Mr. Sullivan advertises himself as a champion of direct democracy and a citizen's right to vote on everything. One has to wonder then why he voted against placing Measure D on the ballot.

If you listed to him, you would see it was because measure PP was overwhelmingly approved by the voters to protect the ridelines and Oak Grove was not consistent with it. Essentially, the people had spoken. Plus this developer was threatening citizens who were collecting signatures by suing them and he wanted to send a message that this would not be tolerated, same as what the Council did for the Busch property referendum where the Council rescinded the approval after what that developer did.

Oh I heard the excuse. In other words, direct democracy is great until you don't agree with the issue.

And if you recall, the judge threw out the accusation that the Lins' suit was a SLAPP lawsuit.

That judge also threw out the case but the appeals court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the judge. SLAPP or not, suing the people who collected the signatures is a threatening act, especially since the ENTIRE ordinance was carried along with each signature sheet.

We had direct democracy, it was measure PP. So for you, I guess it is an excuse if you don't agree with the issue.

Yet Measure D is not Measure PP. Measure PP had nothing about placing 500 acres into a conservation easement. Direct democracy doesn't end with one vote.

If I were the Lin's business strategist, I would tell them to sit tight, let the vote turn out as it may and if it loses, well then, wait for a few years. Money will be tight, education is losing money hand over fist, and people will want new homes to pay the property taxes that go directly into the school district's bank account. A park increases expenses for the city, homes increase revenue for the city and schools. In fact the Lin's should be out there promoting a NO on D. 51 homes is a break-even proposition for the Lin's (assuming that they are gazillionaires regardless how you cut the pie). 100 homes would make the city more money and the Lin's more money. We lose the birds, but gain the dough. We are looking a gift-horse in the mouth. But, more houses means more money. Think about what I'm saying and tell me your don't agree.

I think you are right - heck, if the people don't approve this measure, the Lin family could build a 4 story affordable housing complex at the end of Hearst. That would fit right in with the City's need to satisfy the current lawsuits regarding the housing cap.

But honestly, what do our city officials do if everything goes to a public vote? We elect people to make informed decisions in out best interest. Yet, that doesn't seem to happen as everything has to go to a public vote. Honestly, how many people that vote have really read ANY of the actual ballot initiative? People have an initial reaction or talk to friends and vote without ever knowing any of the details. We elect people to actually read a learn all these details (of course that is grand expectation). California wonders how everything go screwed up? How it went from the greatest state to a bankrupt laughing stock of the US and we can all point to ballot initiatives as one main culprit.

How many of the elected officials read the full plan also? Not all of them...

The reason we have so many ballot initiatives is the elected officials are not doing their job. They used to represent the people but now they need the money so desperately for re-election that they do what it takes to get the money. The money comes from the special interests, not the average voter. My $50 donation to a campaign compared to a special interesting giving tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. No comparison.

Larry - agreed! That's what needs to be fixed. I have no idea how it could be fixed, because as you said, its all about the money and its very hard to get around that.

Thank you, Jeb, for recommending YES on MEASURE D (the 51 unit Oak Grove Project) and for the excellent Editorial which explained the history of the project and process that got us to this June 8 election. Your Editorial served as well as a reality check for residents to consider before voting. As you pointed out, the future of residentially zoned land is tenuous given the present lawsuit regarding the housing cap and Pleasanton's non-compliant housing element.

Having served on both the Planning Commission (Reviewed both Kottinger Ranch and the first proposal for this property) and City Council, I truly appreciated your opinion and insight regarding this proposal which would guarantee in perpetuity 496 acres of open space owned by the City of Pleasanton, with completed trails and staging areas for the public to enjoy. The reduced 51-home proposal that requires design review of every home, will give the City control to ensure the least visual impacts possible. As you pointed out, the four-year City/neighborhood directed planning process resulted in a 4-1 City Council approval. With that process and approval, the Lins agreed to the payment of additional City Fees and the dedication of land, as well as a signed "Gift Agreement” with the Pleasanton Schools for facilities. I agree with your view that this opportunity will most likely not come our way again.

I join you in urging Pleasanton residents to take advantage of this opportunity and VOTE YES on MEASURE D in order to preserve for our residents 90% of the open space that is now privately owned by the Lin family and put to rest a very contentious issue in our "Community of Character".