Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Friday, August 23, 2002

Debate sizzles over Bernal initiative

With the November election just over 10 weeks away, public debate over the Bernal housing initiative - Measure V - has heated up with both sides crying foul.

The initiative, which will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot, would ban any housing on the 381 acres that will be turned over to the city of Pleasanton next month for public uses. A task force recommended that up to 20 acres of the land be used for subsidized senior and low-income affordable housing.

In filing their ballot statements, City Council candidate Steve Brozosky and city Planning Commissioner Brian Arkin, who wrote the initiative, said the group called Citizens for a Caring Community made false statements in theirs.

"This group claims in its ballot argument the state would impose fines if the initiative passes because Pleasanton wouldn't be using the land for affordable housing," Brozosky said. "They also claim that the initiative, if voted into law, would ban the use of nonprofit services and recreational facilities, such as a YMCA, 4-H facility or day care programs. These statements aren't true and are in violation of state laws governing ballot statements."

But Pat Belding, of the Interfaith Poverty Forum and chairwoman of the anti-initiative group, disagreed. She told the City Council on Tuesday that those disagreeing with her group's statement should explain their position in a rebuttal statement, which is also part of the ballot guide.

"That's the democratic process if you don't agree," she said.

With the deadline for filing rebuttals to each other's position statement due at 5 p.m. today, the Measure V proponents retained Pleasanton attorney Christopher Schlies to demand a change.

"Your reference to state-imposed fines or sanctions would mislead the reader to believe that such a state scheme exists and that enactment of Measure V would create a risk of imposition of a fine or sanction," Schlies states in a letter to Citizens for a Caring Community. "It is simply untrue that there is existing law creating the possibility of the fines or sanctions you reference."

"The statement related to 'non-profit service and recreational facilities, including YMCA, 4-H and day care programs' is also false and misleading," Schlies states. "The Impartial Analysis prepared by City Attorney Michael Roush specifically cites day care centers and youth organizations as uses accessible by the public. Such an analysis and interpretation would be highly persuasive if not binding in litigation brought to interpret Measure V."

Belding told the council that she was asked by Arkin to change the language, but has refused.

"I told him that any differences that he has with our ballot argument should be addressed in his rebuttal, but he was not satisfied with that," she said. "I don't think this is the type of behavior that goes along with the respect and character that our community has said we want to have. The issue with Measure V is being turned into a political football in our community. People who need senior apartments and special needs people are being put behind the needs of people who want to get on the City Council or become mayor."

Besides Belding, others who signed the ballot statement against Measure V include Councilwoman Becky Dennis; Christine Steiner, chairwoman of the Housing Commission; David Wright of the Cultural Arts Council; and Rick Pickering, general manager of the Alameda County Fair.

Those who signed the statement favoring the initiative include Brozosky, Arkin, Mayor Tom Pico, council candidate Jennifer Hosterman and Margene Rivara, chairwoman of the Civic Arts Commission.

In his letter to Belding's group, Schlies asked that the "false statements" be removed immediately before the ballot goes to press. If the group declines his request, he said he will seek court action to require the change.

"We have tried to talk with the opponents to remove these two lines, but have not made progress," Brozosky said. "Obviously, we don't want to take legal action; we just want them to fix those blatantly incorrect statements. Mis-truths ruin the democratic process."

Although bills in the state Legislature were introduced to penalize cities that fail to meet their affordable housing commitments, those bills were scuttled last week. The ballot argument made by Belding's group apparently refers to those.

Belding said that in his telephone call, Arkin "was shouting and threatening me with suits in a very unrespectful way."

"I don't want to see any more schmear and fear and intimidation, and I will speak up if I see it," she added.

Although the deadline for filing position rebuttals is today, the Registrar of Voters allows an additional 10 days for making changes before the ballot statement goes to the printers.