Town Square

Post a New Topic

PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99"

Original post made by Walter on May 13, 2008

We need to keep this information going...so posting it again.
Please read the information that is being sent...its misleading!

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU VOTE IN THE "DIRECT PRIMARY

ELECTION" ON TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008 & PLEASE MAKE SURE

THAT YOU READ THE FINE PRINT ON PROPOSITION 98 & 99

BEFORE VOTING.

BILLIONAIRE INVESTMENT MULTI-MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS,

WHO ORIGINALLY PURCHASED MOBILE HOME PARKS AT PROPERTY

PRICES THAT WERE COMPENSATORY WITH CITY NEGOTIATED

RENT RATES & "PRODUCER PRICE INDEXED" RENT INCREASES

HAVE NOW FIGURED OUT A WAY TO BYPASS THIS CONTROL &

SET RIDICULOUSLY HIGH RESIDENTS RENT RATES DIRECTLY.

THE OWNERS & THEIR HIGH POWERED COURT ATTORNEYS

REALIZE THAT THIS WILL FORCE THE PARK RESIDENTS TO

MOVE, SINCE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE NEW LAND RENT

BENEATH THEIR OWNED HOMES & ALSO WILL ELIMINATE THE

POSSIBILITY OF THE RESIDENTS SELLING THEIR HOMES TO

FUTURE BUYERS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH LAND RENTS THE NEW

BUYERS WOULD BE FACED WITH. IN THIS MANNER, THE PARK

OWNERS CAN SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVE THE RESIDENTS FROM

THEIR HOMES AT VIRTUALLY NO COST TO THEM & HAVE THE

PROPERTY NOW VALUED AT TEN-FOLD THEIR ORIGINAL

PURCHASED PRICE TO SELL OR BUILD INVESTMENT

CONDOS/APARTMENTS.

THE PARK OWNERS ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE CALIFORNIA

CITY RENT CONTROL LAWS THAT COVERS SENIOR MOBILE HOME

RESIDENTS SO THEY'VE SOMEHOW MANAGED A WAY TO ADD IT

TO "PROPOSITION 98" TITLED "EMINENT DOMAIN, LIMITS ON

GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT". OF COURSE THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING.

NO ONE WANTS TO LOSE THEIR HOME BECAUSE SOME INVESTOR

WANT TO BUILD A SHOPPING MALL. THE PARK OWNERS ARE

SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON DECEPTIVE

ADVERTISEMENT SHOWING SAD SCENES OF CHILDREN BEING

EVICTED FROM THEIR HOMES, ETC. ACTUALLY "PROPOSITION

99" TITLED "EMINENT DOMAIN, LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT

ACQUISITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, INITIATIVE

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT" DOES EXACTLY THE SAME THING

AS "PROPOSITION 98" & BARS USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO

ACQUIRE AN OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE FOR CONVEYANCE TO

A PRIVATE PERSON OR BUSINESS. ONLY "PROP. 99" DOES

NOT ELIMINATE CITY RENT CONTROL LAWS & CITY

NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS.

SO PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99" &

THEN WE'LL HAVE THE BEST FOR EVERYONE THATS EFFECTED.

THIS WILL ALLOW US & MANY SENIOR CITIZENS ON FIXED

INCOMES TO REMAIN IN OUR OWNED HOMES ON RENTAL LANDS &

WILL ALSO NOT ALLOW PRIVATE RESIDENCE HOME OWNERS TO

BE REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES BY THE SAME AVARICIOUS

PRIVATE INVESTORS & LOBBIED STATE OFFICIALS USING

"EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR THEIR GREEDY PURPOSES

Comments (11)

Posted by Jessie, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on May 13, 2008 at 8:53 am

There will be a townhall meeting on this at the Vineyard Villa Mobile Home Park on Wed. May 14, at 7pm. City Attorney and others will be speaking. I think we all need to attend to see how the we can save our homes. I am a senior in another park, and live on social security. I have worked hard all my life raising my family. Now I come to a time in my life, that am in fear of loosing my home if this passes. I don't know where I will go. I do not want to be a burden on my kids. This is just not for us seniors, but families that have children in apartments and condos.
What is this world coming to?


Posted by first gen, a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on May 13, 2008 at 10:49 am

Pleasanton Weekly Staff,

Will you be at the Wednesday, May 14th meeting and doing a story on the issue?

I think quite a few of us in different neighborhoods would be interested to know if our seniors are being looked after or being taken for a ride by others.

Thank You.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on May 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I do not understand why mobile home parks are included in this...
Apartments and condo's yes because of the upkeep...like carpeting, painting, etc and in MHP people own their own home...
God the Government is taking over! Pretty soon they will come after home owners....oh they do...its called property taxes


Posted by Jason and Lena, a resident of Sycamore Place
on May 14, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Yes Walter...its all about the greed!
I bet if these owners of these places had family in them, they would think differently!
I wish you the best of luck...
People vote NO and Yes


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 14, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Either proposition may serve as a "poster child" of the abuse that factions perpetrate using direct democracy. Written in secret by special interests, they float laws to be voted into effect by the unknowing public who are fed sound bites that are feel-good to most in order to secure votes. None of these proposed laws are previously vetted in public forums that would normally flush out the greed and self-interest that is usually hidden within these propositions. Simply vote no for all or any of them unless you really, really understand them and want their effect.


Posted by AL, a resident of Highland Oaks
on May 26, 2008 at 10:48 pm

I just filled out my ballot. YES on 98, NO on 99. Sorry, I just can't agree with rent control. Let the market dictate rents. Thanks for pointing these out, so I could research them on my own:)


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 27, 2008 at 7:17 am

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)


Posted by Police Informant, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 1, 2008 at 10:08 am

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)


Posted by Drexl, a resident of Ironwood
on Jun 2, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I'm with Al, Yes on 98 No on 99. Both are practically exactly the same except on Rent Control. Sorry, don't believe in it, and yes Stacey, I did read the propositions, with a friend who was Yes on 99; he ended up changing his view to no on both as they do not do enough to protect our homes; and we both concluded, it is all about rent control; his reason for no on 98; does not know enough about the impact of getting rid of rent control.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Heh. My comment got removed. Let me put it nicely then. There is a segment of the population that believes the market should dictate rents and housing prices. I think that is fine only up to a point. What happens when your own kids can't afford to live in the town you moved to to raise them in...

Web Link


Posted by seegermanhou, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 15, 2008 at 9:41 pm

trust land letter see we letter england


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Preserving Disorder
By Tom Cushing | 73 comments | 2,103 views

The drought drives lawmakers to action
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 1,463 views

Jim Kohnen Post Office Signed into Law
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 647 views

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 285 views