Town Square

Post a New Topic

100% of precincts in - Measure D Loses

Original post made by No on D, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2010

With 100% of the precincts in, No on Measure D has 54.3% of the vote with Yes on D with 45.7%.

Still have late absentee votes to count.

For the votes counted today, it comes out to $100 per Yes vote spent on the Yes on Measure D campaign.

Comments (11)

Like this comment
Posted by What's Wrong with COMPROMISE?
a resident of Verona
on Jun 9, 2010 at 5:21 am

Okay all you No on Measure D folks - you may have won this battle, but the war has just begun! Since this most recent proposal from the Lins was shot down, get ready for a bigger battle when they propose 98 homes and NO park! You thought you'd shut them down? Think again! They are going to develop that land no matter what you do. You've just screwed yourselves and the rest of us Pleasanton residents. Thanks a lot!

Like this comment
Posted by colette
a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:08 am

Wouldn't a new proposal with more homes and no park also have to be approved by the residents of Pleasanton?

Like this comment
Posted by Karma always wins
a resident of Castlewood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:38 am

In response to the first comment about the war just starting here are the facts: it has been ongoing since the early 90s. It's over because the people of Pleasanton have consistently said our ridges need to be protected. Thanks to all the people who fought not just on no on Measure D, but for what the people of Pleasanton wanted and deserved.

Like this comment
Posted by Keller
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:45 am

Democracy is tough sometimes.

Like this comment
Posted by Just say NO
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:56 am

Clearly we need a city council and planning commmissioners that reflect the will of the citizens -- and we DO NOT have that now.

Vote 'em out in November and let's put in folks that know how to protect our natural resources AND listen to the residents.

Sorry Lin's. You gambled that lawsuits and $500,000 glossy mailings and broshures would sway the voters, but they do not.

Like this comment
Posted by Keller
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:06 am

This is question: does this mean that our current Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, should be voted out? She was for Measure D or are their other attributes she brings to the table to keep her?

Like this comment
Posted by Just vote NO
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:21 am

I would think she bet all of her reputation on this one development and lost. She ran as an environmentalist and then became the developer's talk piece. Her popularity is done. Her time is over.

Like this comment
Posted by Keller
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm

In addition, doesn't she lean toward a Regional Perspective, not a Pleasanton-centric perspective? I would love to see a candidate who would make Pleasanton their focus.

Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm

The voters have spoken and it's time to!


Like this comment
Posted by pearl
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:55 pm

This is not only a NO on D, it's a NO for Hosterman. It's time we had a mayor who listened to the wishes of the people of Pleasanton and not one who spent so much time and effort trying to convince people to vote her way = all along knowing it was not what the majority wanted.

Like this comment
Posted by mr_reality
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:27 pm

I'm am amazed at the ignorance of the electorate. How many of those who are posting satisfaction with the result of the vote on measure D during this vote on Tuesday June 8, 2010 are aware that the right to develop this property has already been granted? Voting NO on this measure will not stop development, this measure will simply deny ALL of the rest of Pleasanton residents the opportunity to enjoy this natural environment. Oh and by the way, the current plan that is granted by voting NO without the park will allow 98 homes instead of 51, I guess that is the big win you were rooting for... a really big win 98 vs. 51...

Let me say this again because I'm certain the folks who voted NO on this failed to understand this simple FACT!!!

I know you are slow but I'm sure you're not very fast.... so here it is ... I'll say it again.

The development with more homes and without a park has already been granted!

Go NO! you really showed the developers the door!!! Woo hoo .. you rock!!


This was simply an amendment to the existing plan to reduce the number of homes AND give us a park..

Voting NO on this measure only eliminated the opportunity for the rest of us to be able to enjoy this beautiful area of our city. I was looking forward to hiking these hills. But ... alas.. I'm denied by the gifted electorate... you are so gifted!

I may be one of the few who take the opportunity, but I am very happy to enjoy the ridge at the Augustin Bernal Park which sits at the top of Golden Eagle Estates to which I'm entitled as a Pleasanton resident. I and my friends and family often hike and bike this area. What a beautiful park and asset for our community.

Thanks to all of those 'informed' electorate who are 'protecting our ridgeline'. We have lost the right to see our beautiful environment from the east side of the city. I can only imagine as I sit at the top of the beautiful Augustin Bernal Park at Golden Eagle Estates what I could see if I was sitting at the top of the hill over in the east, that neighborhood they call Kottinger with all of that new construction, over there in that neighborhood that is exclusive to residents of Kottinger... wow ... how stupid we are as an electorate..

- Mr_reality

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

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 6 comments | 630 views

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 22 comments | 431 views

Time for new collaboration between city and school district
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 425 views