Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Letters: Vote No - again

Dear Editor,

Why did Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, Vice Mayor Jerry Thorne and Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio fail to follow the obvious will of the people of Pleasanton?

The City Council's approval of Oak Grove in November 2007 instigated both a referendum of their Oak Grove approval and a citizens' initiative to protect the Pleasanton hillsides. The people of Pleasanton voted to approve hillside protection ordinances with the passage of Measures PP and QQ in November 2008. While it is true we did not vote specifically on Oak Grove, we did vote for Measure PP, which prohibits this type of development on ridges.

Pleasanton voters passed PP, and thus clearly stated by virtual proxy that the Oak Grove development was not the type of development we want in Pleasanton. Somehow, the City Council majority determined that voters need to vote No again in order to be heard.

I don't see how the City Council majority could have failed to simply rescind their approval of Oak Grove. But no, the City Council majority decided to give the Taiwanese land speculator one more chance to push through the Oak Grove development.

If you are irritated by having to vote again on an issue that should have been resolved with the passage of PP, or because putting Measure D on the June ballot has cost Pleasanton $95,000; you don't have to look far for the people to blame! The City Council majority caused this mess!

Don't be fooled by misleading promises; please vote No on Measure D!

John Carroll

Posted by Noel, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on May 28, 2010 at 9:40 pm

I just found this:

Web Link

Posted by letsgo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 28, 2010 at 10:02 pm

Well, the fact that we can put random, ambiguous ballot measures on any election is one of our biggest problems in California.

I'm all for measure D. I'm not sure what the big deal is? I don't agree that our mayor should be actively (i.e. spending money) campaigning for it, but our ridge line is really not that nice. Its a hill with grass on it and a few trees. If it were covered with houses I don't think Pleasanton property values would be negatively affected (my guess is just the opposite) Yes, it would be nice to have a few large parks here and there, but honestly, I would probably never use them even though I keep telling myself I will.

Someone please tell me why building on the side of the hill is so bad.

Posted by I Was Here First, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on May 29, 2010 at 9:41 am

I know why. You see people jump at the chance to buy houses that reside near nature. The fact that they are destroying the natural setting is discarded. There's nothing more valuable that a home near a bunch of trees. A perfect and very recent example are the mansions on the way to Ruby Hill. That truly was a beautiful stretch of country. Gone. Now that they get have homes, they want development stopped because it would destroy the country side. All of a sudden it's awful to extend development even though the houses in the area knocked out acres of beautiful land. It doesn't make sense. Soon the only nature in the area will be the landscaping and roadside plants brought in from the nursery.

Posted by tree hugger, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on May 29, 2010 at 9:11 pm

"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got - 'til its gone... take paradise and put up a parking lot."

Do we really need to debate if hills and heritage/native trees are better than 3 story, 10,000 sq. ft. homes, on a cut-off ridge with an 11 unit parking lot down the street?

Think about the carbon footprint to build, heat, water & fertize the grass, run the pool, etc. of a huge monstrosity.

Vote NO to Damaged hills, No to Development of the ridges, No to Destruction. The message is clear to me.

Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on May 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm

To 'tree hugger' - How big is your carbon footprint?

Posted by tree hugger, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on May 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Just as small as possible. Prius, walk, bike etc.

Posted by westsider, a member of the Foothill High School community, on May 29, 2010 at 11:25 pm

hey 'tree hugger' you want to bike or walk? that means more trails and bike paths, right? wait.... doesn't the oak grove development provide that? and the devoloper pays for it? oh yeah, huh?

YES ON D!

Posted by tree hugger, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on May 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm

The Oak Grove limited route of down a trail will be too steep for me. I like the Iron Horse trail for biking, I like the great routes that are in progress around town.

For hiking, nothing can beat the EBRD parks like Mission Peak, the Pleasanton Ridge and the Sunol Wilderness parks.

Posted by Thomas Paineful, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on May 30, 2010 at 9:03 pm

Mr. Burns: "Oh, so mother nature needs a favor?

Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us

with droughts and floods and poison monkeys."

Bulldoze the frikkin' hills...or better yet, use dynamite! The explosions will be cool.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 30, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com

Sounds a bit more Fawkes and less Paine.

Posted by stacey's neighbor, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 30, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Honey, give it a rest. We get it, we got it, you drilled it into the ground at naseum. thanks.

Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on May 31, 2010 at 1:56 pm

People seem to forget, above everything else this is now simply a private property rights issue. Since the sale of the property was legal, the zoning ordinances put in place valid & again, legal & after how many years of both public, civic, planning commission, city council & legal wranglings have transpired that a small group of (IMHO, NIMBY, Kottinger Ranchers who have spread numerous falsehoods regarding the Oak Grove development) disenfranchised citizens can now attempt to manipulate & undo what has been legally set in motion years ago.

The No on D posters themselves are misleading & an outright lie. Having the to nerve to say "Don't mess with OUR ridges" alone shows their disdain for the legal process & the rights of property owners. They are not OUR ridges, they are the Lin's. If you don not like it, buy them yourself & donate them to the city of Pleasanton, until then...buh buy.

Posted by Amanda B., a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on May 31, 2010 at 7:45 pm

On a recent trip to LA, I was struck by the lack of natural beauty in the city. Driving down the highways, I looked around - there was development everywhere. Every little nook, cranny, and HILLSIDE. A sea of houses rather than beautiful hills. The natural areas of Pleasanton should be protected and preserved.