Matt Sullivan tonight called putting a second measure on the ballot a political trick. So let's talk about tricks, shall we? The biggest trick going on is the one being pulled by the Save Pleasanton Hills group.
I'm going to set aside all the feel-good BS that is being tossed around in the Council meeting tonight regarding public participation, citizens exercising their rights, yadda yadda, and cut to the chase.
1 - The initiative's PRIMARY GOAL is to PREVENT the development of OAK GROVE. That is what it was designed to do based upon what is known of the Oak Grove PUD. It must be done in conjunction with the referendum in order to take effect. The Save Pleasanton Hills group is taking a gamble that both the referendum and initiative will pass. It was very transparently obvious from the beginning back when the petitions started circulating. Ask yourself, why did this initiative appear around the same time as the referendum? Why not last year or even earlier? The proponents DON'T CARE that this Council has had the development of a ridgeline protection ordinance on their 2-year workplan because the proponents DON'T CARE about ridgeline protection beyond how it would affect Oak Grove. If they REALLY cared about ridgeline protection, they wouldn't be fighting City Hall right now. Let's not forget this going forward. IT'S ALL ABOUT OAK GROVE!
2 - This is Pleasanton! Everyone LOVES ridgeline protection! Ridgeline protection is a prime Pleasanton value enshrined in our General Plan. And even better, everyone LOVES the housing cap! Let's face it, if it runs unopposed THIS INITIATIVE WILL PASS. I could bet money on that! The proponents know this and are trying to exploit this. That is why they are so against giving voters a choice that would damage their chances at preventing Oak Grove development. We've seen choices at the ballot box quite recently with Prop 98 and 99. The proponents want to characterize YOU, the voting public, as prone to being confused. They want to MUTE your voice to a single YES or NO on a single ballot measure and not give you any alternatives to vote on because they want you to pass their Communist agenda. Yes, I dare say it is Communist because Communists take away land through both legislation and force without just compensation "for the benefit of the public good".
This story contains 426 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.