I have read many blog comments that demonstrate just why the messages from both sides are strikingly similar.
For instance, how can 43 homes result in open space? Well, if you put the homes in a valley on about 200 acres of land, there’s plenty of open space left over for public use. In contrast to some other projects—Kottinger Ranch, for instance—the City Council approval requires 174 acres of open space that is accessible to the public.
On a property that easily could hold three or four times that many homes, it’s a cost of doing business for the developer to dedicate that much land to the public. What it does is drive the cost of each house higher because there are costs that Greenbriar must cover and the firm still expects to make money.
The same goes for why Greenbriar is footing the bill for the “Yes on K” campaign. What other entity would contribute? There may be a few citizens and businesses that believe in fulfilling the city’s General Plan in that area, but Greenbriar is the firm that expects to benefit and thus will pay the bill.
On the opposite side, it’s residents in Bridle Creek and a few others that fronted the money for using paid signature-gatherers to qualify the referendum and then are paying the freight. Judging by the messaging points that are being used, they have employed a professional firm that has done enough polling to know what words to use.
As I have previously observed, this is a new game in Pleasanton where enough wealthy people have moved in the past number of years (they are by no means limited to Ruby Hill) that residents have the means to pay to achieve their political goals.
The irony is that typically has been the charge of paying to play that is leveled at homebuilders, but now has been extended into affluent neighborhoods in Pleasanton.
