Town Square

Post a New Topic

Thorne to seek Pleasanton mayor's post in next year's municipal election

Original post made on Aug 29, 2011

With Election Day still more than 14 months away, Councilman Jerry Thorne announced this weekend that he is a candidate for mayor of Pleasanton, aiming to succeed Mayor Jennifer Hosterman whose eight year term as mayor expires then.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, August 29, 2011, 7:51 AM

Comments (42)

Posted by corrected vote count, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2011 at 9:21 am

The final vote tally for the 2010 City Council Election is:

Jerry Thorne - 14,201.
Cheryl Cook-Kallio - 12,009.
Karla Brown - 11,234.
Fred Watson - 4,928.
Write in - 66


Posted by Kurt Kummer, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Aug 29, 2011 at 7:30 pm

I've had the pleasure of working with Jerry back when he served on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Jerry was always thoughtful, informed, reasonable and willing to listen to other's points of view. He's been the same way since he was elected to City Council. Jerry will be a great Mayor of Pleasanton, just when we need him. We'll face budget issues in the coming years, and I can't think of anyone who'll be better to lead us than Jerry Thorne.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2011 at 7:55 pm

I agree that Gerry is a fine candidate and seems to have the strongest background and mindset for our continued budget challenges.

But here is a warning to all candidates for Mayor and City Council - don't seek out the backing of any city employee labor groups. Pleasanton has been shafted by previous elected officials who refused to make the tough financial decisions because they didn't want to upset the unions.

I and others will work very hard in the coming year to make UNION ENDORSEMENT A NEGATIVE in the coming campaign.

We need a mayor and City Council that is free of this special interest.


Posted by Concerned, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 8:55 pm

A key factor will be how the Mayor and City Council act in the police and fire contract negotiations, to see if they have the backbone to fight for the taxpayers or cave in to the unions as they have done before.


Posted by Concerned Californian, a resident of Valley Trails
on Sep 4, 2011 at 11:14 am

Isn't he one of the three crooks who took campaign contributions to put the ridges development on the ballot?


Posted by Cyril, a resident of Gatewood
on Sep 4, 2011 at 1:36 pm

But what's most important is all the people who didn't vote. The didn't vote tally shows them all to be communists that the majority didn't want to hold office.


Posted by Peter Malloy, a resident of Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Sep 5, 2011 at 9:36 pm

Hey GX-

A little food for thought: If YOU and OTHERS make sure the union endorsement is a "Negative," isn't that serving YOUR special interest?


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:43 am

I am an average citizen that is concerned about rapidly increasing personnel costs that are swamping the rest of our budget and ultimately (if not brought under control) will degrade Pleasanton.

So if you want to label me as a special interest - so be it. But I don't think that will fly with rational thinking people.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm

"Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, 3 hours ago

I am an average citizen that is concerned about rapidly increasing personnel costs that are swamping the rest of our budget and ultimately (if not brought under control) will degrade Pleasanton.

So if you want to label me as a special interest - so be it. But I don't think that will fly with rational thinking people."

- I'll label you a special interest...in fact, I'll label you the most special interest - taxpayer. As the taxpayer you aren't only providing the revenue but you are also the customer (without any options from from competing service providers). Hard to imagine a customer paying above market rate for service would be treated as anything but a valued customer. Unfortunately, some Pleasanton leaders consider you second class - not by the word they speak but by their actions/votes. There are people on the Dias that do NOT put the customer/taxpayer ahead of the special interest groups. It doesn't matter to some the taxpayer is the ULTIMATE customer, or that there are 70,000 citizens and only 400 public union employees. Their ULTIMATE customer is the special interest group that funded, endorsed, and campaigned for their election. Their customer IS the public employee unions. So why would Jennifer Hosterman and others continue to carry the torch of "THEIR" special interest group even after they're elected?

Hosterman has always been beholden to the unions and her actions at recent council meetings only confirm that - not that it really needs confirmation for those that have been paying attention. The reason she continues to put public employee unions first, especially public safety employee unions, is that she has political ambitions beyond Pleasanton.

Unfortunately her own agenda is so dependant on the union agenda that her efforts will continue to place the taxpayer second - NOT what she signed up for.


Posted by Cy, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Sep 6, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Yeah, Arnie's got it right. The consumer/customer/taxpayer is tops, including the special interest lobbies like corporations that have legal status as citizens. See, on Arnie's view, we cut the legs out from unions, and then allow big box store companies, big developers and other big money to come in and exert their special interests without needing to compete with the unions. Arnie likes the WalMart model with everyone not quite working a full 40 hours, at minimum wage (which is _below_ minimum wage), and without benefits. So much money to be made in the women's shoe business! So little time! Who cares about a healthy middle class when turning US into a third world country can ensure higher profits for the sub-minimum wage job creators? Arnie's quite a guy! He's really thought this through!


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:02 pm


Cy, I'm not against private sector unions. I support ALL private sector unions that do NOT have guaranteed hours. What I do NOT support is public sector unions that have zero competition and, therefore, no checks or balances on the compensation & benefits they can obtain. I also do NOT support the symbiotic relationship between this group and the city council members/mayor that they help elect, which approve the UNSUSTAINABLE Compensation & Benefits. If people, by that I mean taxpayers, understood how much off balance sheet debt our part- time mayor and council have committed us to, they would be furious. Union controlled CalPERS is also a big part of that problem but that issue hasn't yet made it into the main stream media. It will!

Is that a problem for you?


Posted by Cy, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Arnie says "I support ALL private sector unions that do NOT have guaranteed hours." I guess that pretty much eliminates all unions that have achieved the expectation of a 40-hour work week for its members; which pretty much eliminates all unions entirely. So much for that....

Arnie says that "public sector unions have zero competition" which is either disingenuous or completely idiotic, I'm not sure which. When right-wing knuckleheads are lobbying the city council in order to reduce union influence and union members' wages and benefits, what is THAT if not competition? Arnie just wants unions to rollover and let the right-wing govt cutters have their way? Right. That's what any rational union or union membership should do, Arnie, just roll over and allow themselves to be punked by tea bagger idiots who want to reduce employee effectiveness and reduce middle class wages.

Oh yeah, and then Arnie says: "I also do NOT support the symbiotic relationship between this group and the city council members/mayor that they help elect." Better just to have symbiotic relationships between pols and PRIVATE interest groups, right Arnie?

Is being as dumb as you and those you think agree with you a problem for me, Arnie? It sure is.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm

"Is being as dumb as you and those you think agree with you a problem for me, Arnie? It sure is."

- You're not to bright, are you?

"Arnie says "I support ALL private sector unions that do NOT have guaranteed hours." I guess that pretty much eliminates all unions that have achieved the expectation of a 40-hour work week for its members; which pretty much eliminates all unions entirely. So much for that...."

- Cy, I guess you are so focused on your PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS that you fail to see the plight of your union brethren. Not a surprise! To answer your quetion/statement: "I guess that pretty much eliminates all unions that have achieved the expectation of a 40-hour work week for its members; which pretty much eliminates all unions entirely. So much for that....""

- That pretty much demonstrates your unions ignorance to the issues facing private sector unions; specifically the building trades. Self centered CY, are you aware there is 40% unemployment in the building trades? I didn't think so. Your union is too busy fighting for overtime pay even when you don't actually work overtime to be concerned about the private sector unions - cats out of the bag now!

If you want to know the truth CY, union unemployment in the building trades is 40%, but underemployment in the trades, less than 40 hours, is 60%.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:09 pm

"Arnie says that "public sector unions have zero competition" which is either disingenuous or completely idiotic, I'm not sure which."

BTW, it is neither. It is the truth!

Brace yourself, CY, the new GASB pension accounting rules will make it difficult for cities, and city council members/mayors, to hide the TRUE cost of the unsustainable pensions, and will absolutely EXPOSE the ridiculous gift of retiree healthcare benefits that span everything from lifetime medical for families to benefits until age 65. Add it up and you have a huge liability that will be paid by future generations at increased rates/costs. Those costs will make it to the balance sheet in a few short years when cities are forced to get honest about their books.


Posted by Cy, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Arnie says, "- You're not to bright, are you?" Well Arnie, based upon what you're saying, it doesn't take much to be brighter than you. A little bit of grammar and wowsa, there it is....

Does Arnie address the issue of public sector unions, which was what he introduced as his concern? Nope. Does Arnie address how hilarious his views are once exposed for what they are? Nope.

Does Arnie attempt to distance himself from his support for symbiotics between pols and private interests at the expense of public sector employees? Nope. Does he defend his idiotic claim that public employees have no competition? Nope.

Instead, he goes off on a tangent about unions in the building trades. Thanks for nothing, Arnie. You started with nothing and somehow you've managed to offer us even less. Stick to selling women's shoes.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Cy, I'll just let your/my comments stand on their own for others to judge.


Posted by Cy, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Sep 6, 2011 at 5:52 pm

In other words, Arnie has nothing more to offer. After having had nothing to offer to begin with but unsubstantiated barbs directed at public sector employees and their unions, he retreats. Anybody surprised?


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 8:01 pm

"Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, 3 hours ago

I am an average citizen that is concerned about rapidly increasing personnel costs that are swamping the rest of our budget and ultimately (if not brought under control) will degrade Pleasanton.

So if you want to label me as a special interest - so be it. But I don't think that will fly with rational thinking people."

- I'll label you a special interest...in fact, I'll label you the most special interest - taxpayer. As the taxpayer you aren't only providing the revenue but you are also the customer (without any options from from competing service providers). Hard to imagine a customer paying above market rate for service would be treated as anything but a valued customer. Unfortunately, some Pleasanton leaders consider you second class - not by the word they speak but by their actions/votes. There are people on the Dias that do NOT put the customer/taxpayer ahead of the special interest groups. It doesn't matter to some the taxpayer is the ULTIMATE customer, or that there are 70,000 citizens and only 400 public union employees. Their ULTIMATE customer is the special interest group that funded, endorsed, and campaigned for their election. Their customer IS the public employee unions. So why would Jennifer Hosterman and others continue to carry the torch of "THEIR" special interest group even after they're elected?


Hosterman has always been beholden to the unions and her actions at recent council meetings only confirm that - not that it really needs confirmation for those that have been paying attention. The reason she continues to put public employee unions first, especially public safety employee unions, is that she has political ambitions beyond Pleasanton.

Unfortunately her own agenda is so dependant on the union agenda that her efforts will continue to place the taxpayer second - NOT what she signed up for.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 9:13 pm

Cy - I'd love to hear your defense of the following:

- For Pleasanton, personnel costs have increased from 65% of budget to 79% thereby reducing the amount of money for maintenace, capital improvement projects, etc.

- We went from zero unfunded liabilities to $180M for pensions for services already consumed. Going forward, the amount is likely to increase.

There is nothing middle class about the wages and benefits that city employees are garnering these days. And other cities have declared fiscal emergencies with similar numbers.

Remember city employees are here to service their customers, us tax paying citizens, not the other way around.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2011 at 9:35 pm

"For Pleasanton, personnel costs have increased from 65% of budget to 79% thereby reducing the amount of money for maintenace, capital improvement projects, etc."

GX, the costs have increased more than people realize. If the city was accounting for pension expense and retiree medical benefits like the private sector, or even using the proposed GASB changes that will soon be implemented, the cost would be 100% of the budget. No Joke! Pleasantons pension plans aren't even funded at the median of CalPERS unfunded plans. They're below the median, and the reason for that is...Big problems on the Horizon!


Posted by Cy, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:50 pm

GX states "There is nothing middle class about the wages and benefits that city employees are garnering these days." GX evidently thinks middle class should be set at minimum wage or less.

GX lives in the wealthiest mid-sized city in the United States, but the tightwad is too much of a money grubber to cough up the money needed to finance the public service sector.

All he and the women's shoe salesman Arnie can do is talk about imminent tsunamis.

GX goes on, "Remember city employees are here to service their customers, us tax paying citizens, not the other way around."
Do you really think your readers are as given to dumb platitudes as you and Arnie are, GX? You seem incapable of grasping that city employees have families to support. They are, understandably, going to seek to maintain their middle class lifestyle. They've already sacrificed quite a bit -- e.g., furloughs. What have you sacrificed, GX? What have local corporations sacrificed? Has Arnie donated any women's shoes to the city? You two whiners are nothing more than a couple of selfish little creeps.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:18 am

It is too bad that so many posters resort to juvenile name calling and tactics.

To the rest who really want to understand the issue, please keep in mind that the average compensation of a single Pleasanton employee is greater than the reported median household income for Pleasanton. Yes I understand the difference between average and median, but this suggests that city employees are likely being compensated at a higher rate than most taxpayers in Pleasanton.

This has happened because the Mayor and City Council have been captured by public employee union special interests for so long. Keep this in mind during the next election cycle.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:44 am

I'm with GX and Arnold. I'm very worried about the future and am sorry the people we elected aren't taking these issues more seriously and doing more about it.

I'm also worried that the Obama jobs plan includes sending more stimulus $$'s to the state and local governments. This will only patch things over for a short time so the necessary changes won't be forced for another brief period of time.

If we're going to spend more money on stimulating the economy it should be on creating real sustainable jobs, not holding up the public sector status quo with all the pension spiking, retiring in the 50's etc. that seems like it will never go away and is totally inappropriate in this economy.


Posted by cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Yes, by all means, let's do it the Republican way. First, lets cut city and state jobs by 40%. Second, those left standing? Let them use their own salaries to pay for their deferred salaries (pensions). There must be a constitutional right somewhere for state workers being forced to pay themselves instead of their employers doing so. Because that's what the founding fathers would have wanted.

Third, let's stimulate the economy by giving more tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Bush did that, and it was a huge success.

Fourth, and most importantly, forget about how corporations move into desirable areas with desirable schools, pay little or nothing in taxes, and use their money to keep pols in their back pockets. Instead, let's just keep hammering at cops and fire fighters and teachers whose middle-class incomes are swamping us with unsustainable debt.

Fifth, let's get the black guy out of the White house and get a genuine friend of big business into office. It worked so well during the Bush years, what could go wrong?


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:09 pm

It is amazing how few people actually take the time to understand the fact and then try to deal with the issue in a constructive manner. I urge everyone to go to the city to understand the facts for yourselves.

Let's try to stay above the political dogma, race baiting, class warfare, etc. tactics.


Posted by cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:20 pm

"Let's try to stay above the political dogma, race baiting, class warfare, etc. tactics." Yes, by all means. Let's just bash public sector workers and call that constructive. All else is nothing but political dogma, etc. Does GX think we're as stupid as he is?


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm

This isn't about bashing anyone. It is about understanding and getting control of personnel costs that are swamping our city's budget. Again, personnel costs have increased from 65% of the budget to 79% while the unfunded pension/medical liability has grown from zero to $180M. This all game about with the irresponsibile contracts that our Mayors and City Councils approved.

The longer this goes on, the less money there will be to maintain the city and provides services citizens need. E.g. we already have a grossly undersized library with no reasonable timeframe to address. The number of city streets repaved these past few years have gone down substantially. We have fewer city employees (all much more expensive than years past) working harder and providing fewer services ...

Let's help make sure we get a Mayor and City Council in place that can make rational, independent decisions based on the financial data in front of us.


Posted by cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:01 pm

The following are all quips from GX:

"I and others will work very hard in the coming year to make UNION ENDORSEMENT A NEGATIVE in the coming campaign."


"Remember city employees are here to service their customers, us tax paying citizens, not the other way around."


"The Mayor and City Council have been captured by public employee union special interests for so long."

Then, the genius states: "This isn't about bashing anyone. It is about understanding and getting control of personnel costs that are swamping our city's budget."

Nope, no bashing going on here. Honest. It's just about rationally and independently going about slashing union-based public sector employees' livelihoods. This GX poser sounds as dumb as Arnold is; uses the same tired metaphors, and couldn't think his way out of a paper bag if his life depended on it.


Posted by to Cheryl Cy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:17 pm

You sound worried. I guess you think the elections might not go your way. I think you're right.


Posted by cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Wow, what zinger of a comeback!

I'll try to dumb things down even further for your benefit in future posts.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Cheryl, how about engaging with the actual facts of the issue?


Posted by Cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm

Fact: GX can't talk about anything but bashing unionized public workers. Says he'll not support any candidate who has union endorsement.

Fact: Then he lies about being a basher.

Fact: Then he pleads for engagement with the actual facts, which are that he's a worker basher who lies about it at the same time.

Conclusion: GX lies, has a short attention span, and is incapable of engaging anyone except tea baggers with 8 year-old mentalities. Not my cup of tea, thank you.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:58 pm

Here are the actual relevant facts:

- On average, city employees have received cummulative raises of 41% since 2003
- City employees received a retroactive 70%+ increase to their pension benefits
- This caused personnel costs to increase from 65% to 79%
- This caused unfunded liabilities to increase to $180M (and likely still growing)
- City services have declined because of this - e.g. we spend nearly 40% more on police services and yet we have fewer police on the street

- This fiscal issue has been festering since 2003 and almost no elected officials pointed out the obvious issue until there was a citizens revolt last fall.

We need a Mayor and City Council that will remain independent of special interests that got us into this mess. Unless you are happy with the current path we are on and are OK with the endstate of this approach (AKA Vallejo) where the city is run for the benefit of employee unions and the remaining elements of the city continue to degrade.

Again, many cities with numbers not at bad as ours have already declared states of fiscal emergencies so they can deal more constructively with the issue.


Posted by Cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:55 pm

Who wants to engage someone who's a liar and hypocrite? BTW, your attributions of causality are a joke. If you had even half a brain I'd bother explaining to you why. And, no, now changing your name over to Arnie won't help facilitate. One can't have a rational discussion when one of the interlocutors is a proven liar (in addition to being a half-wit).


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm

Thanks so much for increasing the appeal of my rational argument to the thinking public.


Posted by Cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:27 pm

You're ever so welcome oh you deluded one.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 am

On facts: GX - 100 Cheryl Cy - 0

By the way - Do you think the unions pay someone to come onto online forums like this? The Cheryl / Cy comments + others on other topics have a similar tone - shortening people's names, undermining people without actually engaging in the facts. It just seems so weird to me . . .

Unions, if you are, you probably should stop. Because if anything is going to make people vote against you it's people like Cheryl.


Posted by Cheryl, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:39 am

Thanks once again for your opinion, gx. And thanks for informing us that you vote. We needed that fact.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm

Voter - I don't know, but I do agree there seems to be a similar approach to cuting down the other side and not really engaging with the facts.

The other thing I find quite humorous is the continued accusation that we are just one person posting under different names. I think they do this with the hopes of fooling people that we are a very small minority. Any recent poll dismisses this idea as a majority of Californians believe public employee pay/retirement benefits need to be adjusted to fit the reality of our economic situation.


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 8:46 pm

"The other thing I find quite humorous is the continued accusation that we are just one person posting under different names. I think they do this with the hopes of fooling people that we are a very small minority. Any recent poll dismisses this idea as a majority of Californians believe public employee pay/retirement benefits need to be adjusted to fit the reality of our economic situation."


- As do the recent studies that demonstrate public union employees receive more pay, much more paid leave, end of career cash-outs of unused sick leave that is unheard of in the private sector, and pensions (including pension COLA's that even private sector pensions do Not pay) that increase the disparity between public/private compensation significantly. The unions will claim Public/Private parity although their private sector counterparts, at least in the building trades, have protected wages but zero guaranteed hours. The private sector unions are getting unpaid days off because there isn't work, while the public sector unions call unpaid furlough days - a pay cut!

If one were to look beyond the borders of California they wouldn't find these compensation packages anywhere. California is that screwed up when it comes to public employee union compensation.

If experts claim you need 65-75% of your employment income during your retirement years, why are we paying employees as much as 98-100% of their income during their first year of retirement and including lifetime medical on top of that, along with the Cost Of Living Increase every year? It doesn't make sense on any level. Why should taxpayers enrich public employees that are no longer working? And why are we doing it for people that are only 50-55 years old (?), many of which will continue employment while receiving a pension. Why are these pensions based on the highest years pay when private sector pensions use average of the last five years, with no COLA? Why do we include Uniform allowance (paid by the city/taxpayers) as pensioanble income, which means we are paying a uniform/clothing allowance for the life of the employee (1 thousand per year plus the 2% annual COLA in every year of retirement).

I read an article today where an SEIU union rep demonstrated a surprising bit of candor (I'm guessing he has since been reprimanded, demoted, or terminated). Here is what he had to say:

"Carroll, the SEIU representative who represents many employees in Marin, agreed that union negotiators have posted a number of triumphs during local labor talks over the years, but added that no one recognized the potential cost of pensions until the stock market plummeted, taking pension investments with it.

"If we had the foresight, we might not have negotiated what we did," Carroll said. "You don't want to negotiate the employer into an unhealthy financial situation, because that's not in your best interest.""

That statement is a first from any union rep that I've seen quoted! Unfortunately that candor hasn't translated into meaningful concessions. Nor do the triumphs enjoyed by the Marin county SEIU compare to the pension & benefit giveaways enjoyed by the Pleasanton Public Employee Unions.

The relationship between public employee unions, the public employee union management team they bargain with (or have a me too clause with), and elected officials is beyond incestuous; and the taxpayers are the ones being abused. I know it and they know it. The question is will they REALLY address the issue?


The full article that contains the quote: Web Link


Posted by Gladys, a resident of California Somerset
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:06 pm

Arnold,
I'm old and my eyes aren't what they used to be. Can you boil things down for me?


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 10:07 pm


"Arnold, I'm old and my eyes aren't what they used to be. Can you boil things down for me?"

Yep. Taxpayers are overpaying for service and also being saddled with a tremendous amount of debt. City management understands the issue but their own bias is preventing them from doing the right thing. The debt is significantly understated because the cost per employee is significantly understated and that will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money in the not to distant future - and well into the future. It isn't only the city finances that will be impacted; BTW ... the school district has even bigger issues related to pension costs.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can take the actuary's explanation of the message I hope people are beginning to understand. What he said:

Pleasanton will be paying an increasing amount to cover the cost of past service, for decades to come.

You can check out the consultants alarming warning on the city website. In a nutshell: taxpayers will be asked to cover the expense created by bad decisions of past and present council members - for the next 30 years.


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

Moneyball, the Sequel: Billy Beane for President!
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 1,012 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 897 views

Planning the "Pleasanton way"
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 877 views

Take Full Advantage of Free Standardized Testing Opportunities
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 370 views