Town Square

Post a New Topic

Competing hillside initiatives head to Nov. 4 ballot box

Original post made on Jul 17, 2008

Councilman Matt Sullivan Tuesday criticized three of his colleagues on the council, including Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, of "going down the wrong road" by voting to place an initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot that would compete against a citizens' initiative aimed at restricting hillside development strengthening the city's 29,000-unit housing cap mandate.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 1:27 PM

Comments (10)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 17, 2008 at 4:27 pm

I find it interesting how numbers become inflated over time. First the number of certified signatures on the petitions became 5,000, now the number of acres to be dedicated as a park in Oak Grove is 600!

Did anyone else think it completely silly for Council to be making motions on who was going to write arguments for and against and rebuttals for the Council-sponsored measure? I tuned out of the meeting then.

One thing I think important on the June 26th meeting on this topic is to pay attention to what the Greenbriar representative said. Usually things spoken by developers at such meetings can form into the basis of future litigation. We saw it happen with Oak Grove...

 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 17, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Yeah, you get those yellow postcards in the mail about upcoming votes at council meetings that affect you as a property owner and the boiler plate makes it clear that you will be limited in your rights if you don't speak up at the meeting about the subject that bothers you. THAT'S WHY THEY COME AND SPEAK UP. What is said is always the basis of the next lawsuit, if filed. Happened at the Oak Grove vote. Go listen to the tape of that meeting in November.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 17, 2008 at 9:09 pm

That's all we need, another developer lawsuit because of some vague initiative language and Councilmembers who are more interested in whoever screams the loudest rather than protecting the public interest from such lawsuits.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm

When Mr. Sullivan talked about the "expertise" concerning the group who wrote the initiative, did anyone notice that three of the group of proponents all LOST their bid to be elected members of the council? Does that vote mean anything? Or does it have to be in the form of an initiative? Or complaint before the council?

Just wondering!

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm

To the extent that in the past four or more years Sullivan and Hosterman have been "tighter than ticks", does this represent a "lover's quarrel" or does it represent a real difference of opinion?

It will be interesting to observe if Hosterman and Sullivan support each other in the coming election as they have done in the past.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by annonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 19, 2008 at 6:44 pm

seems Matt Sullivan has tied his star to Kay Ayala et al

 +   Like this comment
Posted by annoymous II
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 19, 2008 at 7:11 pm

that is Ayala/Brozosky/McGovern et all. And you can be sure he will regret it. There is no loyality there.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 19, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I find it interesting that people are more concerned here with the personalities than the issues. I don't really care who is alligned with who. I am concerned on the issues. I would not expect anybody to be in complete alignment with somebody else. That would make somebody the puppet. I want people on our council that can think for themselves. I am not going to agree with everything on anybody. I believe the real issue here is that the mayor has taken a hard turn into working with the developers. She used to say she would not even meet with the developers and now she works with them and defends them at any chance. It seems the power of staying in office has overshadowed her principals. Having elections every two years with the cost of elections now seems to have pushed the mayor in aligning with the developers so she has the funds to keep running.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 19, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I think it should be a combination of both personality and issues. I'd like to also know a little of candidates personalities because that plays a big role in 1) understanding how they will react to (and vote in!) different situations and 2) being able to lead.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jul 19, 2008 at 9:54 pm

"hard turn into working with the developers." What does this mean?

The mayor works with developers. How so? Explain. Are these working actions done privately, or in an official capacity, which would be council meetings and votes that arise therefrom. This complaint really needs some explanation. Come on now, do you mean she is meeting privately with developers? Or, are you saying that if you as council vote for a project you are therefore deemed to be "working with the developers"?

Now if you really mean council meetings, then are you saying that because she voted for a developer's project, that she is working with developers? If you are Sullivan or McGovern and you vote against the developer's project, which they usually do, the conclusion is they are not working for developers?

The charges that appear in these posts are so crazy. What is the role of council when development projects appear before them on the agenda? Is their role to vote down everything that appears before them based upon a definition of a developer? People in these posts just throw out accusational sound bites (working with developers, defending them) without any attempt to substantiate the truth of their accusations. This is called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech also includes my stating that these posters are full of it and can't substantiate any of the stuff of which they are full.

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


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

Baker bill targets BART strikes
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 1,362 views

The House of Representatives performs history’s first repeat hara-kiri
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 1,306 views

Old Memories and iMemories
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 687 views

Net Neutrality a win or loss for open Internet and First Amendment?
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 605 views