Five Former Mayors Yes On D Around Town, posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 31, 2010 at 6:36 am
Opinion - Friday, May 28, 2010
Pleasanton's former mayors urge you to vote Yes on Measure D
by Frank C. Brandes Jr., Robert Butler, Ken Mercer, Robert Philcox and Tom Pico
We are taking this unusual step of writing as five former mayors of Pleasanton because we are united in our belief that passage of Measure D is important to our community in so many ways.
Other than our commitment to doing what we each believe is the "best for Pleasanton," we have often held divergent views on development issues, which makes this united appeal something Pleasanton voters should seriously consider. (None of us has a current or future financial interest in the approval of Measure D or the Oak Grove development.)
Join us in voting Yes on Measure D, a once in a lifetime opportunity to ensure that:
1. Pleasanton owns, controls and forever protects nearly 500 acres of open space as a public ridgeline park that also serves as a barrier to future development;
2. Our schools get $300,000 each year in property tax for operations;
3. The city receives $1 million in traffic fees and $200,000 each year in tax revenue;
4. Our schools also receive school fees of $2 million for facilities; and
5. We limit to 51 the number homes that are possible to build under strict design guidelines.
Oak Grove went through an extensive public hearing and collaborative approval process and is a well-planned, environmentally sensitive development that provides amenities of great value.
A recent court ruling that Pleasanton's voter-approved housing cap ordinances are pre-empted by State Law makes the passage of Measure D possibly our last chance to protect the oak woodlands in the southeast hills forever as a public park.
Pleasanton's housing cap is no longer valid and the state is now in control of how many housing units we must plan for tomorrow. The city is being forced under state laws to plan for more homes and no longer can require property owners to reduce the number of residential units allocated to their property. Can an attack on our Urban Growth Boundary be far away?
A Yes vote on Measure D allows Pleasanton, not the state, to be in control over the future development and uses of our southeast woodlands.
Vote Yes on Measure D, Oak Grove, keep local control, and leave a lasting legacy of a beautiful oak woodlands park for future generations to enjoy.
--The authors were mayors of Pleasanton in the following years: Frank C. Brandes Jr. (1979-80, 1985-86); Robert Butler (1982-83); Ken Mercer (1978-79, 1980-81, 1984-85, 1987-92); Robert Philcox (1976-77); and Tom Pico (2000-04).
Posted by Judy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 31, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I am glad these Mayors, who have spent decades caring for Pleasanton, continue to speak out on what is best for Pleasanton. The time and efforts of many has created something better than anyone envisioned in the beginning of the process. Listen to the leaders and don't blow this opportunity. Don't let this unravel into nothing but regrets. A yes vote on D is a yes vote for Pleasanton.
Posted by What a Crock, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 8:26 am
What a crock. Once again don't mentiopn any down side to the measure. Don't mention the part that a certain percentage has to be low income housing. It is not a god given right that everyone is allowed to live anywhere. If so open up low income housing in Ruby Hills.
Posted by Ngo Bribe, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 8:34 am
Some of these Mayors are now senile old farts. A few others have turned to the dark side and have "set themselves up in business" with the developers as their "clients". It boils down to this - do you like to look at our hills in their natural beauty or do you want them marred with crap like the Hayward Hotel (only this would be closer and more of an eyesore)
For those of you thinking about voting for D, get your head out of your posterior and do some rethinking before election day.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 8:43 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The Hayward Hotel is placed on a primary ridge more than double the elevation of Oak Grove and Kottinger Ranch and absolutely towers above the entire valley floor. The Oak Grove viewshed is not comparable at all. Claims like "would be closer and more of an eyesore" just display a lack of knowledge about the viewshed of Oak Grove.
Posted by research the issues What a Crock, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 8:54 am
Hi What a Crock -
Perhaps you should research a little bit more on this measure prior to your vote! Measure D will be required to provide money be paid into the Affordable Housing Fund - they will NOT be required to build afforable housing in the project. Funds are required instead. Please know what you are talking about before you post your thoughts.
Posted by hikergirl, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 9:18 am
Is this supposed to make me feel better??? I lived thru most of these mayors and they are in the back pockets of the developers and pro-growth camps. What a joke. I will be voting NO on MEASURE D. Look at the hills of Dublin (Lin property which has been desecrated by the condos and homes this family and their minions find desirable.)
Posted by Hilarious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 10:07 am
What a crowd! It doesn't get much better than this! The former 4 mayors that are endorsing Oak Grove are the very same ones that engineered the plan to construct 2,640 houses in the heart of the Pleasanton ridgelands until the voters said absolutely not. The Pleasanton voters rejected their plan with a 82% vs 18%!
And, yes Pico, who works for the Lins, and the developer for Oak Grove, Charter Properties according to the Pleasanton Weekly raised $100,000 for his failed run at the Assembly www.pleasantonweekly.com/morgue/2003/2003_08_29.pico29.html
They should have had a sixth signer too. Maybe Richard Pombo? Maybe he was too busy. Darn!
Posted by Hilarious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 10:20 am
Anonymous, it is amazing but every ballot measure ever put on the ballot by these pro-development policians say the houses are invisible.
Those 2,640 houses were be invisible too. The first ballot language approved said "...The plan would permit, in areas not visible from Pleasanton but within the 7,100 acres of the Ridgelands, no more than 2,640 residential units with associated neighborhood-serving retail...."
That's funny, anonymous, because Measure D says inside the text that Lots 1 through 12, 17, 18, 21 and 29 through 34 are High Visibility Lots.
Posted by pete, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 10:30 am
So, does this mean we should all just follow the leader? OK 5 former mayors sounds good what do the others? I am all for a yes vote but maybe we should stick with the facts of the issue and not throw names around!
Posted by Hilarious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 10:40 am
The Oak Grove builder, Charter Properties, is the same builder that recently proposed the 21 story high rise mega-complex skyscraper in East Dublin.
So of course the Oak Grove builder is already building on the highest ridgeline they can on their property that lies within the Urban Limit Line, so that they can sell view lots at a maximum price. And Scott, in case you haven't seen the city maps, you can go down there and see the houses and terrain as mapped by the engineers are right on the ridges.
What I think is interesting is that building houses is not allowed above the 670 elevation mark off of Foothill Road, because it was determined that above this mark, structures would be visible. Yet for some amazing reason, this developer is able to build structures that will be anywhere from 700 to 900 feet in elevation.
Posted by reasonable, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 11:48 am
This Sierra Club member will be voting YES on D. I am looking forward to the hiking trails, appreciate the additional city and school funding but most importantly, I recognize that Pleasanton is not a national park. It is a suburb!!! Do I myself see any need for a 10,000 square foot home? No, but if someone else wants one, why not here? Nestled among the oaks and paying property taxes to MY school? Sure!! It will merely be an extension of the big homes already climbing up the hillside in Kottinger Ranch.
Let's all back away from who supports what. Developers are not all BAD (remember, your own precious home sits on what undoubtedly used to be a picturesque farm or golden hillside) and not all grass roots efforts are automatically GOOD. This is much more nuanced -- the land was zoned for rural development a long time ago (and yes, the proposed density is line with that original plan). Please be reasonable :) and vote YES.
Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Once again, this comes down to a matter of the rights of private property owners. Period. Everybody that has an issue with or opposes the Oak Grove development has had decades to affect a change within the initial zoning ordinance, the supposed "ridge line" (although NO homes will be visible from other than a few hundred yards of Kottinger, Stanley or Vineyard Ave.) orientation of the lots, or to find an almost-extinct caterpillar on the property to exclude it as an endangered species sanctuary. Whether or not you like the Lin's, they have legally purchased this property & gone through all the appropriate steps to commence this project.
Oh, & to the No on D folks you little slogan, "don't mess with OUR ridges" is an insult to any & all homeowners in Pleasanton. They ARE NOT OUR or YOUR or my MY ridges. As much as we would like to think that any geographic entity is public property that simply is not the case. THE RIDGES for the time being & until somehow the Peoples Republic of Pleasanton, Alameda County or California annex's them, they are private property, zoned for residential development. Period end of story.
Posted by Hilarious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Did you read the newspaper this morning? Pombo is back! Maybe we'll see him on the next Lin glossy mailer that will be bombarding our mailboxes.
Since he is back in politics, maybe the 5 former elected officials can help Pombo further gut the Endangered Species Act, line our coasts with oil rigs and lease our nation's parks to the highest bidder. Sounds like they are perfect for the job!
Posted by DB, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 8:34 pm
The only people who will see any funding from the Lins and developers are the "5 mayors" not the schools or the community. Don't be fooled by promises of money later. If you do buy into that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn!
As for the Sierra Clubers who have no problem with monster homes, they should know that those homes are a much bigger energy and resource user and green house gas contributor than any SUV...
This issue isn't about private property rights; construction always requires approval and permits. Just try doing whatever you want on your private property and see how far you get before the City steps in! BTW, you'll need approval from your neighbors!
Posted by D W, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 9:09 pm
The question isn't Yes or No or whether we like it or not. It is this: Do the majority of Pleasanton citizens trust or distrust the Lins? As in, do us citizens believe there will be transparency or will the Lins bilk the taxpayers out of needed money.
We know that nobody trusts government, but do you trust the Lins? Read as much about them as possible and judge for yourself.
As for Pombo, EEEGAAAH! As in Richard "I stopped I-205 expansion and would do it again" Pombo! To all Pleasanton GOPers who know anyone in the district where the Pompous One is now at, please note that while Denham & Patterson also stick to their principles, at least they are sensitive to all infrastructure needs. For example, if a road needs paving or expansion for safety, the latter two Repubs would go get it done right away. Pombo? His obsession with property rights delayed the extremly urgent 205-580 corridor expansion FOR 20 YEARS! 20 YEARS! For two decades, any loved ones our citizens had in the San Joaquin Valley took an average of one hour longer to share great family times with us. All because Pombo disputed a piece of land near the freeway with no strong evidence.
Pardon the subject change, but if a GOP-er is to unseat McNerney here or take over in the Valley, at least vote for strong principles that also include great listening skills from our ridges to our schools and so on. Tracy & the Tri-Valley did not have that for 2 decades, only zealotry at its worst. Harmer here and Denham/Patterson there. Strong principles and no shrill.
Posted by Upset an unappreciative people, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 8:31 am
I am offended that Bikergirl says that she lived in Pleasnaton through most of these Mayors. I'd like to know which ones? The Mayros PRIOR to Pico and Tarver were much more level headed and middle of the road & logically business minded - wanted the best for the City. However... even Pico, Tarver and all the "NO GROWTH", "CLOSED MINDED", "LACK OF BUSINESS SENSE" leaders that we have had in the 90's and 2000's care about the City of Pleasanton and are doing their best. I don't like people who cast stones without #1, knowing the issuies, #2 dedicating their own time to bettering the city for the people and #3 having the guts to go to the Council meetings and speaking up rather than posting on a web site (and yes... I speak up in public). It's sad that many of the people who moved here in the 1990's and on don't realize what it took to make Pleasanton what it is today. I don't Like "Not in My Back Yard" people!
Posted by No Hot Air, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 11:01 am
I'm with Nosy and Upset. But, DW, I have to ask, have you written to Puffed Up Hot Air Over Blubber, aka Big Al, or Gore, about what a horrible hypocrite he is to have a really BIG house, using all that energy? However, even his huge house isn't big enough for that big bag of hot air!.
Posted by DB, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Of course Gore is a huge hypocrite, and he has five monster homes, not just one, plus all the private jet travel.
Google the WSJ article titled "an inconvenient pool." It doesn't end there with Gore: his wealth is largely from his senator father's "investments" in Occidental Petroleum, which at the time was the most corrupt oil company around, living up to all the worst stereotypes...
Now Gore is getting wealthy off trading carbon credits...
Posted by Voting NO on D, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm
All in all I don't have much of a problem with the mayor's promises as they seemed to have stuck to facts and left the emotional nonsense out, but there are two statements however that don't pass the sniff test. The first one,
"2. Our schools get $300,000 each year in property tax for operations." is simply not true-as many others have previously stated.
The state pays a daily allowance for each student at school that day. It does not matter how much in property taxes we send to Sacramento, they pay us for the type of district we are, period. Common sense would tell you that if the property taxes from Ruby Hill's 800+ large homes still require parcel tax appeals to help our district run, an additional 51 homes isn't really going to make much of a difference. The mayors flubbed that one.
Second, calling this an environmentally "sensitive" project, is a serious stretch. If you mean that checking a known nesting tree to make sure that raptor chicks are out of it before you chop it down is sensitive, or that lopping as much as 42 feet off a ridge-top is ok, or that bulldozing the pristine spring violet habitat that the (city golf course favorite) Callippe butterfly's larvae feeds off is the best for the environment, then I guess this project is awesome. All this and more is scheduled to happen to environment if Measure D passes. NOT cool mayors of yesteryear.
Lastly, what does this ominous statement mean exactly?
"A Yes vote on Measure D allows Pleasanton, not the state, to be in control over the future development and uses of our southeast woodlands."
Huh? Measure D is about Oak Grove, No? Why the southeast woodlands (note the lack of "hills" in this statement?) reference? It makes Measure D look more far reaching than it really is. Again, not cool.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 4:26 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"Our schools get $300,000 each year in property tax for operations."
51 students (as projected by PUSD that Oak Grove could generate) multiplied by the amount of revenue limit per ADA comes to roughly $300,000. So the number is in the ballpark but the origin is not.
Compared with the other alternative projects that were explored in the EIR (and mentioned in the Voter's Guide), the 51 homes plus 500-acre park was the most environmentally sensitive of them all.
"A Yes vote on Measure D allows Pleasanton, not the state, to be in control over the future development and uses of our southeast woodlands."
They're referencing the loss of local planning control that the recent lawsuit over the housing cap has caused. Pleasanton has to negotiate with an outside entity before issuing permits, essentially. Ordinance 1961 was approved prior to Pleasanton losing the lawsuit so Measure D represents a planning item that still lies within Pleasanton's control. If Measure D does not pass, future proposals will also be subject to whatever negotiations with Urban Habitat will require in order to meet the State's RHNA numbers. As one poster wrote in another thread, No on D is a crap shoot. I don't gamble myself.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm
"All the cool folks are voting NO on D."
You mean all the Steve B. and Kay Ayala followers?
You mean all the people who do not even understand measure D and yet put a sign on their yard because they were told too?
You mean people who agree with McGovern? People who want to see low income housing instead? (remember, it is private property and SOMETHING will be built, if not the 51 homes it will be something else)
I am voting YES just because of who is behind the no campaign.
Posted by long time resident, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Stacey, The ADA amount does not cover the expense according to the district. That is why they are trying to get a parcel tax.
The EIR was not approved by the Planning Commission. The EIR did not investigate a plan with fewer homes that will fit without significant amount of environmental destruction.
You are also misinformed on the lawsuit (or making things up): "Pleasanton has to negotiate with an outside entity before issuing permits, essentially. Ordinance 1961 was approved prior to Pleasanton losing the lawsuit so Measure D represents a planning item that still lies within Pleasanton's control. If Measure D does not pass, future proposals will also be subject to whatever negotiations with Urban Habitat will require in order to meet the State's RHNA numbers. " NOT TRUE. The lawsuit prevents commercial permits but does not affect residential. They are claiming that the jobs-housing balance is out of wack. So a housing cap is leading to a commercial cap until this is resolved. Actually, if the suit made it so we could not develop more residential, that would probably make a lot of the city happy as it would bring down the housing cap to what we have today.
Posted by No on D, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Yes Stacy, you are responding but not in a truthful way. What they said was wrong-period. You and the Lins can try to dazzle the unsuspecting with all those zeros after the 3, but the truth is that money WILL NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE in the hole the district is currently in. It just won't.
Same story for the 2 million in gift fees to the school district. It would be wonderful if the money came in one of those giant checks from the developer, but that is not how it will happen (if it ever happens). The money will trickle in in small bits as the homes are approved and built. How on earth could the district plan to use any of that money when they couldn't accurately predict when, and in what amount it would appear? One has to seriously wonder if the folks running the district would try to borrow against the anticipated income only to see it not appear-sound familiar? More COPS payments anyone?
Long time resident is also correct about the EIR info. The council approved a plan that I feel none of them read or understood that well. If you read through it yourself you would be amazed that ANY council would agree to such horrible stuff. The planning commission would have read it and would never have gone for it which is probably why the council was advised to skip that formality.
Also, using the term "southeast woodlands" certainly implies that Measure D has more reach than it does. Measure D only deals with the development rights to the Lin property and not the rest of the "hills" south of town-far from it in fact.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 7:58 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
- It is well known in education that the increase in operational costs is marginal when students are added and you can read that in the "Getting Down to Facts" studies. I've already analyzed that in another thread, but to sum up, 51 students translates into roughly 1.4 FTE which costs less than half of the $300,000 in revenue those students will bring. Go ahead, call Luz, and ask if 51 new students will significantly impact their budget in a negative way.
- Regarding the lawsuit, I was thinking beyond the restriction of commercial permits that the judge put in place (and only referenced it to illustrate our loss of local planning control). I'm talking about whatever the results of negotiations between the City and Urban Habitat will be. There will be no cap. There will be no incentive for a developer to reduce the number of homes from what is allowed under the General Plan. And we have no idea what kinds of requirements we can put on future development proposals. All will be subject to either Urban Habitat or a judge. As I wrote, "If Measure D does not pass, future proposals will also be subject to whatever negotiations with Urban Habitat will require in order to meet the State's RHNA numbers." It's still a crap shoot.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 8:07 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
From PLMD-5 of the Voter's Guide:
The EIR analyzes the original project proposal as a residential development of a 98-unit, custom home development (Original Project). The EIR also analyzed four other alternatives for this proposed project, one of which is referred to as "Alternative 4", a 51-unit development plan. Through a collaborative process with the neighbors, City staff, and the applicant, an alternative was developed, Alternative 4, reflecting numerous design changes to the original proposal. This development plan is the environmentally superior alternative because the environmental impacts are reduced when compared to the impacts of the originally proposed 98-lot development.
The environmentally superior project consists of 51 home sites for custom homes with all development occurring on approximately 66 acres of the 562 acre site. Residential sites would be located primarily where impacts were found to be less significant and designed to preserve more woodland area by reducing the number of trees that would be impacted (58 mature trees of the 12,000 trees on site), protecting seasonal drainage ways and valley bottoms, which include areas of Federal jurisdiction, and/or supporting important vegetation and wildlife resources. These areas remain mostly free of development and/or development impacts due to the plan revision lessening the number of homesites from 98 to 51.
Posted by Jack, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 9:34 am
Though I think our currnet Mayor does a fine job, I see nobody else standing in the wings waiting to take over. Why don't you "Five Former Mayors" do more than write a letter? Lace 'em up and get back in the game! Pleasanton needs you... again!
Posted by long time resident, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 10:35 am
The EIR did not study the alternative that would fit on the land without major grading. Just like most developers do, they have one alternative that completely destroys the environment and then they have another alternative that is what they want but still not a great deal. Just like a car salesman. Start out real high and work your way down.
Stacey, the lawsuit opinion is just that, your opinion. Or more accurately, your scare tactics.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 7:55 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"It's a crap shoot" is certainly opinion. The question above was asking for meaning on this sentence: "A Yes vote on Measure D allows Pleasanton, not the state, to be in control over the future development and uses of our southeast woodlands." The fact here is that when Pleasanton lost the housing cap lawsuit, it lost local control, which does not affect Measure D because of the timing involved.
Posted by long time resident, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm
We did not completely loose local control. This suit also does not affect Oak Grove now, or when it is brought back by the land owner. The only difference between now and if the property owner has to bring it back is we have a new ordinance in local law for ridgeline protection that was enacted last year. The lawsuit is about affordable housing and the housing cap. The Oak Grove development does nothing for the ABAG requirements of zoning for subsidized housing.
Part of the reason we are having problems with affordable housing has to do with the mayors in the guest opinion piece supporting this project. They had below-market requirements in some of the developments they approved but they had an ending date so some of these below-market units are now market-rate and our percentage of below-market housing goes down. It was not until mayor Tarver that we made developers keep below-market units in perpetuity.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
One cannot say that the housing cap lawsuit has no effect on Oak Grove.
Measure D provides for 20 affordable housing units to be built elsewhere in the city within 5 years or the developer pays Pleasanton's Lower Income Housing Fee for 51 units. The lawsuit provides incentive for 20 affordable units to be approved and built within those 5 years.
Moreover, the lawsuit struck down the part of PP that defines a housing unit. What that can mean for Oak Grove is that the State's definition of housing unit applies to whatever exemptions PP has for ridgeline development. People want to vote no because they don't want the grading and the building on top of hills, but we may just end up with yet another sort of proposal like that even under PP.
Posted by Dan Doerr, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2010 at 9:40 pm
So sad. Yes on D folks talk about the plan and its benefits very specifically.
The opponents attack personally anyone and everyone who advocates yes on D.
Because the plan is good and hard to find fault with.
Instead, appeal to people's hidden bigotries by pointing out the evil CHINESE Lin family who (gasp) don't even live here.
Attack the Mayors as senile or in bed with the develpers. (Never mind the up front disclaimer that points out they have no financial ties)
Because they live in Gray Eagle and don't want 51 homes built higher on the hill then their houses. They will no longer have the most expensive homes on the block.
They do not care that the town will get 500 acres if those houses are built.
They hide the fact that the entire Kottinger development was planned and scaled from the beginning to accomodate 100+ homes up there. They've enjoyed the supersized access roads all these years and now don't want to pay the price.
Selfish. Selfish. But at least understandable.
What's McGovern's story? She actually lives herself in a house built ON a ridgeline. What a hypocrite.
And the shrill ninny Kay Ayala and the fool Steve Brozosky - both Losers who are looking for some campaign to get the spotlight back. Poor Kay. Poor Steve. Pitiful. Find some other cause because this one just makes you look petty.
Vote Yes on D unless you live in Kottinger and want to keep others from moving in. Its selfish because you cost us the park, but its o.k. We get it. We would vote No if we lived there too.
If this town has any common sense, the vote will be (Population of Kottinger) + Kay + Steve vs. (The entire rest of town)