Town Square

Post a New Topic

Sullivan calls Staples initiative change 'potential compromise'

Original post made on Jul 16, 2007

In a letter to the Pleasanton Weekly, published in the July 13 edition, City Councilman Matt Sullivan commends the authors of the Pleasanton Eastern Gateway Initiative for their revised plan.

Read the full story here Web Link

Comments (3)

Posted by Youth Sports Parent, a resident of West of Foothill
on Jul 16, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Mr. Sullivan supports the EGI and the fiscal health of our city.
This is the job responsibility he was elected for.
Here's the however. Let's begin from the top.

Mr. Sullivan did insist that the City Council follow due process.
A proper procedure for public input via the various commissions that report to the Council with their recommendations.

Was this process not complete?
Were the answers not what certain people in the minority want to hear?
Are the political aspirations of various commission members starting to creep into the scene because of the election results?

We are not blind out here.
The values that make Pleasanton the best place to live in Northern California were established by those Council members of the past that understood their community.

We tip our hats to our great City Council veterans of the past who made our town great.

The due process of our city government is fair and is a most valuable asset to our communities success.

Let's not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of the petty political antics that we are now become witness thereof.

The sports community of Pleasanton is a proud member of this town and needs to develop a variety of facilities immediately.

If Mr. Sullivan disagrees with the due process of this city, then he need look no further for the conflict than in the mirror.

We live and play here. Generations of recreation minded voters.
Those who wish to play politics with our youth sports community better start running for the door.


Posted by A resident since 1979, a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jul 21, 2007 at 9:31 pm

So......first....... regarding the last commenter. What???

What's your point? Please be clear. Something about youth sports. After living 28 years in Pleasanton with now two adult daughters both living in the city and being a product of Pleasanton soccer and softball and the schools I am unclear about how youth sports will suffer regarding the Staples Ranch issue. Lack of sports fields? Hardly. Ice rink at risk? Yeah, maybe. A good addition.

More to the point on the real issue. Mr. Sullivan, compromise? Between whom and whom? Between elitest NIMBY neighborhood group and whom? The auto dealership? Alameda County, the primary owners of the land? Please be clear about this compromise that you see. Explain it to us, the greater constituency, Pleasanton citizens. How do we benefit? Sales taxes from auto sales? Is that all of it?

Suppose Alameda County were so stupid not to develop the property within the county or were to give it over to Livermore or Dublin? Pleasanton citizens get to jump onto I580, the second worst traffic nightmare in the Bay Area, so we can drive over to the auto dealership? Or to drive there to take walks in the fictitious, undeveloped park lands? Perhaps we can drive to the end of the expensive, taxpayer paid-for Stoneridge drive "cul-de-sac", park our cars, and walk over. (As an aside, I bet the locals will complain about the cars parking there!)

So, for this to be a compromise, it must be between the greater Pleasanton citizenry and the vested-interest group that is promulgating this initiative. I don't see how the issue of the auto dealership involves this other than to throw some sales taxes to Pleasanton. I believe the greater Pleasanton citizenry wants the already planned development entities to be put in place and they want to get to this location to benefit from them without having to get onto I580.

To be fair to Mr. Sullivan the Pleasanton Weekly article quotes him as saying this revised initiative "opens the door for further discussions", and therefore, is not a final compromise. However, the Stoneridge extension and the development of Staples Ranch has been thoroughly vetted. The greater Pleasanton citizenry wants our leaders to make it a done deal, not negotiate it further with elitest NIMBYs.

Finally, let's be clear on the reality. Scott Haggerty and Alameda County have a responsibilty to all county taxpayers to maximize the county's return on the land known as Staples Ranch. They will put in a commercially intensive development similar to Hacienda Crossings if they get the chance. If Livermore gets the chance, you can bet on it. There will not be one Livermore resident who gets up at their council meeting to object. Once Pleasanton is out of the picture, we have no leverage over what gets put there. When this happens, the greater Pleasanton citizenry will likely press more vigorously for the Stoneridge extension so we can drive there without getting on I580. More reasons to want to go there.



Posted by Westsider, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 22, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Well said.


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

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 6 comments | 1,174 views

David Brooks at his Best and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 4 comments | 738 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 15 comments | 592 views