|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Goodguys 24th West Coast Nationals is the largest automotive event in the Western United States and will be held this weekend from 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Saturday-Sunday, Aug. 27-29, at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, 4501 Pleasanton Ave. More than 3,500 hot rods and customs through 1972 vintage, vendor exhibits, swap meet, live music, seminars, cruising, model car show and miniature engine exhibit, arts and crafts and more. Cost is $18 for adults, $6 for children ages 7-12. Call 838-9876 or visit www.good-guys.com.
By Amory Gutierrez
I am curious what the “No on D” folks see as the end game? As the previous poster commented, the ridges and property in question do not belong to Pleasanton, so to say “Save our Ridges” is false and a tad on the arrogant side. The Lin Family owns the land. The land is zoned rural residential. The Lin Family has gone through the long and painful approval process and has made many concessions that benefit all of Pleasanton.
I see the outcome of a “No on D” vote as the Lin Family moving forward with the original plan of 90+ homes, no open space granted to Pleasanton, and a loss of money for roads and schools. It is their lands folks, they can develop it unless someone can come up with the funds to purchase the land. Is Kay Ayala going to step up and plunk down the money to purchase the land? I don’t think so.
I find it very amusing that the same small government, free-market types are the very ones trying to block this development. All that Tea Party rhetoric is great until it directly impacts their lifestyle.
Vote Yes on D and let’s move forward to secure 500 acres of open space, more money for schools and roads, and stop wasting tax payer money on frivolous lawsuits.
It’s all down to how you market those measures. Some people will show up at the polling station without a clue what they are voting on so they cast their votes based on lawn signs. That’s just the way it is.
Go up there and look! The homes are NOT on the ridgelines!!!!! That is just FALSE!!!!!
All these discussions are too complex for me to understand but I do respect private property rights, as I would others to respect mine. I’m voting yes…end of story. No on D people probably don’t own properties and have no concept of what that means.
The message above that school income is based on local tax dollars is completely false. The dollars per student are the same for our city no matter what our local property value is or the number of houses. This was due to some previous state laws that thought it was unfair for richer communities to have better schools. So the state controls how much the schools get and the local property taxes do not figure into the equation. The schools get s “revenue limit” If local tax revenue is higher, the state chips in less. If local tax revenue is lower, the state chips in more. In the end, our schools get exactly the same amount of money. While Pleasanton does receive more money per student than other districts, it is not based on our local tax revenue or property taxes. It is based on a calculation that was done many years ago and Pleasanton was at the better end of the stick. If we add more houses, or not, expensive houses, or not, the revenue per student stays the same.
As for the ridges, look at the grading plans. It shows the top of the ridges are being graded and the new home pads are at the top of some of the ridges.
While there are some who do not want any homes out there, or possibly any more homes in Pleasanton because of the congestion we already face, most people who are against this plan would accept a plan that has less homes so they can fix the home appropriately in that environment. The property owner can always come back with another plan.
More to the point the developer of this project is misleading the community to believe that they are giving money that will relieve the schools budget problems. The truth is that the developer is not giving any money to the schools, they are saying the home builders will. The truth is that the amount of money that the schools will get will be inconsequential to the budget.
RE: “… I like the idea of extra money going to our schools as a result of this development, especially after all the cuts.”
Every development in Pleasanton’s past has sold itself by saying that it will give money to schools. But after the development is approved and the money is granted, it seems that we always need more.
So I do not feel it is a reason to support this development. Besides, where do the ‘cuts’ really take us back to? Where we were in 2003?, in 1996?, in 2005? Whatever it is, we got by then. But the school funding is a seperate issue and needs to remain seperate. Pls review the Proposal on any other merits besides emotional ones.
I like the idea of open space for the public and funds for the schools. However, is there a drawing of what the land looks like now and what it will look like with the new homes? I”m envisioning it to look like our west hills, which seem OK to me. Anything available online for those of us who can’t take the tour on Saturday?
I’m voting YES on Measure D for these reasons.
The ridge line in question is not public property, it is owned fair & square & legally by the Lin family. The property is also zoned for residential construction, whether it’s going to be 55 large, tastefully designed & scrutinized by the building permit dept. homes or 90 smaller, ridge filling homes, there will be homes there one day.
Having grown up around this particular area I know of the trail network that exists in the area & further south. I have been known to at times take a bike ride or hike in the hills & have always been amazed to my good fortune that I have been able to have these trails to myself & the few other locals that frequent these “pirate hikes.” With proper grading & maintenance these trails would afford easier access to the older hikers & bikers that find the Pleasanton Ridge a bit daunting at times & make for some fantastic views for everyone to appreciate.
I also vaguely remember the same arguments, rebuttals & whining about the development of Kottinger Ranch when it was proposed. As with all new development in this town it is almost assured of that there will be opposition to somebody with a bigger, higher, nicer plot of land than they do. (I’m sure than John Neal probably thought the same about those “new folks up the street” back in the late 1800’s too) The lucky few who already live in the Measure D proposed area are surprisingly, the most vocal. Especially those who just happen to live on an existing multi-acre, ridge line home that also just happens to have a street named for them. Can’t guess who that is? Just Google Brozosky Hill Ln. (as in STEVE), Rock Springs Rd. & the general vicinity. Yep, all those homes & property values will undoubtedly take a hit so what do they do? Begin a campaign of half truths, fear & class envy to persuade the general public.
If anyone has driven, walked or just stepped outside their front door in town & looked to the southern hills you’ll notice one thing immediately. You can’t see them. Unless you happen to be driving on certain stretches of Bernal, Kottinger, Vineyard or Stanley this particular ridge line is simply not in the general field of view. There are in fact, very few homes that would be impacted by ANY development in those hills aside from their lower flying neighbors in Grey Eagle, Vintage Hills & Kottinger, yet the opponents want you to believe that these will all be 5000+ sq. ft. mega-mansions visible from traffic on Hwy. 680. A quick side note. Think for a minute what the views of these proposed homes will be of. Stanley Blvd., the construction quarries, Shadow Cliffs, a nice senior citizen mobile home park, Hwy. 680 & the Dublin Hills. Million+ dollar homes with views of mobile home parks? But I digress.
There still exists in this town oversight & approval by the folks that ultimately grant building permits & sit on planning commissions. If & when this or some other measure passes you will have the ability to show up, voice your objections to the plans & work with the developer, architects & property owners to devise building plans, landscaping & grading that will be aesthetically pleasing & complimentary to the surrounding area. If it took a neighbor of ours over six months, three separate visits to the planning commission & a few thousand $$ in design fees, permits & delays to change his windows, remove siding, cut down a dead pine tree & re-surface a driveway all because of the naysayers in the neighborhood, just think of the hassles that the homeowners of Measure D homes will be subjected to.
IMHO, once this passes, the homes finally begin to be built & everybody’s tempers calm down the public will see that there will be little visual impact on the proposed ridge line, we will have a truly amazing park & trail network to enjoy, a few extra $$ for the town & schools & some nice new gracious neighbors that will spend their money locally.
For all this I’ll (reluctantly albeit) give up my little private hiking area for the benefit of the better public’s interest.
Jennifer, I don’t think too highly of you as our mayor, but I have to admit that is a pretty good offer.
I voted to repeal the Oak Grove development, only because I felt this is large enough of an issue for the voters to decide. I haven’t committed one way or the other, but I’m sure by the time the election comes around I will have the knowledge that I need.
Yes on D—is a great deal for our city——parks and park access is always a priority
This thought just “popped” into my brain…if the NO/D people win and this project is rejected, and since Pleasanton lost the “housing cap” in court, and since the area is zoned “residential”, and since Pleasanton is required to provide “low income housing” then wouldn’t this land be the perfect place for LOW INCOME HOUSING? Maybe my thought processes are askew, but I think the NO/D people better take the better deal and vote YES.
Joe, perhaps you ought to lay down. Those little thought bubbles over your head are started to burst.
We need to vote NO on D to stop the development of more high-end homes in Pleasanton. What we need are affordable homes for the needy and those who cannot afford to buy a home otherwise. Let’s not waste more land on big expensive homes and vote No on D.
Although there is way too much to read in the voter info pamphlet some things do stick out. Consider…THE NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE.
“The Oak Grove site is designated for residential development under the Pleasanton General Plan. As noted above in the discussion of the “no project” scenario, it may reasonably be assumed that, if the current proposal should not be approved, an alternative proposal would be brought forward. No development is, therefore, not a feasible alternative….”
Even if you vote no development of that area is not going away unless the General Plan gets changed or you “pool” your money and buy the land.
For those who would like a tour of the property, the Oak Grove website has a form for signing up for tours. http://www.oakgrovepleasanton.com/ You could also call their number 485-3772 and asked to be included. Their are two that I know of on May 16th, one at 1:00 pm and the other at 2:30.
Pleasanton is the town it is because of smart growth choices, not no-growth choices. In the 1930s a dog slept most of the day in the middle of Main Street without being disturbed. In the 1970s, there were three department stores in the Valley and none of them was in Pleasanton. There was a lot more open space, but the town was very short on amenities.
The no-growth chants are not new. Forty years ago people wanted to keep the cows in the valley, but didn’t want to help the dairy farmers stay in business. You can’t ask other people to pay for your scenery.
You create your General Plan so that you get a balance. Development on the Oak Grove property is in compliance with that plan, plus we gain a large chunk of dedicated open space.
The hills south of town were always a good place to hike, and once there is a park there, everyone will have access.
Vote Yes on D.
I like the idea of low-income/affordable condos on the hills. The view can be enjoyed by more people and we can diverse the demographics in the hill area. It’s un-American to offer such a great view and piece of property to those who are filthy rich. Commoners should be able to enjoy living in an area with a view. So please vote NO on D and YES on affordable housing in the hills!!!!