Letters: Council majority hasn't listened to people Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Oct 24, 2008 at 9:10 am
Our City Council majority, Mayor Hosterman and councilmembers Thorne and Cook-Kallio have avoided talking directly to voters about hillside development issues for over a year. They shut out anyone who dared to think the Oak Grove agreement gave away too much in exchange for parkland. They chose to sit on the sidelines when supporters of the Oak Grove referendum were sued by an angry developer. And to sidestep an open debate about the citizens' hillside initiative PP, they produced Measure QQ, the "plan to make a plan" that would confuse voters with language similar to PP, and will invalidate PP if it garners more votes. (Remember, they only wrote the obstructive and deceptive Measure QQ after a Greenbriar Homes representative--a developer with an interest in the southeast hills--asked them for a counter-measure to the citizens' initiative PP).
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 24, 2008, 12:00 AM
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 9:10 am
The "open debate" on Measure PP was held on June 26th, 2008 (after a continuance by Matt Sullivan). One of the outcomes of that debate was to put Measure QQ on the ballot in order to give voters more choices. Measure QQ is no more obstructive than the Oak Grove referendum and Measure PP.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 9:55 am
This is an absolutely MISREPRESENTATION of the facts. The council is precluded from discussing an issue unless it is on the agenda and is noticed. THEY CAN"T discuss it as it would be in violation of the Brown ACT.
However, the proponents of PP can stand up week after week and give false information without the council being able to say a thing. They are preluded by law to comment during Meeting open to the public! Nothing regulates what they say or how they say it. That is what Meeting Open to the Public means. Citizens can use it to say anything. Even promote a political agenda or run for office.
Posted by Who is really posting, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Oct 24, 2008 at 1:44 pm
There are numerous topics popping up almost constantly now posted by Editor,Pleasaton Weekly Online. Am I/ Are we to assume this is an "official" Pleasanton Weekly position? I would be shocked if the Weekly would post mis-representations and inaccuracies so consistently and constantly.....
This all looks like a very well orchestrated attack using any and all tactics to mis-inform people.
Posted by Josh, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 7:48 am
What a joke---"Community of Character" when parents of kids tear down signs of opponents, call each other names, lie about positions and cannot sit down at a table and solve something, anything---in a civil manner. I could puke. This town did not use to be so rude, so divisive, so ugly. Grow up everyone----kids look at their parents and laugh.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Oops...looks like a few people owe someone an apology.
We all need to calm down. Whether we like it or not (I assume most don't like it), this is a political period on many fronts and most in the political arena lie, misrepresent or at least exaggerate their side of an issue. It's been going on for years past and probably will continue well into the future. Can't wait till Nov 5.
Posted by iwasthere, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 11:55 pm
"Avoided talking to the community about hillside development issues?"
Where have you been? Some would argue that the council majority did exactly that by putting QQ on the ballot. Even though it was on their work plan, they heard from the people that they wanted this item worked on immediately. They cleaned up the language from PP and created a hillside ordinance that can actually legally work.
Posted by Bonnie, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 7:02 am
I agree with the writer of the letter to the editor. I have been to a few political forums and heard talk about Jennifer meeting for coffee or a beer to discuss hillside strategies. The mayor picks people that agree with her point of view, like Dolores B, Jerry P, Howard N or Jon H and they cook up a plan - which as nothing to do with the general population. When council members talk strickly to people that can either gift them land or agree with their trail system - that is hardly an "open forum" and QQ is nothing but more of the same!
Posted by BS, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:10 am
Sorry Bonnie, but your point is complete BS. Anyone is welcome and typically does come. Your statement would at least be more accurate if you gave facts about specific people who continually make the same observations, but are ignored, but instead you would rather. BTW, when did it become required that just because someone gives feedback that action MUST be taken based on that feedback. Usually those with a specific agenda attend any and all forums, meetings etc.... to push their agenda, when they don't get their way they complain they weren't listened to.
QQ is the opposite and REQUIRES input from all, not just the couple of unknown authors that wrote and secured funding for PP for a few NIMBY's. Do your homework Pleasanton.
YES on QQ! A process where everyone participates, just as Bonnie is complaining dosen't happen.
Posted by Bonnie, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Ouch, did anyone ever tell you Ms/Mr BS you are just that full of bitterness? Guess it just goes along with the whole QQ idea of "attack first then put lies in print" as a campaign stategy.
The mayor & 2 council members listen to developers, housing advocates and trail advocates that boast about getting dirt trails i exchange for ridgetops and open space - How do it know that? Follow the money.
The mayor does NOT listen to 5000 people that want to vote on PP and most, want it put into law or they would not have signed the petitions.
QQ has no teeth - that is why it has been dubbed a plan to create a plan.... eventually.
Mr/Ms BS, how many people gaze at the ridges every day vs. how many will hike the trails? Face it, a very small number of residents are hikers. Most of us are going to work to feed their families. The trail is a smoke dream of a few chosen RICH mayor friends.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 11:44 pm
"Guess it just goes along with the whole QQ idea of "attack first then put lies in print" as a campaign stategy."
I finally finished watching all three of the local forum debates for Pleasanton being broadcast on TV29. The first one I watched was the City Council candidates and the last one was the PP/QQ debate. All the debates were quite civil, stuck to facts, and no one was attacking anyone until the PP/QQ debate. Kay Ayala made a personal attack against Cheryl Cook-Kallio suggesting that she was in the wrong job instead of sticking to arguing facts. What a slip up! She was the only one who made such an attack in all three of the debates. Disheartening to say the least.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 1:06 am
Speaking of debates - I watched the Mayoral debate and,in my opinion, Brozosky kicked Hosterman's butt. He was professional, seemed better prepared, more concise and knowledgable, and straight forward with his comments. Many times Hosterman seemed to stumble around, check notes, make weird facual expressions, shuffling around in her chair and, at times, didn't seem prepared. At times she almost seemed "pained", but that could be her nature.
Brozosky was much more knowledgeable than many on this forum give him credit. He seemed to have a better grasp of city finances than Hosterman.
Posted by BS, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Oct 31, 2008 at 9:47 am
Not bitter in the least, PP or QQ wouldn't impact me personally in either way. I am not a hiker and I don't live anywhere near the potentially impacted area. I do think that the propositions are the exact opposite as you have characterized them (my opinion, please read and understand the facts). PP's downside is its simplicity, lack of firm definition, and enforceability in the court system. It's vauge nature opens Pleasanton to all sorts of lawsuites down the road. It also dosen't encourage ANY kind of public participation. We still don't know who wrote it and again in my opinion is the authors are afraid it will ruin their campaign if the public finds out. Otherwise it would have been disclosed long ago.
QQ on the other hand is much more detailed and specific, AND ensures public participation in the process, now and into the future! I would love to have some facts that refute my opinions. I also have not seen a single "attack" from anyone supporting QQ. Simply attempts to clarify retoric being thrown about by PP supporters. The anger and bitterness are from the PP supporters.
Posted by Gazing, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Oct 31, 2008 at 9:52 am
Funny that a person in the Foothill High School community (Bonnie), would commnent about "gazing" everyday at the hill. The Oak Grove development and trails will be visible to less than 1% of the population of Pleasanton given its location. You won't even know it is there from Vineyard Avenue. A few folks in Kottinger, and maybe a couple in Grey Eagle are the only residents that will have any view of the development. Interesting to see people get emotional over views that they don't even have or that won't impact them.
Posted by Bonnie, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Nov 1, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Actually you are very wrong about who can see the south east hills. Take a look from most of the Fairgrounds, All of the Bernal property & assoc. new park areas, take a look from Stanley and Valley, and take a look to the sounth as you drive to or from from Livermore. The south east hills are gorgeous from highway 580 near Dublin near the Hacienda Bus. park area.
Basically stop trying to blame a few neighborhoods on NIMBYisms when they are protecting YOUR city too. Raise your face up off the road and ENJOY THE VIEWS from many homes are areas of Pleasanton!!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:32 pm
"The Oak Grove development and trails will be visible to less than 1% of the population of Pleasanton given its location."
"Actually you are very wrong about who can see the south east hills."
Is Gazing wrong? Gazing's statement concerned the location of Oak Grove only, not the entire southeast hills. The Oak Grove property is hardly visible to anyone standing at the Fairgrounds, Bernal park, etc. You can only see the highest homes in Kottinger Ranch from there just barely over the treetops. Oak Grove would only be mostly visible if you're on Stanley. Most of the southeast hills that are visible to most of Pleasanton are 1) outside of the Urban Growth Boundary, 2) targeted to be obtained for a 2,000 acre trail system, and 3) not currently planned to be developed.