When a city's leadership hurts the entire town State, National, International, posted by A must read, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Posted by SteveS, a resident of Dublin, on Aug 28, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hard to think of McNerney as being among the country's leadership ... not only is he a follower, he's a virtual puppet for Nancy Pelosi ... I'd be ashamed to have run on the premises that he did, then allow that woman to stick her hand up the back of my suit coat in order to control my movements and speech the way he does ...
Posted by Chris, a member of the Walnut Grove Elementary School community, on Aug 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm
So what is new? Hosterman, Thorn, and Cook Kallio vote 'yes' and okay each and every permit for everyone and everything who fills out an application to open a business or build something? And for fear of being sued by some development conglomerate?
Wow, how's that for leadership? It is no wonder we need new leadership in this town.
Posted by Dan R., a resident of the Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 29, 2010 at 9:33 pm
This is what happens when a city council continually downzones private property interests. This could happen with Oak Grove. 600 acres of pristine oak woodlands - wonder what its worth? Wonder if three members of our city council are willing to buy it?
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 29, 2010 at 9:40 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I saw this story back when the Oak Grove issue first became a topic on the PW Town Square Forum. It was an example of one way a government takes property and must provide "just compensation".
"Walker ruled that the city had created the wetlands - and damaged the property - by botching a storm drain project and by allowing dirt to be removed for a nearby housing development. Its wetlands status meant the plot could not be developed under state coastal regulations."
My concern now with Oak Grove, as it was back when I first saw this story, is that keeping a property owner perpetually going back to the beginning of the planning process and having to deal with changes in law over that time that reduce the ability of the owner to develop their land might be ruled as a "taking". It isn't an issue of approving any permit and development plan that comes along, but the years of stringing along an owner who has already gone through the process several times.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 29, 2010 at 9:42 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The planning process is not meant to be abused to the extent that it is used as a tool to prevent development and growth, but to shape it.
Posted by b, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 30, 2010 at 8:19 am
Thank you for posting the link and drawing the connection. It is absolutely relevant, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been raised before. A healthy city planning process and reasonable regulation is allowed and expected. But when a landowner/developer complies with the law, local land use regulations/zoning, and completes a plan that addresses concerns of the planning commission, and is still prevented from developing their land, it puts the city at great legal risk. This is real, folks.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
