|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In support of the half-cent tax measure
Folks, it is becoming increasingly clear that the half-cent tax measure on this November’s ballot is the best way we can go about balancing our city’s budget.
Consider this: If you were to spend $1,000 on taxable purchases, with the half-cent tax, you would pay just $5 on top of the existing sales tax. That $5 is about the same price as a single iced coffee at Inkling’s Coffee Shop.
Half a cent in added sales tax is insignificant. All the additional revenue collected through the half-cent tax measure stays in Pleasanton. Of the current 10.25% sales tax rate, only 1% currently stays in Pleasanton. The other 9.25% is split between the county and state.
If voters were to approve the half-cent tax measure the amount of sales tax that stays in Pleasanton would be increased by 50%. I would happily pay this added sales tax knowing it goes towards funding public safety.
The value the half-cent tax can add to the community is tremendous! With added revenue, the city can minimize cuts to the budget. We all benefit by keeping crossing guards in this city. I worry about the added costs to homeowners’ monthly insurance premiums if the city were forced to close Fire Station No. 2, as has been previously discussed in council chambers. I know insurance companies are ruthlessly terminating coverage or jacking up the cost of premiums for any possible reason.
Please keep Pleasanton a safe and wonderful place to call home. It’s an easy choice; vote Yes on the half-cent tax.
— Matthew Gray
Unleashed dogs causing menace in parks
I am writing to report a concerning situation in the Amador Valley Park on Black Avenue in Pleasanton that requires your immediate attention.
There have been several incidents involving dogs that are not on a leash, despite the park’s clear requirement for dogs to be leashed at all times. On July 20, my child and I were in the park when we were approached by an unleashed dog. The dog pounced on us multiple times, causing significant distress and minor injuries. My son was scratched during the encounter, which required medical attention.
The presence of unleashed dogs in the park poses a serious risk to the safety and well-being of park visitors.
I respectfully request that increased enforcement measures be taken to ensure that all dogs in the park are leashed as required by law.
This will help prevent any future incidents and ensure the safety of all park-goers. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
— Piyush Sharma
Blatant infringement of parents’ rights
Signing of AB 1955 by Gov. Newsom is an insane move forward, as it disregards parental rights and irks the majority of parental population and groups in an attempt to pose to protect a rarity of cases.
While I totally respect schools trying to address specific rare issues stemming from dysfunctional families, I believe the state has to not make laws that would threaten the parental rights until their children turn 18.
Besides, whatever happens to the FERPA that cites no federal funding for schools that fail to protect the privacy of kids that needs to be indeed “signed” by parents?! In other words, the schools are not allowed to document or share anything to anybody without the “signed ” consent of parents, the stark opposite.
Now I am sure the new law found some loopholes that allowed it to make its way through. But it makes no sense where school authorities could assume guardianship of the kids’ choices when they don’t have a knowledge about the cultural, traditional and social-structures of the kids’ families.
I wish they spent the time and money instead in making laws that would reduce drug addictions, teen pregnancies, single-parenthood families and other serious issues that are the true seeds of creating a confused next-generation.
I am sure California would see a decline of enrollment in public schools. I hope a prop to ban this law makes its way to ballots and lets the public decide what they think instead of a bunch of public politicians making prohibitive laws a norm.
— Sangeetha Krishnamoorthy
Merritt property water usage
A 2018 report from California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) gives a target of 1.8 million new housing units to be constructed by 2025. The actual number of new housing units constructed each year in California is 80,000 each year.
In California, with increased conservation efforts, an acre-foot of water is estimated to provide the indoor and outdoor needs of three typical urban households for a year: 1.8 million homes times 1 acre-foot per three households equals 600,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot is equal to 325,000 gallons of water or approximately 1,233 cubic meters.
Determining the water needs for 111 new luxury homes (Merritt property) on 45 acres, considering household size, landscaping and climate. The average water usage for a single-family home in the United States is around 100,000 gallons per year. The 111 new luxury homes on 45 acres will require 33-acre feet of water per year.
Pleasanton groundwater well’s maximum capacity can provide up to 3,500 acre-feet of water per year. Typically, when used the groundwater wells provide 20% to 25% 700 to 875 acre-feet of water per year for Pleasanton. Zone 7 provides 100% of all Pleasanton water needs when wells are shut down.
Without throwing contamination (PFAS) in the mix, the city with its current history will have to do something to meet the water needs for this city. Buying water from Zone 7 is a spending problem. There is a Zone 7 litigation issue pending against the city of Pleasanton.
— Michael Austin
Rushed vote without proper input
At about midnight last month, the Dublin City Council voted to put a referendum on the November ballot to try to get approval to not only extend Dublin Boulevard to meet the road in Livermore, but also to advance the Crosby land along the freeway for commercial/light industrial development.
Doing that would block important open space corridors for wildlife. It is being rushed in without public input or environmental studies.
Please have someone contact Ian Howell or Dr. Farley Connelly at the Alameda County Resource Conservation District for more information on why this is a very damaging plan. We are hoping that you can print an editorial opposing it and educating the public as to what the council approved without public input. It was the last thing on the agenda.
— Carol Garberson, ACRCD board member
Vote no on the 1/2% Pleasanton city sales tax. There is no guarantee as to how it will be used as it will be part of the general fund. This whole city tax measure is being built on threatening us, the residents, with cuts to our most valued services. Quite frankly the city has not been run with fiscally responsible council members (the majority of 4 – Mayor Brown, Valerie Arkin, Julie Testa and Jeff Nibert). They all wanted to spend 11 million on a skatepark and century house. 11 million let that sink in. There is no way I would give this council majority of 4 any more of my money. Serious leadership changes have to be made.
Until I see cuts to current expenditures, I cannot support a sales tax. I have to believe there would be more community support for the tax proposal if residents could see town services being affected. The council’s timing is off on this.
“Consider this: If you were to spend $1,000 on taxable purchases, with the half-cent tax, you would pay just $5 on top of the existing sales tax. That $5 is about the same price as a single iced coffee at Inkling’s Coffee Shop. ”
Yet another predictable spokesperson for “it’s just a little bit more” and “taxes are not high enough”. Consider this: if you were to spend $1,000 on taxable purchases, you would be paying $107.50 in sales tax with the increase. That’s too much and people are already struggling with inflation. Do not reward and subsidize the city council’s poor financial management/planning.
Cities get addicted to easy revenue. No on increase in taxes. Rather allow cities to increase revenue base by having more people come and stay in Pleasanton. Build more homes. Construction of 110 luxury homes in 45 acres is horrendous, in Merrit property. They should have put 10 to 20 homes in an acre. CA needs housing badly and so the Pleasanton city.