|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Fire response
I want to express my heartfelt gratitude towards our brave first responders and our fabulous Mayor Jack Balch. I live in a neighborhood that was affected by the fires Tuesday and Mayor Balch personally called and messaged me that our neighborhood will have to be evacuated and I should start planning and help the neighbors too.
I can’t express my emotions that were evoked by the mayor’s empathetic message and care about everyone in this community. He truly proved his message and speech given during his State of the City, “I believe in the power of people, the power to create and build, the power to care for one another through service, and the power of human kindness, empathy, and compassion.”
He actually put this into action, not just words or a speech. He truly put his speech in action during a crisis faced by the community.
Excerpts from his speech: “Advance kindness. Practice empathy. Cultivate gratitude. Show up, because participation is how promises endure. Serve.” Well, he did all of this Tuesday by visiting every shelter in place to check on people to make sure they were OK.
He worked tirelessly, honestly and with empathy today. This is true leadership and Pleasanton is lucky to have Jack Balch as our mayor.
I want to thank Vice Mayor Matt Gaidos. When the first reports came in, he was already at City Hall monitoring and calling residents. Vice Mayor Gaidos came down to monitor the situation; he coordinated calling, texting and notifying residents with Mayor Balch in the district – the district they both live in and where more than half of their constituents were displaced.
I also met with Fire Chief Aaron Lacey and thanked him and his brave team to contain the fires. In the process, one of the Cal Fire officers got injured and is in the hospital but recovering well. Our prayers are with them.
But I really wanted to send this note here for our community. We take life for granted, but things can change in the blink of an eye. Please be kind to one another, be happy and stay safe and help one another.
God bless our brave men fighting these fires. Please pray for them.
– Seema Chawla
Rebuttal on special election costs
I don’t think the author of the “Special election costs” letter last week has thought through the consequences of what such a burden would create.
There are many ways for people no longer interested in their jobs to resign. One is to simply stop showing up and wait to be fired. One is simply not putting in the necessary effort to perform the job competently.
We should be happy when people have the honor and decency to resign and not create a set of motivations for them to simply perform their job poorly. The amount it costs to run a special election pales in comparison to what is lost when we are no longer represented in the government.
Forcing disgruntled or shamed representatives to remain in name only is a recipe for failure.
We have more values as citizens than money, and the obsession with optimizing on that single monetary metric is part of what is wrong with society in general. You get the government you pay for.
– John Williams
I feel betrayed
In response to a recent East Bay Insiders headline reading, “Pleasanton Mayor Admits He Didn’t Read the Memo, Let’s Motion Die to Oppose ICE Detention Center,” here’s what I sent to Mayor Balch and the rest of the City Council:
Mr. Mayor,
I feel misled. I feel betrayed. I feel ashamed to be a resident of a town that puts politics above protecting our citizens and neighbors.
The issue before you is unambiguous; will you stand up and say that an ICE detention center in our community is unacceptable?
Since the latest meeting of the City Council demonstrated that you won’t do this, and that you won’t even read analyses prepared by your staff, I can only infer that you are OK with reopening a shuttered and uninhabitable facility that had rampant sexual abuse. That facility will then be run by incompetent, violent agents who will likely carry on the prison’s history of inhumane behavior.
You can do something to stop this, but have chosen not to. Please reconsider and set an example by doing the right thing.
– Ward Kanowsky
Anniversary of atomic bombings
Aug. 6 and 9 mark the 81st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To commemorate this anniversary, Livermore Conversion Project, composed of Bay Area peace organizations, are holding a rally at the gates of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory beginning at 9 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 6 to call for the elimination of nuclear weapons at the place where they are designed.
The program will have speakers, a symbolic die-in, a traditional Japanese Bon Dance, and a nonviolent direct action for those who choose to participate.
On Sunday, Aug. 9, these same organizations will hold a film screening of “An Ordinary Insanity” at the New Parkway Theater in Oakland from 12:30-2 p.m. The short film features Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower and lifelong anti-nuclear advocate, in one of his final public warnings about the existential threat of nuclear weapons.
Filmed by Oscar-nominated director Judith Ehrlich one year before Ellsberg’s death, “An Ordinary Insanity” offers an urgent and deeply human look at the dangers built into U.S. nuclear policy, while pointing toward concrete steps that can reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation.
The film screening will be followed by a panel and Q&A with the film director and producer as some of the panelists.
Livermore Conversion Project invites people to join us at these two events! For more information, contact scott@trivalleycares.org or visit trivalleycares.org.
– Tanvi Kardile
Granada-Livermore wins U.S. title over Bollinger Canyon, plays for World Series championshipAugust 9, 2026 7:10 am
All three city races contested, no candidates for one school board seat in PleasantonAugust 7, 2026 10:25 pm
Response to Rebuttle Special Election Costs:
John Williams’ rebuttal to my letter claims that I “did not think through the consequences” of proposing accountability for voluntary congressional resignations. His own examples, however, illustrate why the issue deserves a clearer distinction between personal motives and public costs.
Mr. Williams argues that a representative who no longer wishes to serve might “simply stop showing up and wait to be fired” or “not put in the necessary effort to perform the job competently.” Those hypotheticals describe failures of duty — not reasons to shift millions of dollars in special election costs onto Alameda County taxpayers. My proposal does not force anyone to remain in office. It simply ensures that when a resignation is voluntary, the financial consequences are not transferred entirely to the public.
He also writes that we should be “happy when people have the honor and decency to resign.” I agree that resignation can be the responsible choice. But responsible choices should not automatically impose $2.5 to $3.5 million in costs on residents — money that could support wildfire mitigation, school infrastructure, or transit reliability. Recognizing that impact is not, as he suggests, an “obsession with optimizing on a single monetary metric.” It is basic fiscal stewardship.
Mr. Williams concludes, “You get the government you pay for.” That is precisely why taxpayers deserve a system where private career decisions do not trigger multimillion dollar public expenses. California already uses performance bonds and cost recovery mechanisms in other public trust roles. Extending similar protections to voluntary congressional resignations would not discourage honorable behavior; it would simply align responsibility with decision making.
My original letter addressed a structural problem, not any individual. Mr. Williams’ rebuttal focused on hypothetical motives and personal scenarios. Those are not the same issues, and taxpayers deserve clarity on the difference.
— Michael Austin, Pleasanton
To the Editor:
Mr. Kanowsky’s letter is a textbook example of intimidation masquerading as civic discourse.
He doesn’t simply disagree with the mayor or City Council. He declares that because they declined to adopt his preferred resolution, they must be comfortable with sexual abuse, violence, and inhumane treatment. That isn’t reasoned argument—it’s character assassination.
Public officials should absolutely be held accountable. Criticize their votes. Question their judgment. Demand they read every staff memo. Those are fair points. But accusing elected officials of being morally complicit in horrific crimes simply because they voted differently is bullying, not debate.
This kind of rhetoric sends a clear message: agree with me or be publicly branded as someone who supports abuse and cruelty. That doesn’t encourage thoughtful discussion; it shuts it down.
Pleasanton deserves better than political purity tests and guilt by association. We should expect our community conversations to be grounded in facts, not emotional blackmail.
If we want more good people to serve in local government, we should stop normalizing personal attacks whenever someone casts a vote we don’t like.
Disagreement is healthy. Demonization is not.