Town Square

Post a New Topic

Are developers taking over Measure QQ campaign?

Original post made on Oct 24, 2008

From a recitation of those killed on the war front to a charge that developer contributions are influencing the upcoming municipal elections, Tuesday's night's three-hour council meeting was a potpourri of issues, accusations and feel-good commendations. With a number of issues on the unusually light agenda postponed, it was a night for political chatter, and there was plenty.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 24, 2008, 11:17 AM

Comments (17)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Just the facts
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 24, 2008 at 11:24 pm


"It's not necessary to lie," Brozosky told the council.

Uh yeah, then why does he keep lying about the Mayor's record? I just heard a radio commercial of him saying all kinds of things about the Mayor. Yes Steve, it isn't necessary to lie and also isn't necessary to go negative. Let's stick to the facts and the issues. The people of Pleasanton deserve better.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 24, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Interesting. Karen Martens recently contributed money to Brozosky's campaign. I guess all that money didn't bother her in 2006 when Brozosky spent $80,000 and all those developers were on his side. Hypocrisy!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 25, 2008 at 7:52 am

Isn't Karen Martens the one who recently spoke at a City Council meeting claiming she couldn't find a developer funding Brozosky? It is a good bet Brozosky isn't getting funding _this_ election from "developers".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2008 at 8:07 am

Brozosky lied in his Pleasanton Weekly Ad too. And he gets up and talks about a community of character. . .His tactic has been to repeat lies over and over as if they are fact.

The hypocrisy of talking about hilltop houses when you can see his hilltop mansion from Vineyard. Not to mention his finger pointing at donations when he spent $80,000 on his last attempt, $40,000 of that on an outside consultant.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Iwastheretoo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

Yes, she is. Its so ironic that Steve stands up at the last council meeting and states its not neccessary to lie. Then his campaign materials have misrepresentations at best, his supporters stand up and misrepresent and/or don't give all the facts not to mention some of the letters to the editor and their total misrepresentations.

The best letter was from Phylis Lee. She was complaining about the 350 homes the Mayor recently approved that were going to impact Lydiksen school. First off, they were 350 apartments most of which are 1 bedrooms at the new BART station. What's really interesting is that Phylis gave money to Steve's campaign and lives in Bridle Creek. Last I checked Bridle Creek doesn't attend Lydiksen. Wonder, who put her up to writing the letter. . .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 25, 2008 at 11:53 am

What is even more interesting is that Bridle Creek residents are supporting/funding PP probably because they see it as their chance to stop the Happy Valley Bypass road yet the sponsors of PP can stand up at the City Council meeting and tell Council that PP is not intended to affect the bypass road. Unfortunately the language of PP is open to that interpretation. Perhaps if PP gets adopted, someone from Bridle Creek will end up suing Pleasanton if we try to build the bypass road.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by overthehill
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2008 at 10:46 pm

One of the authors of PP went on record at a council meeting in June or July (Karla something) stating that PP only involved structures and that roads are infrastructure and not structures. So, if anyone tried a lawsuit to stop the bypass road, they would either be stupid or richer than Bill Gates to waste their money.

I don't believe that PP has anything to do with the bypass road. People just want to protect the hills and our council has not been doing that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bonnie
a resident of Foothill High School
on Oct 26, 2008 at 10:53 pm

The backers of QQ are trying to scare Happy Valley voters again. Check your Webster folks. A road or by-pass road is not a "Residential or Commercial Structure" -- are you really smarter than a 5th grader - or is it a 2nd grader?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2008 at 10:56 pm

"One of the authors of PP went on record at a council meeting in June or July (Karla something) stating that PP only involved structures and that roads are infrastructure and not structures."

I heard that. The idea is that having the writers of PP make statements of their intent to clarify the vague language of their initiative at the public hearing is defensible in court. Is it? I don't honestly know.

"I don't believe that PP has anything to do with the bypass road."

You should read the staff report for the June 26th meeting then.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2008 at 11:05 pm

"A road or by-pass road is not a "Residential or Commercial Structure" -- are you really smarter than a 5th grader - or is it a 2nd grader?"

Bonnie, did you not read the staff report either? At issue isn't whether a road is a structure. The staff report lists two items that need clarification:
1) PP says "housing units and structures shall not be placed on slopes of 25 percent or greater". Are the retaining walls for the road considered "structures" (not the road itself)?
2) PP prohibits "grading to construct residential or commercial structures". The bypass road would serve the new Spotorno Flat development. Because of that would it be prohibited from being built?

These are questions raised in the staff report due to PP's lack of detail. As a result, if PP were to be adopted, these issues still need to be clarified by additional ordinances. That means there is wiggle room for things like lawsuits or other referenda over the bypass road.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2008 at 11:11 pm

It doesn't matter what Karla something says. She has no standing in explaining Measure PP. It will be judged on the bases of the literal language because there has been no public process, no agenda and no minutes. A bridge is certainly a structure and the By-pass road requires a bridge. (look that up!) bridge 1 (brj)
n.
1. A structure spanning and providing passage over a gap or barrier, such as a river or roadway.

What is Karla's motivation?

On Thursday the city's appeal in the Urban Habitat Case was denied by the CA State Supreme Court. That means that our housing cap and urban growth management policy is at risk. The city vigorously defended the cap. The Supreme Court did not take the appeal, which means the lower court's ruling in favor of Urban Habitat stands. Pleasanton is the only city in the state that still has a housing cap. This news alone will guarantee that PP will end up in court on the basis of the narrow definition of a housing unit.

There is no down side to voting for QQ since it will include everyone. Should we take a chance that Karla something is right? The evidence and the courts say otherwise. Can we afford this? Is this where you want your tax dollars to go?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fletch
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2008 at 11:37 pm

If there is no down side to QQ, then why didn't the council put a moratorium on building in affected hills for the next year? I haven't seen an explanation addressing that and would really like to know why.
BTW, yet another contribution of $10,000 has been made to QQ. And I got another slick brochure in the mail as a result of this influx of $30,000.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 27, 2008 at 7:42 am

"why didn't the council put a moratorium on building in affected hills for the next year?"

Why don't you ask them?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bonnie
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Oct 27, 2008 at 8:07 am

What are you worried about Fletch? What hillside development are you worried about happening between now and then? Lund? Spotorno? Those proposals don't have any - NONE - hillside homes on them. They are all in flatlands or down in low elevation valleys.

Of course, that could change if PP passes. They could amend their plans for 10 large estate homesites wherever they want on the properties and not dedicate any open space to the city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2008 at 11:15 am

Reviewing the tapes and asking councilmembers you should know that the moratorium was mentioned after the vote was taken by the council. At that point it was moot. In addition, anyone who knows how the city works knows there will be no approval on anything before November 2009. Discussion, maybe but not a development plan approved. There is not enough time.

In addition, there are NO plans pending. Any plan needs to go through the planning staff, the planning commission and the City Council. With NOTHING in the pipeline, this won't happen. The council does not work that fast or haven't you noticed?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Longtimer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 29, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Over 60% of the funding for Measure PP comes from Kottinger Ranch and Bridle Creek...hmmmm

Can anyone say NIMBY? Gosh, it is a good thing that we didn't complain when they moved in.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 29, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Just because someone says something during Public Comment at the Council meeting does not make it true. In fact, it is a shame that people have become accustomed to using that time for political purposes. BTW, the City Council cannot say a word in response due tot he Brown Act. So, don't take their lack of response as somehow not having one.

If you think developers are taking over Measure QQ, Check out the endorsement list at www.yesonqq.com So many individuals from our community cannot be bought off or wrong.


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

Email:


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

Moving to Maine, Maybe
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 875 views

Measure BB could pay to connect Dublin Boulevard to Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 833 views

“…and all I ask of dyin’, is to go naturally” *
By Tom Cushing | 8 comments | 383 views