|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton voters spoke clearly last election
The election was nine months ago.
Former city councilmember Valerie Arkin still doesn’t understand what happened. She continues to confuse activity with results. Yes, leading up to the election, the city conducted “city council meetings, special meetings, community workshops, and direct outreach”. As a result, city leadership managed to cut a mere 1% from the budget.
Then the city rolled out a sales tax increase ballot measure supported by four of the five city councilmembers. A city-paid consulting firm poll tested the final version, which was renamed the “Essential Services Protection Act”, and suggested that it would pass with about 58% of the vote. The city also mailed pro-tax increase material to voters.
The city councilmembers said that the voters should decide. And they did. On Nov. 5, Measure PP received 46% of the vote. And Valerie Arkin received 46% of the vote in her reelection bid. She was beaten by Craig Eicher, someone who had never run for public office before.
Since the election, the city has been through a long overdue, thorough review of spending and priorities. In my 35 years as a resident, I have never seen more citizen engagement. There is a new budget. This has been a very good outcome.
— Doug Miller, former chair of the No on Measure PP Campaign
Don’t bury union contracts
Pleasanton Weekly, can you help us better understand why you essentially buried an important topic at the back end of the water rate article? The coming union contracts? This is an extremely important topic that the Pleasanton community needs to become more aware of, and the Pleasanton Weekly plays a critical role with making this happen.
Of course public employees provide vital services to the community and deserve to be fairly compensated for the value they provide. And they have been. However when the total compensation including pensions and lifetime healthcare coverage is considered, Pleasanton has been overcompensating for decades.
This is why total employee compensation is eating more and more of Pleasanton’s budget and other vital community investments are being starved. And this is the primary reason for the current significant financial deficit we are facing.
Pleasanton’s leadership’s track record on saying no to such unreasonable union asks has been very poor. Like this one where the union once again asking for above baseline inflation raises, knowing full well that their ask is driving Pleasanton into a deeper financial hole.
Pleasanton Weekly’s role with increasing community awareness of such important topics helps drive community engagement and bolsters Pleasanton leadership courage to make the politically challenging decisions which are best for the overall community. Thanks in advance for your increased attention to the critical community role you play.
— Bart Hughes
Stop wasting our time
The reality is that we elected a new mayor, and with the assistance of 2 new councilmembers, replacing councilmember Valerie Arkin and the other incumbent, Pleasanton now has a new and transparent direction.
If our past council had been truly transparent on the budget crisis, then maybe the outcome of our last election would have been different.
Of course former councilmember Arkin would think the Weekly got it all wrong when reporting on the actions of the past council, since she always voted with the majority, unless it made her appear to compromise without changing the outcome. It is comments like those in her opinion piece Aug. 1 titled “Pleasanton Weekly got it wrong” that are misleading when it comes to the facts. There is a reason why she is a former councilmember.
In addition, the council majority voted to put Measure PP on the ballot, and the majority of residents responded with a message loud and clear. No on PP!
To learn from defeat can be a blessing, if you accept the outcome.
And talk about not listening, I agree with Michael Austin in his opinion on Councilmember Jeff Nibert, who is supposed to represent District 1.
I believe both of these opinion pieces I have mentioned, show who has not been listening, and who is still not listening.
It’s time to move on!!
— Debbie Wallace
What is democracy?
Democracy is the majority, the masses, the individual, the bigger tent, the marginalized, DEI, a seat at the table, urban/suburban/rural, the right to food, the right to shelter, the right to feel safe, the right to disagree, the Constitution, awake, radical, truth, an aspiration, an experiment, the past, present, and future, the arts, the sciences, storytelling, family, hope, optimism, respect, agency, a birthright, our shared humanity, an ideal that lives in all of us.
Democracy is not a political party. Democracy is a way of life. Democracy matters. Democracy is America.
— Ward Kanowsky
Pleasanton Weekly got it right
The letter in the Aug. 1 issue of the Weekly is more “sour grapes” and an attempt at revisionist history from previous councilmembers who supported Measure PP.
Please remember the consultant hired by the city for more than $200,000 conducted a survey of Pleasanton voters and informed the council a tax measure would likely not pass (with an opposition campaign).
Rather than alter their course, the council majority endorsed a campaign of fear and intimidation to inform the electorate of the many programs and projects that would be eliminated if the sales tax increase was defeated.
Please remember before the November election, I went before the council and argued the decision to place Measure PP on the ballot was most likely the wrong move, politically.
There were two reasons behind my contention: First, the consultant’s initial survey predicting defeat of a sales tax measure and, second, the well-funded and organized voter opposition to the measure.
Please remember it’s not revisionist history to point out the two councilmembers now engaging in sour grapes lost their November reelection bids to remain on the council.
The Weekly should be commended for praising the current council majority decision to apply $3 million in annual interest earnings from the 115 Pension Trust toward the operating budget. The move does not increase our unfunded liability, which is determined by the composition of our workforce and CALPERS assumed and actual investment rates of return.
Agreed, economic development is important. Now with a positive city staff reorganization and a new council majority, Pleasanton will begin to experience positive economic development.
— Arne Olson, former member Pleasanton City Council
Beware those selling heritage
Heritage is often presented as a proud celebration of the past — a curated narrative that highlights the traditions, achievements, and symbols that a group chooses to elevate and preserve. In many cases, heritage serves as a way to glorify history, emphasizing moments of triumph, cultural identity and continuity while glossing over or omitting more troubling aspects.
Yet, history itself is rarely so flattering. It contains hard lessons — stories of violence, oppression, exploitation and resistance alongside those of innovation, cooperation, and progress.
When people invoke “heritage”, it is often because significant parts of history are missing from their narrative. These gaps may be intentional or subconscious, but they create a version of the past that is easier to celebrate than to interrogate.
In this way, heritage can function not only as a celebration of identity but as a shield against difficult truths. Real engagement with the past requires confronting it in its entirety, not just the parts that affirm who we think we are.
When heritage becomes mythologized, it turns into something even more powerful — and more dangerous. It can seduce people with the promise of belonging, pride, or moral righteousness, all while quietly being used as a tool of influence.
Curated by those in power, these narratives often appeal to emotion rather than evidence, making people more susceptible to manipulation. In doing so, they ask communities to protect a version of the past that may never have existed, turning heritage into a stage, history into a script, and the public into an audience told not to question — but to believe.
— John Williams
On March 4, 2025, the city’s actuarial consultant shared a report with the City Council. Setting aside his recommendation for the moment, the report included one clear fact:
For every $10 million taken from the Trust to cover CalPERS contributions, the Trust’s funded ratio drops by about 1.3%.
Put simply, taking money out of the Trust increases right away the amount the city owes in the long run (i.e., our unfunded liability).
Whether doing that makes sense depends on what one decides is more important:
• Keeping the Trust on track toward full funding to pay the city’s rapidly increasing debt for retiree pensions, or
• Using $3 million of that money now (principal and interest being all mixed together) to postpone making other budget cuts.
Also, the consultant’s initial survey of voters did NOT predict defeat of the sales tax measure. The consultant’s survey showed 57% in favor of the measure as written. With negative information added, the result dropped to a small majority still in favor, showing that an opposition campaign would make for a close outcome.
Jeff,
You would better serve the community by working to find ways to increase revenue rather than working towards ways to raise taxes and the community’s debt. You’re ongoing negative attitude is counterproductive.
Higher taxes discourage economic activity. If businesses and individuals reduce spending or relocate, the tax base shrinks and revenue could fall, worsening the deficit. New tax revenue would not be used to reduce the deficit, but rather to fund additional spending. In that case, taxes enable fiscal irresponsibility.
Voters believe that giving the government more money will not solve the problem; instead, it would perpetuate it. In times of economic hardship, voters reject tax hikes simply because they cannot afford them, even if they understand the need for deficit reduction. They prefer spending cuts.
.
Vice Mayor Nibert’s view of the actuarial report is flawed at best. The fund was created with the express purpose of being available if a future need , such as the impending structural deficit, should arise. It has accrued and continues to accrue interest, allowing the fund to grow substantially. Because the interest is added to the account, yes, the funds are co-mingled, which seems to bother him. Anybody with a simple interest-bearing savings account understands that’s how savings accounts grow, even if you don’t deposit more funds.
$10 million is not being taken from the fund. The $3 million is a portion of interest that has been added to the fund since its inception. I’m not certain of the exact amount that is now in the fund (before the withdrawal) but memory informs me it is in the order of $51million. For the sake of argument, we can assume $51, remove $3 million, and the fund still has $48 million which continues to draw interest. I don’t need an actuary to figure out $48 million gets less interest than $51 million, but the fund is far from depleted. Assuming the 1.3% per $10 million drop in funded ratio is correct, then the $3 million withdrawal will result in only a 0.43% drop in the funded ratio. For the moment, at least, interest rates remain high, so the fund will continue to show growth and should be replenished and that less than half a percent drop recovered within a reasonable length of time. There have also been some changes in the pension liability resulting in less burden than had initially been the case.
This pales in comparison to the previous council majority decision to eliminate a smaller rainy day fund altogether to justify a $6 million skate park upgrade. So yes, Vice Mayor, it absolutely makes sense. to use the $3 million.
The consultant’s survey was questionable at best. It allowed anonymity,, which at first blush was a good thing. but the online survey also allowed anyone to answer multiple times, potentially skewing results and rendering it pretty much useless.
I attended the meeting in which the consultants advised councilmembers how to put one over on the public and make us like it. It wasn’t a matter of whether the proposal was needed, just how to make us like it. It was a bald-faced sales pitch to the council to hire them to advise on what to tell us to make us accept the tax. Obviously is was not money well-spent.
Mayor Balch had it right. Using round numbers the 115 has a value of $50 million. At 5% interest the $50million generates $2.5 million in interest ANUALLY. The budget passed used $1.5 million of that interest and put $1million into the 115 each year. Nothing was taken out of the 115 just not as much put into it as could be. Interest occurs annually and is NOT 1-time money as VM Nibert tried to claim. No idea where he is getting 10 million from the 115 trust. I never saw that discussed!
Mr. Miller,
You can say all you want about this matter. Sadly, we have you to thank for our Pleasanton Librarians being laid off.
Pleasanton Valley Rez is spreading misinformation when saying Pleasanton Librarians are being laid off. Only one position in the library was cut, and there is a good possibility it was in retaliation for speaking out against certain conditions of the job. There is also a very real possibility that it wasn’t necessary to eliminate that position, but management had invested in the failed consultant’s assessment, and it was easier to save face by putting the very visible and adored library position on the chopping block. Using a bit of imagination, maybe if a position needed to be cut, it could have been a higher paying job like the coach for the city manager. One might assume a half-million-dollar-a-year city manager ought to be able to handle the job without a coach to say how to do it. Perhaps during an initial 6 months, to learn the nuances of the specific city organization, but by year 3, that coaching position should become superfluous. Resulting in a greater savings than that of an entry level library position,