Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton Weekly is biased toward development

Original post made by openyoureyes, Vintage Hills Elementary School, on Jun 7, 2010

Does anyone else but me notice that Jeb Bing and his newspaper is practically working for the Lin Family??? Since the newspaper is completed paid for by real estate companies, and businesses (including developers and construction companies) it is totally obvious why HIS is the only newspaper (if you can really call it that) who in in favor of development on our hillsides??

PW, I am disappointed that your last issue was basically a campaign piece for the Oak Grove development. I noticed that you did have a front page story on Kay Ayala (the NO on Measure D head) but it was conveniently printed about a month ago. Yet your front page article showing Jennifer Hostermann supporting this unconscionable development of the southwest hills...was timed to appear in the issue right before Election Day.

Your editorials are completely biased toward business and big growth and your stories are always slanted in their favor. Not in favor of the citizens of your community.

Wow, I hope the majority of Pleasanton residents can see past the biased "journalism" and read the 3 REAL newspapers that say the Oak Grove development is trampling on citizens rights!!

Comments (35)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by ?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2010 at 9:14 am

What about the rights of the property owners? Oh, that's right. In Pleasanton, property owners HAVE no rights. Please.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Spike
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

Note that neither trees nor fallow land buy products from advertisers!!!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Roger Smith
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2010 at 9:57 am

We are not talking about the property rights.No one is saying that the Lins do not have any property rights. They have to go through a process to exercise those rights. The process involves the right of citizens to vote on the project and that is what is happening."Openyoureyes" is saying that PW is totally biased in favor of this project, the big developers and the Mayor. Coming out with a front page article for Yes on D just before the election just stinks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 7, 2010 at 10:11 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"read the 3 REAL newspapers"

You mean the ones (owned by the same news organization) that didn't even bother to examine the pros and cons of the project, didn't bother to tour the property, essentially didn't bother to investigate?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curious
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2010 at 11:37 am

I find it notable that the only newspaper that took the time to actually tour the property is the one endorsing Yes on Measure D. The other newspapers were offered the opportunity as well but were too arrogant to take the time to tour the property and see for themselves the land the City would actually get and where the homes would be located especially relative to Alan Robert's and Bob Grove's homes, etc.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by m
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2010 at 12:46 pm

People ... people ... what Jeb thinks is almost irrelevant ... you know where I got my news about Measure D ... from the posts on the Forum. Through all the morass, the noise, the bias ... I truly understood the issues of local politics better here than anywhere in my life ... Yes, I'm long in the tooth but still frisky as they say). And: when it comes time for the elections, I would like people to share their intelligent views ... (exclude the people that don't have that capacity ... you know who you are) ... I think this next time around is going to be a good one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 7, 2010 at 4:33 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm


I am disappointed that I cannot post comments and reviews of different businesses in the area without PW deleting them within an hour.

They should rename this "Pleasanton Weekly" moderated discussion forums. It should not be called "Town Square Forums". That implies that there is a free exchange of ideas which is certainly not exactly what we have here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by m
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Jack ... there are exceptions to free speech. For example you cannot yell "fire" in a theater ... you cannot promote the killing of a president of the united states in a public forum ... I'm not suggesting you are wrong in spirit ... but our freedom's are not unlimited and do come with restrictions ... but that is a small point to your broader point.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jason
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 7, 2010 at 7:31 pm

If the weekly is so biased in favor of D, then why did they include "guest opinion" comments opposing D from Cindy McGovern (who lives in the Ridge), Matt Sullivan, Bozo and others?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 7, 2010 at 7:47 pm

The Weekly's right to be as biased as they want is clearly protected by the First Amendment. So is their right to moderate this forum in any fashion they choose. Then again, those who have beefs with Bing and the others have the right to print their own paper... The Weekly has no obligation to play it down the middle with regard to the issues of Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by W. Cronkite
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jun 7, 2010 at 11:28 pm

As Walter Cronkite said many times, providing "fair and balanced journalism" is the duty of a good journalist. Even though I happen to agree with the PW's position, I do believe they have demonstrated fair and balanced journalism in their coverage of the Oak Hills issue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of Val Vista
on Jun 8, 2010 at 12:28 am

Umm, Walter Cronkite maybe not the best example of "fair and balanced". Just sayin'....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Andy
a resident of Country Fair
on Jun 8, 2010 at 6:38 am

The PW article was well written and fair. The No On D folks have been given ample opportunity to articulate their unique point of view which amounts to something along the lines of "we can negotiate a better deal with the developer" or "I want to stop someone from building a larger home than the one I live in" or my favorite "property rights mean nothing to me". I actually think PW has helped folks make an informed decision. Most of my neighbors with the No On D signs truly did not know where the development was happening.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 8, 2010 at 8:30 am

Any newspaper that supports my views is open and faur. Any newspaper that supports any other's view is obviously biased.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MoneyTalks
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 8, 2010 at 8:32 am

The reason Jeb and the PW support Oak Grove is because if you look at the bulk of the advertising in the paper, it's predominantly real estate ads. They're certainly not practicing fair, balanced journalism. Instead, you bet they put Mayor Hosterman on the cover, and you bet they did a double-trunk (two-page) article wholly slanted toward Measure D supporters.

They want to ensure that that big chunk of real estate ad revenue keeps on coming in, especially when it's time to start advertising sales of the multi-million dollar Oak Grove homes.

PW and Jeb aren't representative of fair, balanced journalism, or a respectable newspaper. It's basically a 'rag.' The publisher is just a business looking to keep their revenue stream flowing in down the road, journalism be damned.

Hey Jeb, Gina--most of us aren't that stupid and can easily see beyond this blatant lobbying effort on behalf of Measure D and your ulterior monetary motives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 8, 2010 at 8:35 am

Stacey is a registered user.

HAHA yea, because 51 new homes is going to double, no wait, triple their advertising revenue! (BTW, which developer sells their brand new homes through real estate agents?)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gunslinger
a resident of another community
on Jun 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

I don't know about the PW, but I damn well know the Danville Weekly, which is owned by the same company, is pro-development. Their blatant support of razing the historic Danville downtown in order to build a towering monstrosity of concrete exemplified their pro-development attitude. Why were they so in favor? It wasn't advertising in this case. It was the desire to change our town, to urbanize it, to break up the predominantly white, crimeless, wealthy neighborhood. They hate areas like that. It drives them nuts. They see such areas and the only thing they can think is "we need more minorities! We need more glitzy buildings to attract outsiders! We need low income housing!" Now, the oak grove thing is quite different. However, knowing that the PW and DW are of the same ilk, I'm sure there's a similar motivation ultimately


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Getting Desperate
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 8, 2010 at 8:57 am

The No folks are getting desperate. Have to default to attacking anyone who isn't in lock step with their thinking. Why can't you just say they are entitled their opinion and be done with it? Doesn't mean you have to agree. Instead they try to put anyone down who won't agree.

Be informed, actually walk the trails and property and you couldn't imagine a better compromise. Please vote yes on D!!! I would love to have 500 acres of open space trails close to home!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by West Side Observer
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 8, 2010 at 9:21 am

Opinion Pleasanton has supported the Lins for many years. Trash talkers are either environmental nuts, anti establishment throwbacks, or elitist NIMBYs. Trash talking the Pleasanton Weekly shows how weak the No on D people's arguments really are.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julia
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 8, 2010 at 9:29 am

Gunslinger is correct...If the good folks in Danville don't wake up soon their rustic little town will go to hell in a hand basket...as we say in Alamo.

Also, Roger Smith is also very correct...by the way, he a good man in Alamo.

Thanks Julia, from that great community of Alamo.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Furdog
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 8, 2010 at 9:30 am

OPEN YOUR EYES - You are an idiot! If you noticed, the Weekly has run many articles for and against Measure D. They've put NO on D stickers on every edition of the Weekly. How can you say they favor the developers? Open your eyes (it might help). Feel free to move out of Pleasanton as well. We don't tolerate your kind!!!

YES ON D! YES ON D! YES ON D! YES ON D!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 8, 2010 at 10:28 am

Stacey is a registered user.

One certainly won't be reading the opposing view on the Opinion Pleasanton site! (For those who haven't been introduced to it yet, here's the link Web Link)

I'm glad to see OP finally wrote something after such a long break.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by P-town Dad
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 8, 2010 at 10:34 am

openyoureyes,

Pleasanton is lucky to have Jeb Bing as newspaper editor. That aside, just because PW's careful analysis doesn't agree with your ideas doesn't make them biased. I support Jeb and the PW for their quality content every single week. I don't always agree with PW, but I know they care about this town and they do good work.

I'm going to vote YES on D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by to Furdog:
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 8, 2010 at 11:06 am

Furdog, there has only been a "No on D" sticker once and that was paid for by the "No" campaign like any other ad in the paper. I think you are mistaking the Yes on D stickers that were in every other issue. Takes money to run those all the time. The developer has spent over $500,000 in this campaign in the last month or so. Their earlier finance statements had them spending over $10,000 at the Weekly but I imagine they have spend a lot more.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 8, 2010 at 11:57 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Those other 3 newspapers couldn't possibly have toured the property in question. They don't have a reporter any more. Just circulation, advertising and collections.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm


P-Town Dad = Jeb Bling


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MoneyTalks
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 8, 2010 at 2:05 pm

I have to truly laugh at some of the comments after my first post.

Get real. Yes, a newspaper has the right to state their opinion and typically does--but most state their opinions as being their opinions (i.e., flagged as "Editorial"), rather than doing a 2-page thinly veiled "news" article (it wasn't), with the Mayor on the cover. Total marketing/lobbying spin. The article wasn't news, it was an editorial hit piece strategically timed for publication last Friday, and the 'Yes on D' mindshare it would hopefully generate.

This is also the same issue of the PW that had the yellow "Yes on D" sticker on it. This is the same PW issue that was published just before today's election.

The earlier poster who stated there's been one 'No on D' sticker on the PW is right. 'Yes on D' stickers have been far more frequent over the past several weeks, including the most recent one last Friday.

Hmmm, wonder if 'No on D' even had the opp. to have their sticker placed on last Friday's edition?

If you think those are ALL coincidences, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

Stacey--new home builders use Realtors all the time to sell new home developments. Many times they hire an entire company to market and sell a new development, with a trailer on site until the entire development is sold. You think the many Realtors and real estate marketing cos. in this area aren't salivating to get in on 3-5% commissions on $2+ million dollar estates?

To those who think 'No on D' folks are getting desperate, here's some food for thought for you.

FACT: The Lins 'hired gun' telephone solicitors called people by phone a few weeks ago to confirm whether they were 'yay' or 'nay' on D, then falsely told the Lins that some people they called said 'Yes, I support Measure D,' when just the opposite was the truth. The Lins sent 'thanks for your support on D' letters to those people.

That's pretty desperate behavior in my book,'Yes on D' folks.

Bing Hadley posts a letter before the election; the Mayor quickly makes a post to endorse it. That's pretty desperate to me.

One thing to look forward to, regardless of the outcome of the election: the sooner the carpetbagging Lins are out of and done with the Tri-Valley (yes, not just Pleasanton--look around and you may be surprised at just how many tract housing developments were initiated by the Lins--including land holdings in Dublin and San Ramon), the better.

I respect the Spotorno family for at least showing up and speaking to the public, in person, over the years, regarding disputes involving their property holdings, whether I agreed with them or not.

The Lins? Rich landholders that do their talking by proxy and litigation. Good riddance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 8, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Why would a builder bother much in paying commission to outside agents? When's the last time you saw a new development advertised in the Weekly? I think you rather overestimate the utilization of real estate agents by a builder. Those trailers will often contain sales staff selling directly to buyers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by openyoureyes
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 8, 2010 at 3:02 pm

To Furdog:
There has ONLY been ONE "No on D"sticker on the Weekly that I ever counted.
Also, I guess some of you don't "tolerate very many kinds in Pleasanton", not just "my kind" and that is a sad commentary.
As I said, I already voted NO on D, NO on D, NO on D!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by openyoureyes
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Furdog, Stacey and others: BTW, I don't even know anyone on the No on D campaign and am not even part of whatever group you are saying is getting desperate...sounds like you may be desperate. I just like politics, local and national. But "my kind" usually does!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 8, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I never said anyone is getting desperate!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Becky Dennis
a resident of Foxborough Estates
on Jun 8, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Hey, Money Talks -

I don't think you really have so much to complain about. Many of my YES on D friends were horrified to see Kay's picture on the front cover of the Weekly with a big color spread in the middle just as absentee ballots were sent out. Don't forget,more than 50% of Pleasanton's voters vote absentee. I'm sure Jeb got some angry calls and e-mails accusing him of throwing the election to NO on D.

We were, of course very grateful to get the Weekly's endorsement of YES on D. But if your accusations of financial influence and bias were true, the Weekly would have published their YES on D editorial much sooner, like the Independent, Times, and Herald did for NO on D. Then we could have distributed it to the voters earlier. Any good political consultant knows that most people have made up their minds (if they haven't voted absentee already!) well before the last week of the campaign. Furthermore, the Weekly probably wouldn't have published the opposing views of "Community Leaders", complete with pictures in living color, right next their YES on D endorsement, printed in very subdued tones of black, white, and gray. They went out of their way to be fair, and you can't blame them if things don't go your way.

YES on D!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Roger Smith
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:48 am

Who is this Stacy? She seems to have nothing better to do but post things in favor of the Lins, The council majority and PW. Stacy great job.Now don't go running to your Grandpa.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by floober
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm

"W. Cronkite", if PW had done what you are suggesting, you wouldn't know what side if the issue that they were on, you ding-dong!! If you agree with their stance on an issue, it implies that you know their stance on the issue.


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

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 21 comments | 1,656 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,102 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,028 views