Letters Letters (August 19, 2005)

More to thank for GASIT tournament

Editor,

Your article on the George Speliotopolous golf tournament and the scholarship money raised was very good.

I did want to let you know that there are some names of people who contributed to this event that have been omitted. George’s friends continue to do this tournament and among them are Chris Beratlis and Jim Wright who have made their famous beans for 35 years, The Pleasanton Lion’s Club who have volunteered to work at the BBQ for 35 years, John Stanley and Gene O’Brien who have been there through the years, Bob Giannotti and Bill Lenson who have cooked their hearts out, John Corley who originally came up with the whole idea and Chuck Gielow who has been there from the start. Charlie Inderbiton, Bay Ottens and Roger Manning also always worked.

It takes a lot to put a tournament on every year, many people help and many people are happy to do it because of all the good it does in helping Pleasanton high school graduates go to college and move on in life. GASIT has been a wonderful event in the community. Ken Mercer Pleasanton Rejecting low cost housing exposes greed

Editor,

"Planners reject lower-cost homes downtown" (PW 8/12/05) exposes local socialism. My home office is 100 feet from the St. John-Peters site of Winter’s six small homes, a beautiful Heritage addition. Thirty years ago, our 131 church-sponsored homes on Vineyard were nearly stopped by similar socialist greed, permitting only up-scale homes to get more tax (revenue). Planners should be given the Justice Souter treatment. Take their homes as they have taken others. Howard Long St Mary Residents against Ruby Hill center

Editor,

I read your article "Ruby Hill center plan heading to city planners" in the July 29 Pleasanton Weekly. In this article, you indicated that, “Ruby Hill residents have weighed in on a developer’s plan to build a multimillion dollar upscale shopping center in their neighborhood with what appears to be a mostly favorable response.”

If this is your papers report on the July 21, 2005 meeting of 100+ residents of Ruby Hill at the Ruby Hill Community Center, then your reaction to the meeting is very different than what I heard at the meeting and others I have talked to. The only thought I can have is that your reporter came in part way through the meeting when three or four people spoke in favor of the project after we heard more than three-fourths of the residents who spoke voice concerns about the project.

After reading your article, I talked to six other attendees of the meeting and asked them how they saw the meeting. Their response was that two-thirds to three-fourths of the attendees were concerned about the project and not favorable. In fact, two said they went to the meeting with positive thoughts toward the project but left the meeting with significant concerns. Concerns at the meeting include changing from agricultural zoning of the property to retail, traffic issues, ability to attract “high end” tenants given the failure of similar retail projects and Flexxon’s statement that they could sell the site overnight.

My concern is that your article gives the false impression that Ruby Hill's resident’s are in favor of the project when the opposite is true, which could influence residents who didn’t attend the meeting and others including our City Council members. I request that your paper rectify this impression by letting your readers know that most of the 100+ resident’s who attended the July 21, 2005 Ruby Hill meeting have serious concerns about the project. Stephen R. Strain Piemonte Dr.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.