Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letter: Vote No on D

Original post made on May 15, 2010

Dear Editor,

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 14, 2010, 12:00 AM

Comments (49)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 15, 2010 at 3:38 pm

Steve, Can you elaborate on this statement, "Each student added from this development will actually erode our schools more." I have many friends who moved into new homes on the Bernal property and the Vineyard corridor who are a great addition to Pleasanton and our schools. Many of the parents are school leaders. Are they part of the erosion? When did new developments with families begin to erode our schools or did this occur only after you got yours?

Your endorsement on this measure is one of they many reasons I am voting YES!




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm

Steve, There are students in our schools from outside Pleasanton. They belong to employees of the district; they belong to business owners in Pleasanton; they are part of a consortium with neighboring districts to provide a cost effective way to teach special needs students. Are you saying they need to leave PUSD?

And you and I know all the data that proved decisions made by the governance team dug better than half the hole the district finds itself in--before the state made it worse. You and I both wrote against Measure G after all.

Most of us live in areas that weren't developed at some point. Is anyone ready to deed their property to the city? How much is enough?

Those who build in Oak Grove will pay just as much per student as we get for any other child moving into Pleasanton and the developer fees (no matter who pays them) pay for facilities mitigation (something that would not happen if you or I sold our homes).

A yes vote protects landowner property rights, your property rights, and mine and everyone else's in Pleasanton. And it gives all of us access to a nearly 500 acre ridge land park. Yes on D makes sense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 15, 2010 at 10:22 pm


Both posters above are merely deflecting from the point made in the letter with irrelevant barbs.
The message in the letter is that the claims of millions of dollars for our schools are deliberately wrong and misleading. We do not need to build houses to have more ADA (state per student) dollars. It seems clear that Steve is not intending to say that we would not welcome new students, but instead of improving our districts economic condition each new student is a further economic burden.
This letter is simply correcting the wrong information used by the proponents of the Oak Grove development.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 16, 2010 at 8:20 am

Nancy, If the argument is "each student from this development will acttually erode our schools more," then each and every new student is an economic burden regardless of where they come from in the community. We are asking one landowner to give up their rights and, frankly, their land, even though we have every expectation to keep those rights for ourselves.

"$300,000 in property taxes for program . . ." ADA is based on property taxes. It may have been better for the ads to say "students generated by this project will bring an estimated $300,000 in ADA." But the amount and what it pays for are correct based on the student demographics the district already received. It isn't "complete fiction."

As to the facility bond raised in this letter, there is no mention of the developer fees paid by either the landowner or those who build in Oak Grove. Those fees, strictly for mitigating facility needs (just like the bond), is estimated to be $2 million. If any of _us_ sell our homes tomorrow to a family with three school aged children, there are no developer fees to mitigate that growth. And that would make us the ones creating the bigger burden.

Voting Yes on D is a vote for the rights of every homeowner in Pleasanton and it provides all of us access to nearly 500 acres of ridge land park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

Nancy,

How is taking a sentence right out of his column "deflecting from the main point of his article". He made the point and I just think the families living in the Bernal property and Vineyard corrider should know how their residency in Pleasanton "actually erode our schools more". Seems pretty simple to me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

Kathleen,

As you know the opponents of OG are not the ones that started this discussion, they are only correcting the untrue and misleading propaganda put out by the pro D campaign. You continue to create irrelevant arguments to deflect from the fact that the pro D campaign is continuing to put out false informaion.

School funding should not be a factor in the OG decision and yet it is a BIG piece of the pro D campaign, showing an serious lack of integrity in misleading OUR community that wants to protect OUR ridges : ).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 16, 2010 at 9:17 am

It is clear that Steve is not intending to say that we would not welcome new students. Steve is pointing out the misleading logic being used by pro D. He is showing that instead of improving our districts economic condition each new student is a further economic burden.

School funding should not be a factor in the OG decision and yet it is a BIG piece of the pro D campaign, showing an serious lack of integrity in misleading OUR community that wants to protect OUR ridges.

Kate your post sounds like you have personal malice toward Steve and I am not interested in participating in a discussion on that level.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 16, 2010 at 10:36 am

Nancy, I think where I disagree with Steve's letter is whether what was written was intentionally misleading or somehow misstated. Either way, the numbers are correct--$300,000 in ADA, $2,000,000 in developer fees. No matter OG's presumed intention, those facts remain the same. I don't see a reason to vote no based on this part of the campaign.

The statement I find far more offensive is references to _our_ ridges. They aren't ours, not yours, not mine; they belong to the Lins fair and square--just like all the other hillside homes in this community. That is a fact. It is far more misleading to say they are ours as if we have a legal right to them. If that were the case, it would be okay for us to wander in and out of some of the large hillside properties that belong to the signers of the no campaign.

So, if we can agree on the facts, that the numbers are accurate and that the land is legally the Lins, then the decision that is left can be based on the merits of the project mitigating any students produced by the project (they do), protecting all homeowners rights, the compromise of 98 to 51 homes, and access for all of us to a park. It adds up to Yes on D for me.

Certainly you may well vote otherwise. I guess I don't understand what that no vote would stand for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 16, 2010 at 3:58 pm

We do NOT agree on the numbers or OG intention on their marketing materials.

There is NO commitment beyond the State Statutory mitigation fee, which would fall far short of 1 mm in capital mitigation fees, nowhere near 2 mm. Claiming 2 mm is misleading at best or flat out lying at worst.
The intent of including information about school funding is to mislead OUR community into believing OG will benefit PUSD's budget which it will not. The project does NOT mitigate new students, PUSD has told us that ADA dollars fall short of mitigating the cost of our students.
We all have a stake in OUR community. I do not need to own all of it, or any of it, to want to protect MY communities quality of life.
I do care about property rights but land speculators know they have no guarantees and this land has already paid off big for the Lin's with Kottinger Ranch.
I am glad we have the opportunity to vote on the future of a limited natural resource like OUR ridges before it is too late; ).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Nancy, this is from the other thread.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, 4 hours ago
Stacey is a member (registered user) of Pleasanton Weekly

Here's what the Lin's "propaganda" says:

- $2,000,000 to the school district in one-time fees (for facilities and improvements. School District fee is $8.62 per sq. ft. average home estimated at 5,000 sq. ft.)

- $300,000 to the schools each year (for books, programs, teachers, and curriculum. School district student generation rate applied to ADA per-student fees, plus voter-approved bond measures)

Stacey provides the link to the website if you look under the letter.

Check the developer fee schedule. It is on the district's web site. And be sure you are talking to Luz Cazares when you ask questions.

Beyond that, I think you and I are at an impasse. It is not _our_ natural resource no matter how many capital letters you use; we are being handed nearly all of the available land for free. A no vote takes that opportunity away from _your_ community.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 16, 2010 at 8:23 pm

Kathleen,

I believe that Stacey conceded that the State statutory fee is $2.97.

Also from the other thread:

"No matter what the land developer says the only fee that the homebuilder is required to pay is a State required fee of $2.97 SQFT with a cap of 7000 (or 5000 according to the developers). Based on the developers cap this is $757,350. of capital only dollars that are probably 10 or more years away."

"The gift fee is up to the discretion of the homebuilder. Any amount over the state mandated fee can not be assigned to someone else. Unless the Lin's write a check for the fees themselves their promises are worthless."

Luz has confirmed that the state statutory fee is $2.97.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 16, 2010 at 8:51 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I have yet to see opponents concede that they don't know how many of the 51 home builders will not pay $8.62 per square foot. Just because I agree that the State has a statutory limit of $2.97 doesn't mean that that is what will be paid.

If it is reasonable for opponents to D to claim that no one will pay $8.62 per square foot, it is equally reasonable for the developer to claim that everyone will pay $8.62 per square foot.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 16, 2010 at 9:23 pm

EXCEPT that the developer has agreed to the gift tax of $8.62 and the district has executed that agreement. Call Luz and ask.


If you ask Luz, is the statutory limit is $2.97 she would say yes. But you have to ask the next question. Do any developers in this city pay the statutory amount? The answer to that would be no. Now there are developers who have negotiated by making other concessions and they perhaps pay the cooperative tax which is in the neighborhood of $5.00 a square foot.

This developer has agreed to the gift tax and it will be part of the contract he makes with any buyer.

There is a condition put on all developers by the city and that is to make an agreement with the school district before ANY permits are issued. Since there is an agreement with the school district executed by both parties, this would meet the condition the city has prior to issuing ANY building permits. The contract is the gift tax of $8.62.

This is a fact and can easily be verified by researching thoroughly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 16, 2010 at 11:21 pm

"The gift fee is up to the discretion of the homebuilder. Any amount over the state mandated fee can not be assigned to someone else. Unless the Lin's write a check for the fees themselves their promises are worthless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 17, 2010 at 5:28 am

Research!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 17, 2010 at 8:08 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Nancy wrote: "Any amount over the state mandated fee can not be assigned to someone else."

And that's the very reason I *guessed* on an earlier thread that to make it legally binding would require a contract between the seller and the buyer. There was nothing that I could see in the State law on the statutory fee that would preclude having the gift fee in a contract.

The other question to ask Luz would be, "Out of those who, according to PUSD's fee schedule, are supposed to pay $8.62 per sq foot, what percentage pay only up to the statutory amount?" Again, my *guess* is that the number would be very small.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Del Prado
on May 17, 2010 at 8:49 am

I agree with you Stacey.
So given that homebuilders are "allowed" to pay three times the required amount, the marketing for pro D could have said, "We hope up to $2 mm in capital only fees may be paid by the builders of these homes over a ten year period".
Or they could have left it out of their campaign because they can not guarantee that it will be paid, because they are not paying a penny of it themselves, and growth does not pay for itself when it comes to schools.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sickofit
a resident of Amador Estates
on May 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm

I am voting no on D. I am tired of all of the misleading information. I am tired of the lawsuits. I am tired of the whole thing. I am voting "NO" since I like things (and the hills) the way they are. The City of Plesanton is just fine without Oak Grove financially and otherwise. It won't make any substantial difference to our schools either. A curmudgeon (however that is spelled) perhaps - but I am voting NO.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol
a resident of Lydiksen Elementary School
on May 17, 2010 at 5:45 pm

I've already voted No on D.

Why add even more students to schools and increase class sizes for schools that the Oak Grove EIR identified as already over-capacity and serving over the maximum number of students?

And Pleasanton has approved 600 houses that have not yet even been built. 300 of them are in the Lydiksen attendance zone.

Pleasanton is laying off teachers. More development means no more teachers will be hired. The class sizes will just get bigger.

What's next? Putting portables on the roofs of the school sites?




 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 17, 2010 at 8:10 pm

Great! Voting No on D very well made create an opportunity for MORE housing!!! The housing cap is GONE! The area used to have 98 homes alloted.

With Yes on Measure D you get 51 homesites and almost 500 acres of accessible open space where NO HOMES can be built, EVER!

Vote YES on Measure D!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol
a resident of Lydiksen Elementary School
on May 17, 2010 at 8:30 pm

I am so glad I voted NO on D! I'm tired of seeing overseas investors, the Lins, and Charter Properties spending over $1 million dollars pumping money into local elections and local politicians in order to build on ridgelines.

Who benefits? The local politicians and their campaign consultants, including a person who is named Angela Ramirez Holmes who goes under the fictitious name of Alliance Campaign Strategies.

Charter Properties and the Lins have the big bucks to put local elected officials into the assembly or state senate. Take a look at this Pleasanton Weekly article referring to the developer of Oak Grove, Charter Properties, raising $100,000.00 for Tom Pico's assembly campaign....

Web Link

Voting NO on Measure D means the developer will only be able to build at most 10 houses.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 17, 2010 at 9:07 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

sickofit wrote: "I am voting "NO" since I like things (and the hills) the way they are."

If you hoped that voting no would accomplish that goal, it won't.

Carol wrote: "Voting NO on Measure D means the developer will only be able to build at most 10 houses."

Doubtful. Most of the land is designated "rural residential" which translates into 98 homes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Carol also wrote: "Pleasanton is laying off teachers. More development means no more teachers will be hired. The class sizes will just get bigger."

How is it that property owners and developers should be held responsible for the way the school district spends its money?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol
a resident of Lydiksen Elementary School
on May 17, 2010 at 9:41 pm

It doesn't translate to 98 mansions. Like the Independent No on D editorial says, voting NO on D means the developer will have to resubmit a proposal that has no grading within 100 feet below the ridgeline and does not grade slopes greater than 25%. Or they will need to resubmit their proposal and be limited to 10 units.

Read the Independent editorial here Web Link

Developers and property owners directly impact how the school districts spend money.

For example, developers sign agreements to build schools such as Neal School, and then file lawsuits to sue the school district (e.g., Signature Properties and Neal School) or in the case of the Lins, end up in lawsuits regarding a Dublin elementary school that fails to open ( Web Link ).

The Ruby Hill developers used a promise of a neighborhood elementary school to sell the lots, then once the lots are almost sold, they sue the school district to get out of the agreement to build the school.

The bottom line is that funds the school district obtains to spend to serve the needs of kids or build schools are re-directed to hiring lawyers to defend developer-initiated lawsuits.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Downtown
on May 17, 2010 at 10:06 pm

PLEASE don't use the Independent editorial as fact. They would not even view the property when invited to do so.

Better yet go directly to the documents. The impartial analysis of PP says that ridgeline and slope needs clarity. There is No definition of either in PP.

Parts of PP have been struck down by the court.

But if you are going to use an editorial as your guide, check this one out:

Web Link


Save our pristine hills and our park

by Jennifer Hosterman and Matt Sullivan

Share

We had planned to stay out of the debate over the Oak Grove referendum; however misinformation about the project and confusion in the public about our support considering our history of slow growth, environmental advocacy, and support for neighborhoods, compels us to provide this clarification.

Over three years ago, the property owner started work on a 98-unit plan, which was opposed by the adjacent Kottinger Ranch neighborhood. We have both campaigned against development in the hills and in support of affected neighborhoods. But instead of entering into yet another endless land-use battle, we thought there might be a better way: a collaborative process with the neighbors, the developer, and the city to see if agreement could be reached and these outcomes avoided. Our goals were threefold: empower the neighborhood to help shape the project, provide "finality" from future development, and create a model for the acquisition of public open space for the remaining developable properties in the southeast hills.

The result has been a resounding success! A consensus plan was facilitated by the city for a 51-unit project--half the size of the original--with the addition of $1 million in traffic mitigation fees for the neighborhood, and the dedication of a 497-acre public open space park. The plan then went through the normal Planning Commission and City Council public review process, input was sought throughout, additional issues identified, and adjustments were made. Regulatory agencies will evaluate habitat and mandate mitigation measures, or prohibit building on environmentally sensitive areas. No taxpayer monies will go to fund the open space park--the developer will deed the property to the city, will construct the trails and a staging area, pay the endowment to the easement-holder Tri Valley Conservancy, and the future HOA will be responsible for ongoing maintenance costs. For the units potentially most visible from the valley floor, one story limits, reduction in size, strict design guidelines, and plant and earth berm screening have been mandated. Finally, not one single house has been approved for this project--each will submit detailed plans and visual simulations to both the HOA Design Committee and the city for approval. The Planning Commission can choose to bring each to a public hearing, and any house can be appealed to the City Council for final decision. With these requirements and processes in place, the images presented by some project opponents of two- and three-story 12,000-square-foot white glowing "mega-mansions" sitting on barren hilltops are simply false.

Similar to what the city achieved with the Bernal property, Oak Grove provides nearly 500 acres of public open space in exchange for minimal development within the context of a collaborative neighborhood process and the support of four out of five councilmembers. With this success, the council has taken the first step in achieving a vision for a magnificent 2,000-acre natural park completely accessible to the public stretching from Shadow Cliffs to the Callippe Preserve Golf Course--forever protecting these hills from development. This is an important legacy that this generation can leave to future Pleasantonians.

Jennifer Hosterman was first elected to the City Council in 2002, elected mayor in 2004 and re-elected as mayor last year. Matt Sullivan, after six years as a planning commissioner and two years on the West Las Positas Interchange Committee before that, was elected to the City Council in 2004.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 17, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Carol,

What you just wrote above resubmitting a proposal is not the same thing as what you wrote earlier claiming that a no vote means they'll be limited to 10 homes.

I don't know if I can put the school spending point I tried to make any better for you. Let's say you want to put an addition on your house. So pretend you go to the planning department, you have all your plans in order, AND you even are going to pay $8.62 per sq ft for the addition but they won't give you a permit. And the only reason they won't give you a permit to build your addition is because the school district doesn't have enough money and they're laying teachers off. Now try again to answer my question of how developers and property owners are supposed to be held responsible for the way the school district spends its money.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 17, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Carol,

Also, I think it would be best if you read the link you provided about the Lins and an elementary school site in Dublin. It isn't about building a school that "failed to open".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by huh?
a resident of Birdland
on May 17, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Carol, what ridge are you talking about? Have you ever been up to the Oak Grove property? There is NO RIDGE there! Look up the definition of ridge! For heaven's sake, please try to understand that Pleasanton will get a 500 acre preserve of beautiful open space, an important link in it's ever-growing trails system, millions of dollars for our schools, and HALF the number of homes that are already approved for the property. If Measure D is voted down by a bunch of short-sighted NIMBY's, the rightful owners of what you laughingly call 'our hills' have the legal right to come back with any number of plans that can build up to 98 houses there. That has already been approved. Don't you get that? You can vote on whatever 'measure' you want to, but that has no bearing whatsoever on something that has already been approved.












 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hey Huh!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

Hey Huh,

You don't get it! Nuthin' has been approved for this site! They have NO entitlements. This is disinformation coming from the developer and their stooges. If Measure D fails they will have to come back with a better plan that meets PP


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Downtown
on May 18, 2010 at 8:57 am

Check your facts. This development was approved by the City Council on a 4-1 vote after 4 years of discussion...

Save our pristine hills and our park

by Jennifer Hosterman and Matt Sullivan


We had planned to stay out of the debate over the Oak Grove referendum; however misinformation about the project and confusion in the public about our support considering our history of slow growth, environmental advocacy, and support for neighborhoods, compels us to provide this clarification.

Over three years ago, the property owner started work on a 98-unit plan, which was opposed by the adjacent Kottinger Ranch neighborhood. We have both campaigned against development in the hills and in support of affected neighborhoods. But instead of entering into yet another endless land-use battle, we thought there might be a better way: a collaborative process with the neighbors, the developer, and the city to see if agreement could be reached and these outcomes avoided. Our goals were threefold: empower the neighborhood to help shape the project, provide "finality" from future development, and create a model for the acquisition of public open space for the remaining developable properties in the southeast hills.

The result has been a resounding success! A consensus plan was facilitated by the city for a 51-unit project--half the size of the original--with the addition of $1 million in traffic mitigation fees for the neighborhood, and the dedication of a 497-acre public open space park. The plan then went through the normal Planning Commission and City Council public review process, input was sought throughout, additional issues identified, and adjustments were made. Regulatory agencies will evaluate habitat and mandate mitigation measures, or prohibit building on environmentally sensitive areas. No taxpayer monies will go to fund the open space park--the developer will deed the property to the city, will construct the trails and a staging area, pay the endowment to the easement-holder Tri Valley Conservancy, and the future HOA will be responsible for ongoing maintenance costs. For the units potentially most visible from the valley floor, one story limits, reduction in size, strict design guidelines, and plant and earth berm screening have been mandated. Finally, not one single house has been approved for this project--each will submit detailed plans and visual simulations to both the HOA Design Committee and the city for approval. The Planning Commission can choose to bring each to a public hearing, and any house can be appealed to the City Council for final decision. With these requirements and processes in place, the images presented by some project opponents of two- and three-story 12,000-square-foot white glowing "mega-mansions" sitting on barren hilltops are simply false.

Similar to what the city achieved with the Bernal property, Oak Grove provides nearly 500 acres of public open space in exchange for minimal development within the context of a collaborative neighborhood process and the support of four out of five councilmembers. With this success, the council has taken the first step in achieving a vision for a magnificent 2,000-acre natural park completely accessible to the public stretching from Shadow Cliffs to the Callippe Preserve Golf Course--forever protecting these hills from development. This is an important legacy that this generation can leave to future Pleasantonians.

Jennifer Hosterman was first elected to the City Council in 2002, elected mayor in 2004 and re-elected as mayor last year. Matt Sullivan, after six years as a planning commissioner and two years on the West Las Positas Interchange Committee before that, was elected to the City Council in 2004.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by pleasantonmom
a resident of Ironwood
on May 18, 2010 at 9:11 am

Vote Yes, how much money needs to be spent on this prop.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mao
a resident of Downtown
on May 18, 2010 at 9:59 am

Steve Brozosky and Brian Arkin oppose measure D.

That's all I need to know.

YES ON D!!!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown
on May 18, 2010 at 10:12 am

for Mao -- I feel the same way about hosterman. She says yes, therefore I say no. We have voted and mailed in the ballots. Anything that sleazy mayor gets behind I will oppose. Thank goodness she is termed out now. Wonder what foreign speculators will be making contributions to her and what office she will run for this time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on May 18, 2010 at 10:23 am

I am voting YES because I'm sick of everyone whining about NO. And so are all my friends and family that live in Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by susan
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on May 18, 2010 at 10:30 am

The same group of citizens that opposed THE BUILDING OF A GOLF COURSE ON THIS PROPTERTY NOW WANT TO STOP DEVELOPEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. You had your chance for a golf course and you voted for houses. VOTE YES ON D YOU HAVE A RIGHT ONCE THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES YES ON THE PROJECT, IT TOOK A LOT TO MONEY TO GET IT TO THIS POINT. THE CITY OF PLEASANTON SCHOOLS AND THE CITY ITSELF WILL GAIN BY VOITING YES OF D.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 18, 2010 at 10:46 am

Once again the arrogance & myopic view of the Yes on D mob never ceases to amaze & amuse me. Once & for all people, your tag line is both deceptive & a huge lie. It should read, "Don't Mess With THE Ridges" not "Don't Mess With OUR Ridges." They are not YOUR ridges. As hard as this may be for you all to fathom there still exists in this country, state, county & city the rights of private property owners to (under current laws, zoning, legal & planning ordinances) do with their property as they see fit. I'm sorry if this disturbs people's sensibilities but until that property is either sold or absorbed via a land grab/eminent domain act by the People's Republic of Pleasanton & then the zoning ordinance is reverted to open space as opposed to residential development that property belongs to the Linn's for their use.

You can cry, moan & bitch all you want. You can tie this up with legal manipulation for the next 4-5 years but the end result will only be that we won't get just 55 homes & a nice big open space park but the full 90 homes & no park. Hey I'll even let you all in on a little secret that even the city itself already figured out while dealing with the mess over the Urban Do-Gooder/low income housing folk. Agree to let them build it. Once this is approved you can all show up to every planning commission, building permit & construction meeting to voice your opinions & have a say in the design & construction of the proposed homes. Heck, you could probably tie this up for another 2-3 years if you all made a concerned effort to object to every little facet of the design process but in the end, we will have 55 tastefully designed, heavily scrutinized & aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding environment homes built. We will have new neighbors that will move into these $2-5 Million homes & they will in turn, support our local community, business', increase the surrounding areas property values & contribute to the town's revitalization IF…we welcome them & do not protest, grandstand & try to thwart their move to our town.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 18, 2010 at 10:51 am

Oh yeah, just one more thing. Steve (I just happen to live on a ridge line, multi-acre home) Brozosky...if it's OK for you, why not 55 new neighbors?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by To Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2010 at 11:39 am

"Once again the arrogance & myopic view of the Yes on D mob never ceases to amaze & amuse me."

Did you mean the " NO on D mob" ? From reading your post, I take you are for D, so you must have made a mistake while typing?

I am for YES on D. I think the myopic view comes from the NO on D folks, especially Ayala and Steve B. (which by the way has a street named after him, so he feels special and the only one entitled to a nice big home?)

YES on D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sickofit
a resident of Amador Estates
on May 18, 2010 at 1:01 pm

You are right Susan - it took a lot of money to get this far. Has anyone looked at the 10's of thousands of dollars that the Lins have spent in the past few years. Campaign contributions and pack contributions - not to mention how much all the mailers and the paid political consultants (they are posted on the city website) must be costing.

I am still voting No on D. The hills are just fine the way they are. The money promised does not come all at once and the City is in very good financial shape. This will make no difference to the schools since they have already spent over 200000 to hire a new superintendent.

I am tired of the big money politics coming to Pleasanton. I am tired of developers thinking they can buy an election. I am just tired of the whole thing.

Put an end to it and vote No on D as I have.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2010 at 1:53 pm

Where is the money coming from on the No on D side?

Does it bother you that you can't trace it at all?

Does it bother you that the person who sits right on top of a hill and looks down on the property was sanctioned by the FPPC for not disclosing expenditures with the Save Pleasanton hills group? and the No on D people are the very same group?

Does it bother you that this developer has brought three different plans to the city for his PRIVATE property and cooperated with the stakeholders to get this development approved 4-1 by the city council?

Does it bother you that if this project is denied you will loose the 500 acre buffer and the hiking trails.

Does it bother you that if the 51 lots are not approved you will get more housing up there and no open space?

Does it bother you that other people can repeatedly tell you what to do with your private property???? oh yes, that doesn't happen to you!

Would it bother you if your neighbor could just say no to ANY plan that you might have no matter how many times you consulted with them or worked to get their cooperation?

Would it bother you if your neighbor just said no because they liked your property "just the way it is".

Does it bother you that in this country that it is ok with some people that a certain group lives by one set of laws and another by a completely different set?

If it doesn't bother you, it certainly should.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Best Alternative
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on May 18, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Something is going to get built on this land. 51 expensive homes will pay much more in taxes than they consume in services. Remember that Attorney General and likely Governor of California has dictated that Pleasanton must build lots of cheap, tax-payer subsidized housing, and that it needs to take priority over other housing. Several hundred such apartments nestled in the valleys on this land would make a tidy profit for the owners, and result in major campaign contributions to Cook-Colia, Jennifer Hosterman, Matt Sullivan, and Jerry Thorne. Residents on the East side would get stuck with the traffic impact and the crime. Vote Yes on Measure D.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Diva
a resident of Birdland
on May 18, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Vote NO on D and force those developers into building affordable housing instead. We have ENOUGH million dollar mansions as-is and need no more. What we need are more affordable homes for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford living here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 18, 2010 at 6:01 pm

Another reason not to post early in the morning before the coffee kicks in, thanks "Another resident" & yes, it should read the "NO" on D crowd. Better stop posting now before the wine kicks in.

Cheers!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ann
a resident of Val Vista
on May 18, 2010 at 6:05 pm

It seems that much of the discussion around Measure D is missing the point. Yes, there will be money for schools from this development and yes, there will be some school aged children living in the houses which eventually will be built on the property.

All you have to do is to take a tour of the property, as I did this past weekend, so see the obvious merits of the Oak Grove development.

The building sites are towards the front of the property and set low enough that only a handful of people living in that part of town will ever be able to see even the occasional top of a roof.

The park land is on rolling hills, above and toward the back of the property. It contains the best of the Valley views. This area is filled with hundreds of old oaks and wild flowers. I walked the length of the proposed main trail and it was easy going even for this 64 year old.

Vote yes on D. Vote yes on this beautiful park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on May 18, 2010 at 9:32 pm

Prediction: Measure D loses for no other reason other than the fact that the only people who get to vote on it have one thing in common; they all already have a home in Pleasanton...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by I got mine.
a resident of Downtown
on May 19, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Unfortunately I got mine is ALL this measure is REALLY about. All the rest of the crap being spewed is white noise. The Kottinger mob does not want the rest of us using their neighborhood for access to the trails plain and simple. Sad but true.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on May 19, 2010 at 4:14 pm

Web Link Read all about it! P-town in the news!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by another voter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 19, 2010 at 9:37 pm

I'm voting yes on D because the no on D people simply don't make any sense. For crying out loud, they haven't made one solid point at all as to why I should vote against D. Just a bunch of signs and a lot of whining. Get on with it. Let them build the homes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sknywench
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on May 20, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Im amused by the comments made about the Lins being "foreigners" and developers "buying" elections. Geeze people, other than being closet racists, I think you are watching way too many made-for-T.V.- movies. People love a made-up story with a plot and sub-plots. Fact is, the Lins have owned the property longer than most people have lived here in Pleasanton. The development process of Oak Grove over the past decade has been anything BUT a mystery. It has been argueably the most publically debated, discussed, reviewed and analyzed which the stakeholders, which included the neighbors, reached a concensus. I cant stress the PUBLIC process enough. And the comments about developers buying elections. Gimme a break. Its more like developers working with the stakeholders and the City Council and agreeing to uber-concessions in terms of public dedicated open space, more than the mandated fees, etc. TIME TO RESPECT THE PROCESS, ACKNOWLEDGE PROPERTY OWNERS STILL SHOULD HAVE A FEW RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY, AND CELEBRATE THE WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR 500AC PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, MINIMAL VISUAL IMPACTS and NEEDED MONEY TO HELP SCHOOLS, TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS and LOCAL REVENUE

VOTE YES ON D (and the sky isnt falling)


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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

Good news for downtown Livermore and the performing arts
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,075 views

November Ballot Prop 2 – Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 981 views

Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 869 views