Original post made
on Aug 30, 2012
This story contains 530 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
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,
to get your online account activated.
A "Virtual Who's-Who of Regional Politicians??? Give me a break!!!
This was a strictly a gathering of left-wing loon political hacks and union pimps, trying to get another of their own elected as Mayor of Pleasanton. For God's sake, the event was even attended by Fortney Stark The Hack. That crazy, senile, old goat came all the way out here, from his home in Maryland, to attend? He hasn't lived in the Bay Area for years (even though he has the cajones to con people here into thinking he is thier Congressman).
If you don't want the unions bankrupting Pleasanton, it would be very advisable for you to not vote for Cook-Callio.
If you don't want another Mayor focused more on a national left-wing-loon agenda than the well-being of Pleasanton (such as our current Hippy Mayor), you better not vote for Cook-Callio.
If you want fiscal responsibility, rather than left-wing-loon backruptcy, you better not vote for Cook-Callio.
This does sound more like a local Democratic convention. Local politic used to be grassroots and nonpartisan before Cook-Callio. What a shame.
When is Cook-Kallio going to figure out that she's running for Mayor of Pleasanton and NOT Fremont, the region, etc? Where's the support of City Commissioners, etc who are involved with the City? All this is about Cook-Kallio positioning herself to run for state office in 2 years at the expense of the City!
The article should say that it included a who's who of the regional Democrats!! This is supposed to be a non-partisan race.
So, who is a better pick, for those of us that don't support union thuggery and the feel good hippy politics of left wing ladder climbers?
Great point Curious. Our Pleasanton neighbors weren't at this big money gathering of dangerous leftists....no common grounds for the common good of Pleasantonians in that entire group listed. This is not only a union first crowd, but the hard-core, big money, worst of the union first crowd.
This group threatens Pleasanton's future. We are at the end of developmentmoney that has provided benefits. Every financial decision will matter in our future. These politicians are masters at 'using' our children with deceitful talk, but placing our city and our children's future in jeopardy. Remember Joan Buchanan's recent vote protecting union perverts in classrooms, over our children.
This group will send in the money and the troops to lock in votes with lies that can destroy our community.
Thanks for the pics reminding us of xxxxx like that cadaver Pete Stark. These predictable robots are so owned by public unions they have given us the worst(in laws & people) our society has to offer.
Please put Pleasanton people first, not public union power.
Cook-Kallio keeps her Council seat, if she loses. One vote council same as one vote mayor. But public unions own both DeMarcus and Cook-Kallio and will campaign for that Dangerous Duo together. It is better for Pleasanton for Cook-Kallio to finish her last council term. She never even excuses herself from union issues before council. We don't need to rush her mayoral power. Keep her in her council seat....let her continue.
It looks to me like a gathering of union supporting Democrats? I understand the fire fighters were parking cars at her fundraiser. It's pretty obvious where her loyalties lie. Remember, you don't take help from union supporting Democrats, without giving them your support in return!!! How is a union school teacher, that is supported by every Democrat in the county, going to negotiate with the public employee unions???
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
It's probably a duck !!!!!
Hey all of those concerned about her pro-union connections-as Jerry Brown would state she's the best person to negotiate with unions since she's already in their pocket--okay I can't even write this sentence with a straight face.
As Cook-Kalio states, she'll make sure Pleasanton complies with the law re affordable housing. And as a lawmaker herself, she'll make sure that Pleasanton increases affordable and high density housing as she has to remunerate her construction union and developer campaign contributors.
You lost me at Pete Stark, Ellen Corbett
I was there and the pictures shown missed the large number of people from Pleasanton who attended as well as some developers in town. You can make of it what you will but Cook-Kallio and Thorne have been supported by basically the same groups of people in past elections, including unions. . . check that out.
So do you want someone who gets along with everyone, can stand up and say no, and has the ability to lead? Or someone who is supported by the same old guard with absolutely no leadership ability.
She's not believable, since she won't recuse herself during union VOTES.]
William, I can't TELL if you're serious or too cute by half.
Why would she have to recuse herself from union votes? Being a member of a union is not in and of itself a reason to recuse. If she's a member of a union that the City negotiates with, then it is only right for her to recuse, but she is not. You're not believable.
Cook-Kallio and Thorne vote mostly the same too. I can't wait until they debate!
Thorne claims he is a fiscal conservative. Not true. He claims he did not like the sweetheart contract for the firefighters. So why did he vote for it?
I don't care what you say Thorne. What matters is how you vote.
The only person worth a dam at those council meetings is Bart Hughes
I really wish he would run for mayor.
"left-wing loon political hacks and union pimps"
"union thuggery and the feel good hippy (sic) politics"
"worst of the union first crowd"
"lies that can destroy our community"
Well, it seems Pleasanton resident are following the mean tone of national politics. Without actually commenting on the political records or positions of candidates, many of the above posters have decided to take the name-calling, smear-the-candidate-by-association route.
We cannot improve the political discourse on the national level without first doing it here in our own community. What do you say, folks? Let's try to stick to the issues here, and drop this personal bashing of local elected officials who are doing the job you won't or can't do.
Stacey, your comments don't make sense given that you've publicly endorsed Cook-Kallio. There are several issues where they've voted differently. For example, Measure B the tax with no sunset clause, the Castlewood union situation, the house on Neal, whether or not to allow rebutal arguments on the ballet for the Oak Grove referendum. (Cheryl didn't want to allow rebutal arguments but Thorne did so then Cook-Kallio changed her position and went with the majority.)
Stacey, there were firefighters in union t-shirts parking cars and tending bar at her 2 fundraisers. This is while contract negotiations were going in. While it may be legal the perception is in question if she's doing the right thing for the City or the firefighters. (If they were there as friends then why wear LPFD t-shirts?) That's why people question if she should recuse herself.
Vinny, what we don't know is who drove the bus so to speak in closed session on the union contracts to get at least to what was just approved. We don't know who was willing to impose if necessary also. I suspect that Thorne and McGovern played a leadership role during closed session in getting to at least where we are with the labor contracts.
Sure, Cook-Kallio and Thorne have voted differently on some issues, but mostly they've voted the same way, especially on the big Pleasanton issues: Oak Grove, the Stoneridge Dr. extension, housing, even the union contracts. As you indicate, we don't have insight into how closed session negotiations went with the firefighters, but Cheryl has demonstrated that she gets that changes need to be made. She is responsive to changing or modifying her position through well-reasoned argument. She strives to consider and balance competing interests yet always looks at issues with an eye towards that which is in the best interests of all of Pleasanton. That isn't to say that Jerry is not also receptive or doesn't have Pleasanton's best interests at heart, only to say that Cheryl does not stay stuck on a position based on partisan ideology as some of the comments above would seem to indicate. It is difficult for either candidate to differentiate themselves based on voting record, which is why the debate will be really interesting. They will differ mostly on nuances and their approach to the leadership role. That's actually good for Pleasanton. It's unfortunate that national political talking points will intrude upon a local non-partisan election since it obscures either candidates' actual position on local issues. I think whoever wins will make a fine mayor. If Cheryl were not also running, I'd be voting for Jerry.
Its not clear to me that Cheryl really gets that pension reform needs to happen. She's telling people that the unions are now paying their full employee contribution and the problem is solved. That ignores that the fact that the unfunded liability is still growing!! Saying that when the stock market rallies will solve the problem is not understanding the problem. She's drinking the union Kool-Aid. I would like a simple yes or no answer to the question would you have voted to impose a contract if the union had not agreed to pay the full employee contribution. The answer to that question will tell whether or not she understands AND is willing to do something about the problem!!
I think there's a huge difference between the two candidates when one suppots a Measure to create a tax into perpituity and the other supports a tax with a sunset clause. This speaks volumes about what they each think government accountability to the people is. (Hiding behind a watch dog group doesn't cut it. Think Pls school district bond oversight, Tri Valley Foundation, etc.)
I also think there's a huge difference when one doesn't want to allow rebutal arguments on the ballot for a referendum that Cheryl opposed. That speaks of arrogance to me. When the citizens go to the effort to qualify a council decision (Oak Grove) for the ballot just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you should try to use your position to silence the folks who collected signatures. That's not good government and it speaks volumes about her attitude towards people that don't agree with her.
You're correct this is supposed to be a non-partisan race. Cook-Kallio has brought new meaning to making this a partisan race with her list of Democratic officials. In the end, its about Pleasanton, not about positioning yourself to run for higher office.
@justwondering - amen to your post. Anyone who wants a perputal tax has screws loose or is foxy smart. I would place Cheryl in the later category. This perputal tax is not a tax to pay as you go but seed money to allow Alameda County to apply for 30 year bonds. This is not a tax to fix potholes, it is a bond to fund public transportation so more union workers can be hired. Bonds funded by tax revenue typically return 5%. Do think the state pension funds would jump at a chance to make 5% versus the 1.6% average they are making now. And who do you think will benefit from this. Cheryl of course because she knows at at least her teacher's pension will be safe thanks to the taxpayers of Alameda County. Cheryl knows economics, at least the part that pertains to herself.
I have to agree with 'No Thanks'
I got lost the mention of Pete Stark (who wants to drive a Solyndra car) and the picture of his Social Security collecting son in his Abercrombie shirt. It's not the son's fault... I get that.
If I were running for office, I'd stay as far away from Pete Stark as I could.
Hooray for Crook-Kalio. Sorry about the misspelling-Freudian slip!
Cook-Kallio and DeMarcus Bashing--good work Kay Ayala and Her Minions. You are so wrong on many of your facts. Keep spewing the false spew. Kay's acidity deafens.
Lugnut, a picture is worth a thousand words--cook-callio with Stark! Not too mention she has publicly endorsed Measure B the perpetual tax--hard to argue with that, too. And then we have firefighters wearing LPFD t-shirts parking cars and tending bar at her fundraisers while contract negotiations are going on with the City Council. No one has even mentioned that Becky Dennis, hostess of this latest fundraiser and cook-callio supporter, is advocating for 60% of Pleasanton's housing to be affordable at build-out. Have to wonder why she's supporting cook-callio vs another candidate. So draw your own conclusions from this but these are all facts. And demarcus has been pretty much parroting cook-callio.
Hello, Curious -
It's sure nice to know that someone actually read and remembers my analysis of Pleasanton's Housing Element. I'm honored. Just so people understand what you're talking about...
For the last 20 years or so, ABAG and the California HCD have required Pleasanton, to plan 40% of our housing for families with high incomes (above 120% of the County median), 20% for moderate income (80-120% of the median), 20% for low income (50-80% of the median), and 20% for very low income households (below 50% of the median). Most California cities have had similar requirements to attain this balance in workforce housing and commercial development. Pleasanton isn't alone.
60% affordability is the law, not my (or Cheryl's) personal idea. However, I do think the law is fair, and that every city should comply, including Pleasanton. We should do our usual great job of figuring out how to create an award winning, ground breaking solution to the workforce housing challenge.
As for Measure B1, any candidate who campaigns against it seriously jeopardizes Pleasanton's ability to get future funds for traffic mitigation. Sadly, Pleasanton is the ONLY city in Alameda County with any Councilmembers who voted against support for Measure B1. That means if it fails Pleasanton will get all the credit, and none of the dwindling supply of cash.
A new Measure B with a sunset, if it passed, would not have the the same half cent increase approved with special one-time state legislation, so money would be inadequate to make up for the looming permanent loss of Federal transportation dollars. Because of public campaign posturing by some current and aspiring Councilmembers, Pleasanton would also lose regional support for funding many of our own high priority transportation projects. And Pleasanton residents would still pay the sales tax. Ouch!
Everybody compromised to craft the B1 plan. See the pros and cons analysis by Transform, a Bayside transportation organization:
Not everyone thinks Tri-Valley transportation projects should have the priority funding Measure B1 provides!
Arguing against Measure B1 because it creates a permanent source of funding to address Alameda County's "perpetual" traffic congestion, which is linked to our economic growth, is just as silly as requiring a public vote on every residential development.
That's just one of the many reasons I support Cheryl Cook-Kallio for Mayor. She has always had the common good sense to think strategically about Pleasanton's best interests BEFORE she speaks or votes, no matter how it might affect her personal political prospects. Go Cheryl!
Guess I will be voting for Jerry then.
Measure B3 as proposed is a perpetual tax that gives no accountability to government. Members of over site committees come and go--some do a great job and some do a terrible job. The problem is once its passed there's no recourse to end it if the agency is not doing its job. There are many examples of problems with over site committees; PLS school district Bond over site committee, tri valley foundation & ACAP to name just a few. Its arrogance to me to propose a tax without a sunset clause and then talk about what a good agency this, etc. Things can change and the tax payer is stuck paying the bill!!
I would totally support this measure with a 10 to 20 year sunset clause. Supporting a perpetual tax just doesn't make sense!!
I may have to write in Bert Hughes for mayor....anyone for starting a grassroots "write in"? At least we'd have someone who listens to the resident taxpayers on council.
Hi again, Curious -
No local sales tax is truly perpetual, in that voters can always place a measure on the ballot to repeal one they aren't happy with. According to the Howardn Jarvis Taxpayers Association:
"If local taxpayers are otherwise unhappy with a voter approved local sales tax, then a tax reduction or repeal initiative can be pursued under the provisions of Proposition 218."
It's pretty easy to get signatures and votes to repeal taxes if people even suspect that their trust has been abused! It's a lot easier than getting a tax passed!
If you support the expenditure plan in Measure B, as you say you do, you should vote/campaign for it, since there are many elements of the program that are good for Pleasanton businesses and residents, and these will not appear in subsequent measures if this one fails. An automatic sunset only makes funding of transportation projects more uncertain and expensive. It actually wastes your tax dollars. A repeal, if necessary, would be far less wasteful, and just as effective.
So far the Measure B oversite committee has done a great job. Should no good deed go unpunished?
This article and the accompanying pictures have done more harm than good for Ms. Cook-Kallio. Cheryl can and should do better.