News


Measure K dominates Pleasanton ballot in today's Primary

Alameda County supervisor, Zone 7 water board, State Assembly, State Senate among other races

Pleasanton voters have been casting their ballots on a myriad of issues and candidates in today's Primary election, ranging from candidates for president, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to State Senate and Assembly, judges, a $25 million annual San Francisco Bay parcel tax and a $950 million Las Positas College general obligation bond issue.

Polls close at 8 p.m. today.

It could be a record turnout for a primary. Political Data Inc., a Los Angeles County firm that tracks state voter trends, reports that more than twice as many Californians have registered to vote this year than in the same four-month period in 2012.

A major issue attracting Pleasanton voters is Measure K, a referendum that appears at the bottom of the ballot that, if approved, would allow Greenbriar Homes Communities to build a 43-home development on Lund Ranch II in the southeast corner of the city or, if rejected, would block the City Council-approved development for at least for another year.

The Measure K ballot question reads: "Should the Lund Ranch project in Southeast Pleasanton, which consists of 43 single-family homes on approximately 17 acres and 174 acres for permanent public open space and 2 miles of public trails, be approved?"

The simplicity of the ballot question belies the history and complexity of the Lund Ranch II issue. Plans for a housing development on the former Lund cattle ranch date back to September 2002 when 113 homes were proposed for construction on 12,000-square-foot lots.

The proposed development then changed hands and it was not until April 2007 that a new builder proposed 149 homes on 3,000-square-foot lots. Those plans again were delayed and, a year later, Measure PP, which requires the city to restrict development of housing and commercial structures on steep slopes and within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline, was approved by voters. To meet those rules, Greenbriar's 43-home development would be built on Lund Ranch flatland.

But 50 yards of an extension of Sunset Creek Way, one of two roads planned to connect to the development, would have to cross a steep slope that falls under Measure PP's terms. The issue has now become whether the extended road is a structure, like homes, or not.

The issue has pitted one neighborhood -- Bridle Creek and Sycamore Creek at the end of the extension of Sunset Creek Way -- against the older Ventana Hills and Mission Hills Park communities on the other side, with both resisting the additional traffic Greenbriar's 43 homes would add to their neighborhood streets.

Those who oppose the extension of Sunset Creek placed Measure K on the ballot to block the housing project; the Ventana Hills homeowners want the project to proceed, saying it offers the least objectionable traffic plan they'll ever see from a Lund Ranch development.

June 7 candidates

Although Measure K will be decided by voters in the June 7 primary, candidates for federal and state offices will be seeking nominations to appear on the General Election ballot on Nov. 8.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are the key contenders for the Democratic Party's presidential preference with Donald Trump still facing Dr. Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore for the Republican nomination on the California ballot despite all but Trump dropping out of the race.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, both Democrats, lead the long list of candidates seeking to gain enough votes to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. A third popular candidate is Tom Del Beccaro, a Republican attorney. The top two vote-getters will compete on Nov. 8 regardless of party affiliation.

The same is the case for U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Dublin Democrat seeking re-election in the 15th Congressional District, facing lone competitor Danny R. Turner, a Republican. Both will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

State Sen. Steve Glazer is being challenged in his bid for re-election in the 7th District that represents Pleasanton by Tyson "Guy" Moore, a fellow Democrat and president of the Mt. Diablo Education Association, and Joseph A. Rubay, a Republican and real estate appraiser. Those receiving the top two votes will move on to the general election on Nov. 8.

State Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, a Republican, is facing former Pleasanton City Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a Democrat and retired teacher. Again, because they are the only two candidates in the race, they will see each other again on the Nov. 8 ballot regardless of how many votes each receives.

Zone 7 Water Agency

Seven candidates are vying for election to fill three available seats on the board of directors for Zone 7, formally called the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

They include three incumbents who are seeking re-election: Sandy Figuers, owner of a geology/engineering firm; Angela Ramirez Holmes, owner of a political consulting and public affairs firm; and Dick Quigley, a retired Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory senior logistics coordinator.

The others are Alfred Exner, a financial analyst; Victor Karpenko, a mechanical engineer; Eric Thiel, an Amador Valley High School biology teacher; and Jacqueline Williams-Courtright, owner of Alden Lane Nursery.

The board oversees the water wholesale agency that serves much of the Tri-Valley's municipalities and water agencies. Zone 7 also provides flood protection for the Amador and Livermore valleys. The race is not partisan.

Alameda County Supervisor

Also to be decided in the June 7 primary is a race between Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, a four-term incumbent who is seeking re-election in District 4, where he represents Pleasanton on the county board, and challenger Bryan Parker, a former Oakland mayoral candidate and former Oakland Port Commissioner. Parker lost to Libby Schaaf in the 2014 Oakland mayoral election.

Tax measures

Pleasanton voters also are being asked to approve a $950 million bond measure June 7 for improvements to Las Positas and Chabot College campuses, as well as a $25 million annual parcel tax for 20 years to pay for a San Francisco Bay clean water program.

The community college bond measure, which requires a 55% voter support to pass, was approved by the Chabot-Las Positas board of trustees March 1. The measure will cost a home with an assessed median value of $376,000 an average of $92.12 per year.

College administrators say they need the money to pay for new classrooms at both the Hayward and Livermore campuses, along with three new lecture halls, new health science classrooms, new facilities for the welding department and horticulture and new offices for faculty.

A two-thirds voter approval will be required to approve the Measure AA parcel tax being sought by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. That would authorize a parcel tax of $12 a year for the next 20 years on all properties in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Napa, Solano, Sonoma and Marin counties, which are considered part of the Bay Area.

The tax, which would automatically expire in 2037, is designed to restore wetlands near the San Francisco Bay. It would produce about $500 million in revenue over 20 years and would be the first local parcel tax in the history of the state to be levied throughout an entire region and multiple counties.

Judges serving Pleasanton

Superior Court Judge, Office No. 1: Candidates are Scott Jackson, a law professor; David Lim, a county prosecutor; and Barbara Thomas, a victims' rights attorney in the State Attorney's Office.

Superior Court Judge, Office No. 2: Jennifer Madden, human trafficking prosecutor in the State Attorney's Office, and Jonathan Van Ee, a public interest attorney.

Superior Court Judge, Office No. 14: Margaret Fujioka, an administrative hearing officer.

Comments

12 people like this
Posted by Arbie
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 3, 2016 at 2:53 pm

I wish Measure K was just about Greenbrier's building around 50 homes on Pleasanton hillsides, but it is not. This Measure is an attempt by out of town property developers to cripple Measure PP by allowing development over and streets through currently prohibited hillsides. Once passed, Measure K will allow the city council to approve developments into the southern hill of Pleasanton and onto the hillsides of the Pkeasanton Ridge west of town.

Don't we already have enough traffic? Aren't we already short on water? Since the drought began over a thousand new housing units have been approved and are just now being sold. With Measure K's adoption thousands more homes can follow. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 against Lund Ranch II. The city council then approved it anyway. We need the city council to hear we have all the traffic we can stand already. It is time to think about the citizens of Pleasanton, not the desires of non-resident developers.


13 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Still more false statements.

Get the facts (i.e., the truth) here: Web Link

In fact, please VISIT the project site, @Arbie, so you can see that what you're claiming about homes being built on hillsides is completely FALSE.

This Sunday, anytime between 10:30a-12:30p.


15 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 3, 2016 at 4:13 pm

@Arbie - the statements you are making are simply not true and underscore what the "No on K" campaign is all about - spread misleading information to the citizens of Pleasanton and hope that no-one checks the facts. It's like what Daniel Moynihan once said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The bottom line is that if you have educated yourself to the facts about this project, the real facts, you will be voting YES on K!
If you believe the falsehoods being spread around by the uninformed, the misinformed or by those trying to mislead, sadly, you will probably be voting no.

I have done the research (and by the way live in Bridle Creek so I have seen the argument up close) and will be voting YES ON K!

Be smart, get the facts!


16 people like this
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 3, 2016 at 4:53 pm

Arbie, the Planning Commission gave their unanimous support to the Lund Ranch project! Furthermore, Measure K is an up or down vote on the Lund Ranch plan which the Council approved in January. It is 43 homes, zero of which are on hills! With a yes vote, 89.5% of the property will be permanent public open space.

Out of town property developers? I guess Fremont is pretty far. Greenbriar has built 6 beautiful communities in Pleasanton and has been a terrific community partner. For example, being a Silver Sponsor of the PPIE Run for Education every year since its inception. Also, donating the land that is being built as Bernal Community Park.

A no vote on K does not stop growth. Only a yes vote changes the current zoning and locks up nearly 90% of the property as unbuildable forever. Better still, it will be open to the public and we can say that they are in fact "our hills". Until then they are private property zoned for residential development with a no trespassing sign out front.


13 people like this
Posted by local
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 3, 2016 at 7:21 pm

Arbie, Measure K is ONLY about the Lund property. It has nothing else to do with any other developments in town.

You have your neighborhood as "Vineyard Hills". If so, you are probably living in the hills and probably live in a house built by Greenbriar as they build most of the existing homes in the Vineyard Corridor.

I think you are reading the "No on K" propaganda, which is totally false. Please go on a tour of the property and see the truth.


9 people like this
Posted by Here since '58
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 4, 2016 at 3:34 pm

I talked to a Property Law attorney about this because I was so conflicted. In the attorney's opinion, K violates Measure PP and yes, it would set a precedent. And the attorney said there were grounds for a lawsuit. I'm voting No on K.


11 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 4, 2016 at 3:58 pm

@Here since '58 I'm not sure which attorney you saw, but frankly this has been examined by many many attorneys, including the city attorney. Measure PP is clear in some areas (no homes on hills) and vague in others (are roads included). The city attorney did NOT think it violated Measure PP, nor did a host of other committees, members of city council, countless residents, or even the author of Measure PP, Kay Ayala.



10 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 4, 2016 at 4:18 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Here since '58 and you are conflicted?
After all of the evidence you still don't get it?
What part of yes on measure K is conflicting?
Verses every part of no on measure K is conflicting!
No on measure K in incompatible and contradictory.
There is none of this with yes on measure K.


7 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 4, 2016 at 4:22 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

If an attorney offered an opinion, I'd like to have their name and what area of law expertise they practice. Otherwise, they are just a citizen (hopefully a Pleasanton resident).


12 people like this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 5, 2016 at 11:55 am

MsVic is a registered user.

Remember to vote YES on Measure K. The yes group has been completely honest in their information. Any one wanting to check has been told to call the City to fact check and verify. The developer opened up the land for tours so everyone could see for themselves.

What do I have to say about the no group - simply that I hope they can sleep at night after all the fabrications, false statements, deceiving pictures they have used.

The Lund Ranch Development is good for all PTown residents - um except for those living in Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek - the group trying keep the traffic off their streets.

Know the truth, Lund Ranch doesn't violate Measure PP - end of story.

Who am I - a 32 year resident of Missio Park and a supporter of Meaure PP and a YES voter on Measure K.


9 people like this
Posted by William R
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jun 5, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Ar i.e. Is correct. Once a precedent is created, the city can continue to follow it for all future developments. That is the law, no matter what Greenbrier and the city coucil may say. I already have problems driving to the office. I'm sure when the development above Old Vineyard is completed, it won't get any better.

Next time it takes you 20 minutes to get from Bernal to I-680 try to imagine what another couple of developments off Vineyard will do. We don't need more people, houses and cars. We do need a different city council that is interested in our quality of life.


7 people like this
Posted by Another "No" Vote
a resident of Danbury Park
on Jun 5, 2016 at 7:36 pm

Try driving down Santa Rita during rush hour. Too much traffic. Too little consideration by the mayor. With the drought continuing and people moving into Township and soo the development at Stanley and Bernal, we won't have enough water for a 70% allocation. With the town's rush to build more housing, we better plan on drinking from purple pipes.


4 people like this
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 5, 2016 at 7:42 pm

The folks against this City Council approved plan had the opportunity to pursue a lawsuit to determine if said approval violated Measure PP. They opted for a referendum instead. What does that tell you? By the way, they no longer have an option for a lawsuit as that time limit has expired.


7 people like this
Posted by A Neighbor
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 5, 2016 at 7:44 pm

why aren't the developers paying for the extra water capacity their development are going to use? Why are my rates going up because we have out run our water supply? Don't our votes count as much as the developers' political contributions. It's time to stop them all.


12 people like this
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 5, 2016 at 7:47 pm

If you think a no vote stops growth, you are mistaken. This property has been slated for residential development for over 20 years. This property will be developed. The ONLY way to lock up 174 acres of this property is to vote yes. That is the only way to change the zoning. A no vote keeps it slated for development. Further, the growth you are talking about that you see around town is the result of a lawsuit that the City lost. Keep voting no to everything, then the state or a court gets to decide.


7 people like this
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 5, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Because this development has been in the general plan for over 20 years, the water has already been planned for. Water is planned based on buildout! We are almost there. Your rates are not going up because of lack of supply. A no vote on K does not stop growth.


4 people like this
Posted by Do your homework
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Jun 5, 2016 at 8:20 pm

No on K! We do not need any more traffic in Pleasanton. No to Costco, also! This place is getting jammed and we do not have the water to spare. No! No! No!


13 people like this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 5, 2016 at 8:41 pm

MsVic is a registered user.

I do not understand why it is so hard for anyone to get it - a no vote doesn't stop this development - that my friends is the end of the story. A no vote just postpones the when. Please do your homework on this issue. Many people have done their homework and understand this development is not a bad plan for our town.


5 people like this
Posted by Sophia
a resident of Danbury Park
on Jun 5, 2016 at 8:52 pm

Santa Rita is a zoo during the rush hour. Soon Valley will be also. Why is Pleasanton's council doing this to us?


8 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 5, 2016 at 9:34 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

What is it you think the council is doing to us. They have an agreement that permanently protects 174 acres of our town.


11 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 5, 2016 at 10:05 pm

@Sophie and @Do your homework -

Pleasanton previously did have a housing cap, but our city was sued by Urban Habitat and the State of California in 2008 and we lost. As a result, we paid millions in legal fees and were required to add additional housing (over 3,000 units). That is a large part in why Pleasanton has grown. That being said, this particular land has been in our general plan for over 20 years and was originally zoned for approximately 150 homes. The city council negotiated that down to just 43 in a flat valley, along with a 174 acre donation of all the hills around the valley. We cannot legally prohibit the land owner from building homes (because that would likely result in a lawsuit we would lose... again), but we CAN work WITH the developer alongside Pleasanton neighbors, residents, the school district, city staff and various committees to come up with plans that work for all of Pleasanton. 4 years and 14 public meetings - we have all worked very hard on this project. With 90% of the land donated back to the city as unbuildable... I wish EVERY project donated 90% of the land! We should support the good projects when we get them.


5 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 5, 2016 at 10:40 pm

@Voting Yes :"Pleasanton previously did have a housing cap, but our city was sued by Urban Habitat and the State of California in 2008 and we lost. As a result, we paid millions in legal fees and were required to add additional housing (over 3,000 units)."

That's a very, very abbreviated and somewhat misleading picture of what happened. You left out the part about how Pleasanton was knowingly violating state laws by inviting all sorts of businesses into Pleasanton but then trying to shuffle off the responsibility for housing all of those new workers off onto surrounding communities. And Pleasanton didn't just step a little over the line. It stepped WAY OVER the line with a ratio of 1.6 jobs for every adult working age resident of Pleasanton. So please don't try to make it sound like sweet, innocent Pleasanton was minding its own business and doing nothing wrong and one day the evil Urban Habitat and evil State of California came up and unjustly sued Pleasanton. That's not how it happened. The city leaders of Pleasanton knowingly had Pleasanton step over the line and they gambled that they and Pleasanton wouldn't get caught. They were fools. With a 1.6 jobs-to-residents ratio they stepped so over the line that they were practically thumbing their noses at the State of California. The rest is history.

BTW, there is a lesson here for all those who think that inviting all sorts of large businesses into Pleasanton will somehow "crowd out" all the available land so we won't have to build any more housing. That's not how it works. We invite more businesses, then we have to increase our available housing in direct proportion to the number of new workers in our city. Can't say "yes" to more and more businesses and then "no" to housing all those new workers. Already tried going down that road before, and it doesn't work.


5 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 5, 2016 at 10:59 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Sam, Of the apartments being built on Bernal or by BART, how many of those residents do you expect will actually work in Pleasanton? I don't have that answer, but it would be my guess, at least for the BARTside apartments, not many.

As a former commuter, I understand why people want to live closer to job opportunities rather than coming from the Central Valley. Isn't it the addition of businesses throughout the Bay Area driving the need for housing here?


7 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 6, 2016 at 7:22 am

@Kathleen Ruegsegger :"Sam, Of the apartments being built on Bernal or by BART, how many of those residents do you expect will actually work in Pleasanton?"

No Kathleen, you miss the point. Actually, two points: (1) The requirement is that a community provide housing in proportion to the number of jobs in order to reduce the distance between people's residences and their workplaces, thereby limiting highways congestion and pollution and the burden on public transportation. The people in the new apartments don't necessarily have to work in Pleasnton to accomplish that. (2) Arguing over the logic over the California laws regarding this requirement is as futile as arguing with a traffic cop or judge about the logic of having a certain posted speed limit on a road. The law is the law.

Pleasanton city leaders knew about this requirement to build housing in proportion to the growth of jobs and they chose to ignore it. They probably would have gotten away with it if they had just stepped a little over the line with, say, a ratio of 1.1 jobs to every working age adult resident. But, no, they foolishly stepped way over the line with a ratio of 1.6 . Blaming Urban Habitat or the State of California for all the new housing is like blaming a traffic cop for giving you a speeding ticket when you were doing 45 mph in a 25 mph zone. Put the blame where it belongs.


12 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 6, 2016 at 7:36 am

@ Sam my statement was in no way misleading."Pleasanton previously did have a housing cap, but our city was sued by Urban Habitat and the State of California in 2008 and we lost. As a result, we paid millions in legal fees and were required to add additional housing (over 3,000 units). That is a large part in why Pleasanton has grown." is a summary of the situation but has no factual errors.

And you are wrong that it was "city leaders" who "foolishly" refused to add new housing. Measure PP was passed by Pleasanton voters and even that included a housing cap that was struck down by the lawsuit as well. The sentiment of no-growth is even around today among residents.


14 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 6, 2016 at 10:38 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Ok Sam, you made my point; people will live here to work elsewhere. I'm not against the affordable housing; most of this community's adult children can't afford to live here. And, 350 of those apartments will affect my neighborhood when they are completed. I'm not excited about it, but I see the need.

Pleasanton is not the only community that got slapped by the state. Most like their rural feel, as opposed to being more like Walnut Creek. And communities like Piedmont pay a variety of high taxes so they have no job ratios to meet. No businesses, no jobs, higher taxes. Catch 22.

So, the blame goes everywhere. And still protecting what land we can is our only tool to minimize the growth that I already posted is coming. Yes on K gives us 174 acres toward any goal of keeping permanently protected space.


2 people like this
Posted by Grump
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2016 at 4:50 pm

Unless the state decides we need more apartments; then they can take those 174 acres and order them developed or else no matter what measure K sets aside.


10 people like this
Posted by local
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 6, 2016 at 6:03 pm

The open space will be protected with a conservation easement. It would be very, very difficult to undo and then build there. These easements have contracts with third-parties who are dedicated to preserving open space and would fight any changes. Although nothing in live is 100% guaranteed, if this land is not in a conservation easement, like it is today, the state can easily force the zoning it wants and require the city to build whatever the state wants.


7 people like this
Posted by KEEP PLEASANTON SMALL
a resident of Val Vista
on Jun 7, 2016 at 9:23 am

STOP THE GROWTH. Our schools are more and more congested. Too many cars on the road. Can't even ride our bicycles with our children anymore without worrying about getting hit by cars from silicon valley commuters. Pleasanton is loseing it's identity and will soon be like Dublin - no character. Spike in water and spike in property taxes. Schools are the reason we moved here. Last thing i want is for our schools to get congested and lose their credibility. STOP THE GROWTH!!!! GREEDY DEVELOPERS.


3 people like this
Posted by huh?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2016 at 9:48 am

Pleasanton population is around 72,000. Dublin is far less than that. Your comment doesn't make sense. A no vote does Not stop building on this property. It just stops this particular plan. Something WILL get built there--be careful what you wish for.


4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 7, 2016 at 9:52 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

KPS, read the thread on the Governor. That is who you need to stop. View the PBS Newshour piece; there is a citizens group suing cities for more affordable housing. Permanently save 174 acres TODAY with a yes vote on Measure K. Take off the blinders to what is actually happening all around you in the Bay Area.


1 person likes this
Posted by KEEP PLEASANTON SMALL
a resident of Val Vista
on Jun 7, 2016 at 11:03 am

Pleasanton will be like Fremont before we know it. , which will bring more crime, and more congestion. GREEDY BUILDERS.


8 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 7, 2016 at 11:23 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

KPS, this is not about the builders. You, as a voter, can start now to protect land.


6 people like this
Posted by Meghan
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 7, 2016 at 12:53 pm

Kathleen, thank you so much for your continued pursuit of posting the truth.

I can't wait for this election to be over today. It's been so maddening since the whole signature collection process was begun. All the lies that have been told and continue to be told about the proposed development make me sick. Most of the people who initiated the measure live in homes that wouldn't exist today if PP had been in place prior to their construction.

There is far too little housing and prices are far too high all around the bay area. To allow this development will hardly make an impact on that front, but having the open space available to all will be worth so much more.

To top it off, Pleasanton residents have to foot the bill for the fact that this measure was added to the ballot at all. I hear far more support of Measure K than comments continuing to spread the lies against it, so I'm hopeful that K will pass with flying colors. After that, I think the people who brought Measure K to the voters in the first place should be responsible for paying the bill.


7 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Jun 7, 2016 at 1:21 pm

YES YES on K!


1 person likes this
Posted by VALORIE
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 7, 2016 at 7:10 pm

MY FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THE WATER TREATMENT/drilling/commercial use application industry since '75- I sat in Dublin THIS very morning 6/7; I am TOTALLY perplexed HOW there is a water shortage-who is paying for access-who is granting that access to TONS of daily water for the construction in the Dublin hills... HOW is it possible this insane volume -JUST for dust control- is sprayed liberally while you residents face fines, increase monthly costs,& the BS story of Delta smelt...?! How long AGO were these deals struck to promise copious quantities of water to builders, & developers, & residents o waters in your hills at our drought time!? ANYBODY SEEN "WAG THE DOG" LATELY? Our BROWN rotted governor has been a busy agenda driven salesman for some years now. & CA is his stage! WHAT'S FACT & WHAT'S PURE CRAP? Your area politicians ARE SELLING YOUR STATE FROM BENEATH YOU! HELLO?!


Like this comment
Posted by Voted Yes on K
a resident of Stoneridge
on Jun 8, 2016 at 12:36 am

I agree its nice to have the scenery and open land, however the die was cast when the powers that be decided to zone for as much office space as they did without keeping up with housing. Hence, they were sued (rightly so) by the state, and lost. If you don't like all the people moving here then maybe start with refusing the offices and the jobs that come with it...if not, those jobs require someplace to live, as unpleasant a fact that may be. Refusing to do this is how we end up with the horrendous traffic we already have since everyone has to live out in Tracy and commute in since there was nowhere else to go.


Like this comment
Posted by Voted Yes on K
a resident of Stoneridge
on Jun 8, 2016 at 12:46 am

@Kathleen Ruegsegger.."As a former commuter, I understand why people want to live closer to job opportunities rather than coming from the Central Valley. Isn't it the addition of businesses throughout the Bay Area driving the need for housing here?"

You would be right. Everyone it seems wanted the lure of high paying jobs but went into NIMBY mode about building enough housing for those jobs, and then passed the buck to the next city until everyone was out in the Central Valley clogging up the 580 to morbid levels. I moved here in '99 and at the time the .com boom was still in full swing, and every empty parcel of land in Silicon Valley was being zoned for new office space and where was the housing. Ditto in Milpitas, Fremont and then Pleasanton. The politicians who let that happen were foolish and we are paying for it now.


1 person likes this
Posted by Ventana Hills
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Jun 8, 2016 at 5:43 am

@Valorie:

You are spot on with your sentiments.

"Mother Nature creates water shortages, politicians create droughts." - Unknown

I really wish everyone wold wake up and realize this.

Congrats to all Measure K supporters, we did it!! Although I have a feeling our neighbors above us are not finished whining, let's see what they do next, buckle up.


1 person likes this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 8, 2016 at 7:11 am

MsVic is a registered user.

Congratulations to all Measure K supporters. Sure was good to see the final tally around 2am!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Do you Really Agree or are you Afraid of not Agreeing?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 906 views

Dublin agencies find creative partnership for new school site
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 419 views

Lab scientists find better ways to ID individuals who die in catastrophic events
By Jeb Bing | 3 comments | 259 views