fail to understand is the conservative rhetoric about Obama shredding the constitution. After eight years of George W. there's very little left to shred.


Posted by Sal, a resident of Downtown
on Sep 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm

So McNerney does something positive for Pleasanton and our resident right-wing Tea Party crew displays their typical hatred and even attacks Obama for good measure. Keep it classy Glenn Beck Fan Club.


Posted by Patriot Liberal, a resident of Downtown
on Sep 28, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Now THIS is worth a repost:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

THINK!


Posted by Gorgeous George, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 8:51 am

If this kind of nit-witted left-wing-loon squandering of yor tax dollars gets you hot under the collar, make a written note to yourself and hang it in a prominent place in your house. Then when the next election for City Council and Mayor comes around, VOTE THEM OUT!!!


Posted by No Loons, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 8:54 am

I'm with George. First on the chopping block are the Commie Mayor and the Leftist Civics Teacher. It still sticks in my craw the the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce endorsed these two and supported them with their PAC money.


Posted by Heil Obama, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 8:57 am

Sal,

You really need to lay off Obama's kool-aid else you will soon have to be saluting with a hearty Heil Obama!


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 9:06 am

Do you people read you own posts? You sound like a bunch of thugs. You should take up a sport or something to help you get rid of all your pent up angst. At the very least you should have the decency to be consistent with your online names.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 29, 2009 at 9:09 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"We the people of the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

That was the first draft...


Posted by geesh, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 9:33 am

Quote:
"Stimulus funds totaling $107,216 have been allocated to Pleasanton for use in improving energy efficiency and creating jobs locally."



Will the Congressman keep us posted on just how many citizens of Pleasanton ACTUALLY RECEIVE jobs from these dollars? As well as how many are expected from the 'additional' funds that may come our way from the money WE are spending.

This is not a left vs. right comment - I just have to say that it really 'ticks me off' when government makes it sound like they are giving us dollars. These are OUR dollars...filtered (read: reduced)by an over bloated government ...and we end up with a portion of what we send to the capital - back to us.

Gee - thanks

I want to see the job creation numbers…….


Posted by geesh, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 9:36 am

P.S.:

Quote: "McNerney, who lives in Pleasanton, added: "I'm thrilled that Pleasanton is going to RECEIVE money for clean energy projects. These are the kind of innovative steps we need to develop a strong local economy that is leading the way with clean energy technology."



I'm thrilled too…….to get back some of OUR money! Maybe we should cut taxes and fees and start by leaving it here to begin with?

geesh


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 29, 2009 at 9:37 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I think numbers don't start coming in until October. Web Link


Posted by geesh, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 10:03 am

What's the expected job increase for this project - for PLEASANTON?


.....and then let's see how close they are to meeting those goals come October.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Downtown
on Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 am

What a waste of tax payer dollars,this does nothing to create jobs. I grew up in the depression, at least the W.P.A. put a shovel in peoples hands so that street projects could be done. We could use that now, I see many streets in Pleasanton with pot holes.


Posted by Stimulus/Government Intervention: A Threat to Economic Recovery, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Terry Miller. Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation and editor of the Index of Economic Freedom testifies under oath to the House Committee on Foreighn Affairs' Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade and spells it out very clearly.

Though we sit today at what may well be the low point of a recession that has seen world economic growth slow to near zero, it is important to remember that what we are experiencing is a temporary setback. If one takes a longer view, it is clear that the economic policies that have come to dominate world economic thinking over the last 60 years, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, are producing strong broad-based growth, growth that is increasing prosperity and reducing poverty around the world.

The numbers are not ambiguous. Over the last decade, per capita income in all countries of the world combined has increased by an average of about three percent per year. Over the 10 years, that adds up to an increase of over one-third in average world incomes.

The growth in incomes is remarkably broad-based, not concentrated in just a few countries or regions. Of the 156 countries for which we have reliable data, only 12 failed to participate in this positive growth over the decade.

The economic system that has been producing these remarkable results is known by various names. Most economists would call it the free market system or capitalism. Some identify it with globalization. Some call it the Washington Consensus, because it represents the consensus of views and policies espoused by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and, at least until recently, the government of the United States.

At The Heritage Foundation, we call it economic freedom, and we measure it each year in the Index of Economic Freedom, which we publish jointly with The Wall Street Journal.

The key principles of economic freedom are individual empowerment, non-discrimination, and the dispersion of power:

* Individual empowerment means that individuals retain control of where they live and how much they work. They have the right to own property and decide when and how to spend their wealth and income.
* Non-discrimination means that there should be no preferences based on race, gender, religion, class, family connections or any other such trait. Each individual deserves an equal opportunity to prosper to the full extent of their ability and effort. Transparency in decision-making is a key aspect in ensuring such fairness; it is behind walls of secrecy that discrimination most often flourishes.
* Dispersion of power means pursuing policies and practices that foster competition in labor markets, in capital markets, between firms and even among countries. The separation of political and economic power is a key aspect in the dispersion of power.

Countries that respect these principles of economic freedom do far better on average economically than countries in which governments play a more intrusive role. The countries ranked as most free in the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom had average per capita incomes of over $40,000, more than 10 times the income levels in countries where economic freedoms are repressed.

Some criticize the free market system as good for the rich but not for the poor. The data show otherwise. When we compare economic freedom scores with poverty levels as measured in the United Nations Human Poverty Index, we find that countries that gained at least 5 points of economic freedom in the decade between 1997 and 2007 moved almost 6 percent of their populations out of poverty on average. Countries that lost at least 5 points of economic freedom, by contrast, saw poverty levels increase.

The same positive trends are evident in connection with social development in areas like education, health, child or maternal mortality, and overall life expectancy, as well as in protection of the environment, where countries that are more economically free do a far better job than their less free counterparts.

Given these positive long term trends, and the proven good economic results in countries around the world that respect principles of economic freedom and market-based decision-making, I would submit that the first responsibility of policy makers in leading economies, especially in a time of downturn or crisis, is to preserve the capitalist system and to do no harm. Markets are by and large self-correcting. Government interventions, which are almost always designed to restore or protect the status quo ante, impede the corrective action of the market and thus slow recovery.

The record of government interference in the economy, whether in the United States or in countries around the world, is not pretty. The TARP and TALF programs, both initiated under the previous administration, are good examples of the problems of government interference in markets. The policy-makers involved argued that the programs were necessary to avoid an immediate melt-down in financial markets. We cannot, of course, know what would have happened in the programs' absence. However, from the perspective of six months following their passage, we can see that their lasting result has been not the hoped-for increase in stability and lending in credit markets, but rather greater uncertainty and volatility. Markets need sure and stable government laws and policies in order to properly price assets. The TARP, in particular, has created confusion and interfered with the establishment of a market-clearing price for the troubled assets in question. There has been a disappointing lack of transparency in the program's decision-making processes that leaves potential investors uncertain of the direction of the market and therefore unwilling to invest. The TARP may have artificially inflated the value of the troubled assets, but it has done little to get them off the books of the financial institutions.

The fiscal stimulus package passed under the current administration is even worse. Even if one accepts the Keynesian notion that increased government spending can increase economic growth, and there are real doubts about this, almost none of the money has actually been spent, or will be spent, in a timely fashion. One estimate this month is that only about $37 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package has been spent so far. Most of the money is projected to be spent in the future when government stimulus will no longer be appropriate and will most likely only contribute to inflationary pressure.

The cost of these programs is creating a huge debt for our children that will have to be financed somehow. If we continue them, we are going to see either inflation or increased taxes or both, as well as a fall in the value of the dollar and decreased foreign investment in the United States, lower productivity overall, and reduced economic growth in the future. That is far from doing no harm.

Between January and April this year, the International Monetary Fund reduced its projection of U.S. economic growth in 2010 from a positive 1.6 percent to zero. The most significant U.S. public policy change during this period was the passage of the stimulus package. Now we are seeing bond markets driving up the cost of Treasury borrowing in response to unprecedented government spending. This is a path to impoverishment rather than recovery. We need to stop.

Some have expressed the hope that increased international cooperation, such as among the G-20, could contribute to a solution to the problem. I have very modest expectations in this regard. The G-20 can play a positive role in exchanging information and promoting mutual confidence among governments, but the most important macro-economic variables under the control of governments, the money supply and spending levels, must and will remain the province of individual governments.

There was much talk about regulatory reform at the recent G-20 summit, and such reform is, in fact, needed. Financial market regulation needs to change to encourage more transparency, greater competition, and a reduction in regulatory distortions that increase lending risk. The probability, unfortunately, is that international cooperation will lead to just the opposite, a regulatory system that is more complex, more subject to manipulation, and more restrictive.

The general rule is that more regulation leads ultimately to the provision of less of the regulated product. It is extremely unlikely that increasing regulation of financial and credit markets could lead to any result in the end other than a reduction in the availability of credit to individuals and businesses and an increase in its cost.

Looking forward, as we begin to recover from the financial crisis, there are different and even greater potential risks to the U.S. and world economies. Policies that would greatly and artificially increase the cost of energy will cut U.S. and world growth and lead to increased poverty worldwide. It is imperative that these costs be fully considered in the development of any policies to address climate change.

In addition, actions that would restrict or reduce the flows of goods and services or capital among the countries of the world would also have a devastating impact on world growth. Trade flows increase productivity and growth rates. Income from trade dwarfs all other aspects of financing for development in poorer countries. Trade restrictions go by the name of protectionism, but what they protect are the unfair privileges of politically-connected special interests.

If policies must be developed in any of these areas, it is most important that they be as simple, straight-forward and transparent as possible. As the size and reach of the federal government increases in the U.S. economy, there is an ever-present risk of increased graft and corruption. These factors, more than any others, account for low levels of development in much of the world. Corruption thrives where economic regulations are complex and government involvement pervasive. It must not be allowed to take root here.

Over the past decades we have maintained in America, and exported to most of the rest of the world, a free market economic system that encourages openness, the free flow of goods, services and capital, and interconnectedness among the nations and people of the world. The result has been greatly increased prosperity for all. A time of crisis may be a time to examine what has been done and what might be done better, but it is surely not the time to fundamentally undo the policies and practices that have brought so much benefit to so many.

Economic Freedom Improves Lives


Posted by Stimulus/Government Intervention: A Threat to Economic Recovery, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 6:53 pm

Article quotes: Develop a Climate Action Plan to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases, create an energy office to sustain long term energy efficiency.... hence the forced recycling Mayor Hosterman and the city councel are mandating. We, the taxpayers are put out.

The city which once touted "state of the art" garbage facilities has now forced their green mandate on us, the taxpayers with cost increases and garbage sorting.

Oh here's a thought Hosterman, take your green stimulus jobs and go back to running the efficient "state of the art" sorting and recycling facilities and leave us alone.


Posted by Jamie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2009 at 7:34 pm

A truly scary tragedy! $585,484.oo for Pleasanton to create an 'energy office' and an "energy finance office". They probably want to train some wet-behind ears idealoge that just graduated from Santa Cruz to snoop into our habits and make criminals out of us...kiss our right to be free & independent citizens good BYE !
Of course this is money that hasn't even been printed yet...and the
'sustainability' will come only if our kids have GOOD enough jobs to pay the taxes for decades. But Pleasanton will "rebate" $$$$ to all those inclined in such machinations.


Posted by Kate, a resident of Birdland
on Sep 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to have kept our tax dollars here in the first place, instead of going thru 60 layers of public employees we have to pay and provide retirement just to oversee distribution of our own money. I'm trying to grasp how it works. ....OH,...I think I just got it....that's WHY we get deeper in debt..which the next generation will have to pay for and suffer the inflation. Puzzled why some think that's a good idea?????????? Seems like it
could be a little more streamlined.....sort of 'downsized; like at my company !! MAJORITY of the life of this miracle country the founders gave us, has been run without income taxes....where did we go wrong! I guess that was when people still had pride & wanted to take care of themselves & we hadn't created the great welfare society yet.


Posted by you're right!, a resident of Amador Estates
on Sep 29, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Dear Kate:
You're right. It would have been a much wiser use of funds to let us keep our tax dollars. However, this is not the intent of any democrat. You see, they know much better than WE do about how to take care of ourselves from cradle (if we are so lucky to avoid Roe v. Wade) to grave (which will likely come sooner than we'd like, if nationalized healthcare is enacted).

Remember, the Stimulus Plan was designed by Weather Underground domestic terrorist Jeff Jones, buddy of William Ayres, and approved by Pelosi and Obama. So I don't think they much care about any one "individual". It is all about the "collective" and their great social experiment.


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

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 41 comments | 1,281 views

What about the annual housing cap?
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 929 views

DSRSD's Kohnen Scholarship on Hold
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 605 views

Be a sport: Send us your youth sports news, scores and photos
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 173 views