|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton Weekly got it wrong
The Pleasanton Weekly’s July 25 editorial got the facts — and the story — flat-out wrong.
For over a year leading up to the last election, the previous City Council worked publicly and transparently to address the city’s growing budget crisis. This included council meetings, special meetings, community workshops, mailers and direct outreach. The Pleasanton Weekly was there. To now claim the Council was evasive or disingenuous isn’t just misleading — it’s dishonest.
The editorial suggests the Council should have done nothing while multimillion-dollar deficits loomed — and that residents didn’t deserve a say in how to respond. That’s outrageous. Rather than acknowledge its role in sowing confusion, the editorial board doubled down, defending its divisive actions and downplaying the consequences. That’s not journalism. That’s spin.
Measure PP was a responsible attempt to face a mounting fiscal threat. All Councilmembers received the same sobering financial projections from city staff. Four took action. One, Jack Balch, chose not to. Voters had the final say through a public, democratic process.
The defeat of Measure PP was not inevitable, as the Weekly claims. If failure had been certain, it never would’ve reached the ballot. The risk of doing nothing far outweighed the risk of asking voters to act. Now, Pleasanton faces the very cuts that Measure PP sought to avoid — cuts that were preventable.
The Weekly’s praise for pulling $3 million from the pension trust is misleading. That money isn’t “free” — it adds to our unfunded liability and does nothing to fix the structural deficit.
Economic development is important, but it’s no quick fix. Costs are rising. Without new, stable revenue, more painful cuts are on the way.
Pretending the crisis is over doesn’t help. It misleads the public and delays real solutions. Pleasanton deserves facts — not revisionist history.
— Valerie Arkin, former member of Pleasanton City Council, Pleasanton USD Board of Trustees and Pleasanton Library Commission
District 1
Councilmember Jeff Nibert was elected to represent the people of Pleasanton’s District 1 — not override them. Repeatedly, his vote runs counter to the voices of those who elected him. That is not leadership. That is a breach of trust.
When people speak, their representatives should listen. Councilmember Nibert does not. He votes as if public input is background noise. We deserve a leader who listens. Councilmember Nibert ignored our concerns, dismissed our voices and consistently voted against our interests.
Voters in District 1 voted 55% against Measure PP. Councilmember Nibert ignored this and supported Measure PP. Nibert was fully aware voters in District 1 were against tax increase. Yet Councilmember Nibert supported a charter city ballot measure for tax purposes, claiming infrastructure needs the tax revenue.
Councilmember Nibert misunderstands the role of representative democracy — his voting record suggests personal conviction takes precedence over community consensus. Councilmember Nibert, your job is to represent us. Not rule over us.
Councilmember Nibert, you are out of step with constituent priorities. Councilmember Nibert, you are consistently misaligned with voter sentiment. Councilmember Nibert regularly diverges from community consensus. Jeff Nibert, you place personal or political agendas above public interests. Your tax and spending agenda is wrong.
— Michael Austin
Editorial stepped over the line
I am a strong supporter of independent journalism, but personally think your last editorial of July 25 stepped over the line. I have personally attended most City Council meetings (and am graduate of the five-month Pleasanton Community Academy) over the last 18 months and respectfully disagree with several of your comments.
The editorial included the statement that the prior City Council was contentious, divisive, failed to collaborate and distracted Pleasanton citizens. I believe this was off-base and a bit inappropriate.
It was also noted that the new City Council “embraced” the failure of Measure PP. Whether it was embraced or not, I question whether the city and residents are truly in a better spot.
Over the next few months, as the reality of the proposed cuts are felt, I would bet that our Pleasanton community will come to realize we have taken a step back and PP was a missed opportunity. As you note “with the budget finalized let’s move forward”.
– TJ McGrath
Enjoying Pleasanton’s heritage
My wife and I recently joined one of the Charles Huff Walking Tours hosted by the Museum on Main. Strolling along St. Mary Street, Division Street and Rose Avenue, we admired the stunning historic homes and learned about Pleasanton’s early founders and important citizens, including Bernal, Nevis, Hearst, Hansen, Orloff and Charles Huff, just to name a few.
Our knowledgeable guide shared captivating stories about the families who lived in these homes, their livelihoods and their contributions to our city’s rich history.
The tour concluded with a visit to the Museum on Main, where engaging exhibits brought Pleasanton’s past to life. A highlight was the demonstration of the horn atop the iconic Main Street archway sign — a thrilling experience to see and hear!
These free tours are a fantastic way to explore our town’s rich heritage. The next tours are scheduled for Aug. 9 and 12 where we will explore Railroad Avenue, Second Street and Neal Street. I encourage everyone to visit the Museum on Main to enjoy all its offerings and to join a walking tour to discover the people and stories that shaped Pleasanton.
We are blessed to live in the beautiful city of Pleasanton and to have a jewel such as the Museum on Main to share our wonderful heritage.
— David Ott
Trump, Epstein and immigration
At a filmed deposition in 2010, convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was asked, “Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?” Epstein pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
Preceding this, he was asked if he had ever socialized with Trump, to which he answered, yes. So, Epstein did socialize with our current president – this has been documented in a sworn deposition and in other examples that were taped (see Trump whispering like a naughty boy in Epstein’s ear at some past party).
Elaborating on this a bit, Epstein, the sex trafficker, socialized with Trump, a guy found liable of sexual assault and who pays hush money to porn actors. Here’s a rhetorical question: What was the purpose of Trump socializing with Epstein?
In other news, Trump’s approval rating on immigration, his signature issue, is underwater. His get-tough stance on immigration helped him get into the White House a second time, but his chaotic and brutal actions have tanked him in the polls.
According to the latest Silver Bulletin, 50.3% disapprove of his handling of immigration while only 46% approve. That may not sound like a huge difference, but consider that early in his administration, he had an approval rating as high as 53.4% on the issue, equating to almost an 8-point decline.
Conclusion: Our perverted president also does a lousy job on his top issue and people (i.e., voters) are catching on.
– Ward Kanowsky
Reps. must act to protect our health and future, not polluters
I’m deeply disappointed in every legislator who voted for one of the most harmful bills in history, Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”.
Many people in our state and nationwide likely don’t understand what this legislation means for our families and communities. Here’s a breakdown of how some parts of this bill will directly affect us:
* Phase out tax credits for wind and solar power, which will drive up our energy.
* Withdraw funding for agencies like NOAA that monitor extreme weather, leaving communities vulnerable to climate disaster.
* Throws millions of children, seniors and families off Medicaid and food assistance.
Republicans cheered about taking away health care, gutting clean energy programs, selling public lands and giving massive tax breaks to billionaires. Policy reflects values, and I am horrified by the values represented in this bill and by every legislator who voted for it. We won’t forget this.
We must fight back by advocating for policies and voting for politicians who will protect people and the planet over corporate polluters. We need you to stand up for us and be our voice.
— Jaspreet Singh
Voters in the precincts that comprise Council District 1 voted in favor of Measure PP with 51.1% voting “yes”, in support of new revenue.
The numbers I compiled in District One had registered voters not supporting 55%.
Official election results are here: https://acvote.alamedacountyca.gov/acvote-assets/02_election_information/SOV/20241105/Statement%20of%20Vote%20-%20General%20Election.pdf
The precincts are numbered 520810, 520860, 521200, and 521500.
I did not locate the numbers that support you that District One supported Measure PP, 51% of voters in the district. I accept that this document supports your claim. I will come back to it at a later time. I contacted 186 people in District One, 102 (55%) did not support Measure PP.
Please identify who represents 520810, 520860, 521200 and 521500, how do these numbers align with districts 1-4?
Those precincts comprise District 1.
“The Weekly’s praise for pulling $3 million from the pension trust is misleading. That money isn’t “free” — it adds to our unfunded liability and does nothing to fix the structural deficit. Economic development is important, but it’s no quick fix. Costs are rising. Without new, stable revenue, more painful cuts are on the way. ”
It’s misleading to think a 10.75% sales tax rate in Pleasanton would be “free”, consumers could not simply save 0.5% on their purchases by going to a neighboring community, and that businesses wouldn’t think twice about operating/expanding here because of the higher tax rate.
All elections have winners and losers. Sometimes voters realize, after a winner has been allowed to lead, that their expectations haven’t been met. Former winners become losers. Some losers accept the voter’s decision gracefully, while others set out to demean the new winners. They become bitter, sore losers. Sore losers rarely become winners.
Well said!
“Many people in our state and nationwide likely don’t understand what this legislation means for our families and communities. Here’s a breakdown of how some parts of this bill will directly affect us:
* Phase out tax credits for wind and solar power, which will drive up our energy.”
Apparently, some people likely don’t understand why our state already has some of the highest energy costs in the nation. Here’s a breakdown – it’s because of feel good (and uneconomic) “carbon free” and “net zero” requirements.
Some of us knew in advance that trying to run the state and/or the nation on unreliable energy sources (wind and solar) was not going to work – and was not going to be inexpensive. California is now trying to prevent oil refineries from closing (to avoid fuel shortages) – caused by their own shortsighted policies that made operations in the state cost/legally prohibitive.
In recent years, more than $5 billion has been spent on the homeless. It improved nothing; the homeless are still homeless. The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.
Stop spending on the homeless, and clean up homeless camps every week. The homeless will go away. There will be no more homeless people. That $5 billion of taxpayer money will be available for infrastructure.
Continuing to tax and spend leads to increased debt and to an unmanageable debt, leading to bankruptcy.
STG1927AU, energy legislation and Measure PP are different discussions. What you refer to as “feel good requirements” represent the optimistic view that the planet will still be here as a habitable-by-humans place for future generations. Wind and solar energy fluctuate in how much we can harness at any given moment, but they are far from unreliable. The wind has always blown and will always blow. The sun has always shone and will always shine, at least until the planet is destroyed. Our mission must be to delay that destruction as far into the future as possible.
In the scheme of things, expensive energy in the moment guarantees there will even be a habitable planet for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and beyond is cheap insurance for the preservation of mankind.
When the sun isn’t shining/wind is not blowing, there is no power being generated. That is the realistic view, and the nation and our economy can’t rely on these sources. Natural gas, nuclear, oil, coal, etc. are reliable all of the time.
The author of the original letter expressed concern about higher energy costs – and expensive energy is economic disarmament. Other nations will pollute/use as much energy as they wish, and we’ll be left suffering the consequences.
The save the planet “mission” doesn’t consider (or care about) the predictable side effects: businesses leave, jobs are lost, shortages of energy, and people struggling to pay their electric bills.
Some of us like living in a free society (as opposed to a communist one) and do not like being told where we can live, what kind of food we are permitted to eat, what kind of car we can drive, how much energy we are permitted to use, etc.
STG1927AU, oh, my friend, make no mistake , our society is definitely free. Without freedom, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, storage facilities retain the energy they’ve produced for use at a later time. When oil, gas, and coal are gone, they’re gone. Great chasms appear where coal mines once were,abandoned oil wells and empty gas pipes remain with no purpose.
Jobs may be lost in one sector, but retraining workers with new skills creates even better jobs. That requires more jobs for teachers to instruct and train those workers with new skills. Out of the mines, into the light of day to earn livings for their families.
Many Europeon nations are keenly aware that preservation of the planet requires a change toward better conservation, harnessing, and utilization of renewable energy resouces.
I’m sorry if you object to rules; we are a nation of laws. No, we are governed globally by laws, which vary depending on the country in which we choose to live. Food? Oceans are being decimated by over-fishing, and polluted waters are tainting some fish, rendering them unsafe for consumption. We are at the mercy of automakers to determine what kind of car we drive. That’s no different than it has always been. Waste not, want not is an old adage whose time has come around again. Water and energy are vital commodities we must all conserve if we expect them to serve our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
We share this planet with those other nations, and we must all work toward the goal of global preservation. Other nations face the same societal challenges as we do, and are realizing they, too, must be protective of our planet or risk extinction.
Oil, gas, and coal are not gone despite the naysayers saying they would run out years ago. Storage facilities for wind and solar are not enough to supply energy needs of the state or the nation. Let me guess – we will just have to “do without” energy for the projected shortfalls? Will businesses be forced to close early as a result? No appliances allowed to operate during “peak hours”? Personal vehicles banned in favor of mandatory (electrified) public transportation? Single family homes prohibited?
We ARE a nation of laws under the Constitution – and it doesn’t say anything about the government “saving the planet” and/or copying what other nations are doing. Oh, my friend, you sound awfully silly about a “free society” when you want to impose your own command-and-control rules of “conservation”, “retraining workers” and “global preservation” on everyone else. We won’t have one afterward.
I’m sorry if you object to free markets and those who wish to succeed vs. getting by with what you think is “needed” for the “common good”. We must all work to avoid this homegrown version of communism being brought here.
Communism seriously? Oil, coal, natural gas endless supply, really? Having just returned from Europe there are solar farms everywhere, windmills everywhere. What exactly is wrong with harnessing the sun and the wind for energy? I prefer not to run our coal, gas and oil supplies out for the sake of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Attitudes such as yours will destroy our planet, maybe just not in your lifetime.
Call it whatever you would like. It’s government control and managed decline – often promoted by those who are already financially well off/not affected by higher costs.
You can’t eat meat because it is not “sustainable”, you have to retrofit/electrify your home, you need to buy an electric car, you can’t build single family homes, you need to use public transportation, businesses need to be taxed/restricted based on their resource consumption, the government will create “green jobs” with taxpayer funding (while disposing of others via regulation), etc.
There is something wrong when a supposedly free nation micromanages people’s lives and/or tries to centrally plan the economy to “save the planet” – when other nations do as they wish. You cannot run the nation on wind and solar. Attitudes like yours will cripple our economy, put people out of work, and lower our standard of living.