Election 2008: Hosterman seeks re-election Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Oct 9, 2008 at 8:48 am
With Pleasanton's new General Plan update nearing approval, Mayor Jennifer Hosterman is asking voters to re-elect her to a third two-year term so that she can work to implement key parts of the plan she helped write, especially the energy and water conservation elements that she believes will sustain the quality of life issues she supports.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 12:32 PM
Posted by Pete, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 9, 2008 at 10:47 am
Thank you Dale! Over this mornings coffee, I went into automatic deep thought mode over your statement. I am now wearing pink.
Please don't confuse or disrespect voters. For that matter, consider going to watch Paula play this week and observe a focused young lady who has so much more to offer than being associated with local politics. Oh by the way, I've decided to sell Mary Kay, that pink car is my inspiration. Thanks again, you made my morning. I am so easy to please.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hosterman. What she does wrong:
1) Goes to the US Conference of Mayors and signs controversial "resolutions". This in and of itself isn't as bad as it seems since the organization doesn't have any representative power within the federal government (that job is up to our Congressional representatives), but the resulting perception is that she's representing Pleasanton in a political capacity. Perhaps some sort of local forum to take input from citizens on the issues presented at the conference could change perceptions.
2) The three-minute speaking time for the public hearing. Frankly, I don't care so much about this. I was taught in high school English class how to write a speech that gets my major points across without rambling on and practice it so that it remains under a certain duration. Speeches in class were always limited to three minutes. ("Short but sweet" and "KISS") But that was PUSD and not everyone had such an education. On top of that, public speaking is difficult for most people. So it would be better to allow such folks the full five minutes of the past (other cities do limit speaking to three minutes too or even as long as 15 minutes). Yes, it could mean meetings take longer, but the damaging perception caused by the time limit doesn't appear to be worth it.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 9, 2008 at 3:21 pm
What she's done right:
1) Listened. Despite the three minute time limit she's listened, from leading the Council to a unanimous vote to keep the Stoneridge extension in the General Plan to turning down the Home Depot project. The Stoneridge issue was in direct opposition to her earlier stance on the issue. She changed her stance on Home Depot during the second reading. Why? Because in both cases she listened to the facts that were being presented to her that showed keeping the Stoneridge extension and turning down Home Depot were in the best interest of the greater citizenry of Pleasanton. This is not flip-flopping based upon whoever screams the loudest (Matt Sullivan comes to mind). It is a maturation of decision making based upon facts.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Hosterman helped work on a vision for preserving the southeast hills through partnership with property owners in order to obtain gifts of land to the City for conservation of open space and a trail system that would stretch from the Pleasanton Ridge east into Livermore. Her support of Measure QQ can only be seen as her continued campaigning for the benefit of the greater citizenry to gain access to those hills. Contrast that with Matt Sullivan turning tail on his own process he believed in, not because of facts but because a small group of people shouted loudest. Call that leadership?!
Posted by MainStreetDiva, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Stacey, I truly wish you could see the issues of Oak Grove through the eyes of those of us who opposed it. Perhaps then you wouldn't tend to paint us as some small fringe group of troublemakers.
We have legitimate concerns about traffic, parking, and the views of the ridges. Perhaps the rest of Pleasanton doesn't care because they get all the benefits (trail and park use) and none of the downside.
Hosterman had already agreed to the deal, verbally, during a private meeting, BEFORE the town meeting. And in the meeting she was just giving us lip service.
Posted by Beth, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2008 at 9:45 pm
The fact that our choices are between Hosterman and Brozosky is appalling. So much so, I cannot even hold my nose and vote for either of them. And sadly, my not voting is not even a wasted or lost vote, because we and the city of Pleasanton loose either way. Bring back Mercer. He was the last great mayor that actually moved this city forward with intellect, a cooperative spirit, and the business sense a community needs to thrive.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I felt that way in the last election. I voted for neither. Both candidates were pretty much the same on issues which is probably why Brozosky's campaign staff thought it ok to start a little dirty politicking with the whole hawk/e-mail thing. Candidates need issues that define them and make them different from each other. This year we have the Oak Grove issue and Measure PP issue for that.
Posted by Chuckles, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2008 at 12:57 am
Beth, your reference to former mayor Ken Mercer reminded me of a Seinfeld episode, where George engages in a conversation with a clown, "Chuckles," performing at a birthday party for his girl friend's young son. He asks the clown if he remembers "Bozo the Clown," and Chuckles says he has no knowledge of a "Bozo the Clown" and states (rather indignantly), "You're living in the past, man!" Well, that scene comes to mind just about every time I see a post by someone referring to Ken Mercer and what a great job he did for Pleasanton (and that's not a bad thing). I have tremendous respect for Mayor Mercer and all those who served this community well for many years. Progressive and forward-thinking councils and city staff worked very hard to create the wonderful community we live in and enjoy to this day. This is a very important City Council and Mayoral election, and it's obvious we have a "NIMBY ticket" out to control our destiny as a community. Although their intentions may be to "protect" what the Ken Mercer's and others who followed worked so hard to create, the reality may turn out to be somewhat different if they are elected.
Posted by Beth, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Stacey: I'll vote on the Measures but will NOT cast a vote for Hosterman or Brozosky. Without sounding like a broken record, the fact that our choices are (and have been) between Hosterman and Brozosky is appalling, especially given the demographics of this city. I wish both of them would step aside (or better yet had stepped aside)
Posted by Step Aside, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Oct 13, 2008 at 9:38 am
I understand where you are coming from Beth, but if they step aside as you suggest do you have any idea what would happen? Who would be your write in candidate, which I believe would be the only reasonable or realistic option.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 10:29 am
Bosco, the former Mayor of Sunol, (RIP) is a perfectly good candidate for write-in, although now that I think about it, he might not have residency established in Pleasanton. That didn't stop me from voting for him in 2006.
Posted by Disenfranchised voter, a resident of the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 10:50 am
In a town of 30,000 or so voters can 5,000 be considered a "small group of people?" You question the leadership of a councilmember who responds to that?????? 100 people maybe but 5,000? When typically less than 30% of the registered voters actually vote?
Those signatures were collected by less than 20 dedicated participants, myself included. Believe me we had no trouble getting people to sign. Most knew about the issue and many of them sought us out at the farmer's market (remember the ironing board?).
Shame on the council majority who took it upon themselves to disenfranchise 5,000 of their own citizens by putting a meaningless competing and confusing measure on the ballet instead of allowing a standalone vote on PP. Matt Sullivan and Cindy McGovern were the ONLY two who did show leadership on the Save the Hills initiative.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:30 am
Please do the math. Qualifying the initiative for the ballot required 10% of the number of voters who voted in the last election, which was closer to 37,000. Assuming the number of certified signatures was truly 5,000, that is roughly 13% of voters who voted in the last election. 13% is not a majority. Additionally, that 5,000 represents the number of people who wished to see it placed on the ballot. You can't extend that to mean all 5,000 of those petition signers are going to vote yes on it.
Posted by I was there too, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51 am
It doesn't matter how many signatures were collected. What matters is how many of the signatures that were collected were from registered voters living in Pleasanton and only signed once. My understanding is only 4200 signatures were actually certified after a statistical sampling. That means 4200 registered voters living in Pleasanton signing only one time actually siged the petition and NOT 5000. Once again, it doesn't mean anything about the total number of signatures collected BUT the number of signatures actually certified. If people are having an open debate then they should talk about the number of certified signatures collected and not what was actually collected as there is a 20% difference in the number. Who knows, but I would guess even Bosco probably signed the petition.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:59 am
Many signed the initiative because they want to save the hills, we all do. What wasn't communicated to those people is that the initiative itself is flawed and some parts unlawful. It wasn't communicated to these people that the city might be in litigation for decades over this because it prevents some things from going forward that has already been approved. I was around when the collection of signatures and much of the information given out was erroneous.
QQ does protect the hills and it includes everyone, including those signators and signature gatherers of PP. The council was right to offer an alternative to PP. The alternative gives all of Pleasanton a chance to offer their opinion in a public process. We don't know who wrote PP, they won't tell us. Our duely elected representatives, as a majority of the council, offered QQ as way to make sure the ordinance put forth was done correctly.
It is the councils job to make sure it is done correctly. Hosterman has shown leadership in many ways. This is one of them.
QQ is a better alternative because it protects all of us from costly litigation and it will provide protection for the SE Hills without violating the law.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Just who said "the initiative itself is flawed and some parts unlawful" and "the city might be in litigation for decades", some attorney. I can get some attorney to say anything I wish if I have enough funds. I did hear some developer stand before the council and say there could be lawsuits if the initiative was passed.
Scare tactics work on some people and, in my opinion, that's what he wanted - and it seems to have worked on some people...
My only concern is who will defend the city during litigation, should it arise...
Posted by fact checker, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:45 pm
You stated "When typically less than 30% of the registered voters actually vote?".
Maybe elsewhere your statement is true, but not in Pleasanton. In 2004, we had around 80% turnout and in 2006, 68.92% turnout.
If numbers matter, in 2006 the City Council Candidate who recieved the least amount of votes (Brian Arkin) received 6,781 votes. This is more than the 4,100 certified signatures for Measure PP. Hmmm, what to do now? Just a minute ago 4,100 signatures sounded like a lot.
Posted by Dane, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Come on - people are NOT disenfranchised! People of Pleasanton have the opportunity to vote! Pick your poison, vote your wish, but please recognize that we all have the opportunity to vote on Tuesday. I'm voting for QQ - it makes one heck of alot more sense. Those other people just have it out for the Mayor.