Town Square

Post a New Topic

Lies, Damn Lies, and Viral Content-Debunking the Myth of Measure PP prohibiting roads

Original post made by Resident of Ventana Hills, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on May 12, 2016

Craig Silverman, who's affiliated with the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, a part of the Columbia Journalism School, recently stated in a research report:

"Misinformation is often more viral and spreads with greater frequency
than corrective information. One reason for this is that false information
is designed to meet emotional needs, reinforce beliefs, and provide fodder for our inherent desire to make sense of the world. These powerful
elements combine with the ways humans process information to make
debunking online misinformation a significant challenge…"

That said, if you're trying to determine how to vote on Measure K, which will either approve/reaffirm or reject the previously approved Lund Ranch II housing project, know this:

The No on Measure K supporters have repeatedly and continue to claim that prohibiting roads has always been the intent and part of Measure PP, and use this myth to claim that the Lund Ranch II housing project violates Measure PP, and vehemently promote this myth as a primary reason why you should vote no on Measure K.

Their claim is blatantly FALSE. Roads have never been a part of Measure PP.

In FACT, former Councilmember Matt Sullivan and current Councilmember Karla Brown (a co-author of Measure PP) will debunk this myth for you:

Web Link

Don't believe the misinformation--instead, get the FACTS, get INFORMED, and discover the TRUTH about the Lund Ranch II housing project and Measure K.

Web Link

Comments (12)

Posted by Registered Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 8:45 pm

And yet another thread. I'm losing my ability to cut and paste. The details of PP or K or whether they're consistent with each other through time and intent aren't important.

My fact is that there is no compelling reason to build. I see no benefit to the city or its residents. I see a potential influx of tax dollars that we don't require. Existing taxes won't decrease; spending will. I see infrastructure that will have to be maintained long after the developer has developed, and after the sitting city council has moved on to other things. I see the door opening for even more development in Pleasanton.

I see the chances for development decreasing if we continue to resist; not for legal reasons, but for business reasons. More resistance means more developers' money needs to be spent to overcome that resistance, cash that would otherwise go toward profits or into reelection campaign funds.

Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 9:25 pm

BobB is a registered user.


You just keep pasting in the same thing.

You need to change this -- " I see no benefit to the city or its residents "

It clearly benefits residents who might want to buy one of the houses? Right?

Also, how do you feel about all the apartments going up at Bernal and Stanley? We got those because of "resistance". Pleasanton was sued and Pleasanton lost and we got a bunch of high density apartments as a result. That also cost the city all the money it took to defend against the lawsuit.

Posted by Janet
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on May 12, 2016 at 11:24 pm

We don't want more houses. Get it??

Are you paid for by the developers? Move to Dublin. They love your kind-more developers and lots more houses on the hills.

Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on May 13, 2016 at 7:44 am

Yet another "pro-K" thread started by "Resident of Ventana Hills"??? What is this now, the fourth or fifth thread you started on this topic? Lay it off with the spamming, fella. It's like you're worried that someone is going to build a 5-lane freeway through your neighborhood when in reality the worst that's going to happen is that there will be a little more traffic from a few new houses. Can't speak for others but you're really annoying me, and although I often don't bother to vote in minor elections I'm now going to make a special effort to vote in this one just in order to vote "No" on Measure K. Congratulations. Keep it up and see how many more people you manage to annoy by bombarding the forums with more "pro-K" spam threads.

Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2016 at 9:37 am


Apparently the truth hurts, doesn't it?

The truth, in this case, shows that the whole "roads are structures" argument re: Measure PP that you and others have banged the drum on here in this forum and elsewhere (e.g., City Council meetings, etc.) for who knows how long in order to prove that Measure K violates Measure PP is completely FALSE, and utterly and completely IRRELEVANT.


I don't want any more houses, either, nor do my neighbors, but you're wrong and ignorant of the situation if you think voting no on Measure K stops the development. It doesn't. All a defeat of Measure K does is restart the process a year from now, and who knows what the next go-round will result in?

Don't want more houses? Talk to Governor Jerry Brown and the State of California. Better yet, perhaps @Sam can repost his explanation of why all the 'stack 'n pack' housing is currently being built all around Pleasanton, including PUD-87, the project at Bernal and Stanley that will be sending more cut-through traffic through our neighborhoods once it's built, no matter what happens regarding Measure K and Lund Ranch II.

I deal in reality and facts, which represent the truth.

For those who don't want to hear or read the truth regarding Measure PP, Measure K or Lund Ranch II, they don't have to visit this Forum--see the 1st Amendment.

Posted by Sam
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2016 at 2:40 pm

There's an old saying in sales that "time kills deals." The idea is that there are so many variables that need to align for a transaction to happen, that any delay significantly decreases the chances of the deal.

This development is just an example of a transaction.

I think time will kill this. I can't predict exactly what may be the deal-stopper, but I'll wager that something will happen. Pricing for plywood may increase and all of a sudden it makes construction not such a profitable business for the developer. An election happens and suddenly we have a pro-citizen, anti-development local government. We could have an earthquake and construction effort shifts towards rebuilding. Who knows?

Voting no on K is absolutely the right thing to do.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 13, 2016 at 4:13 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Sam, the growth is coming. This isn't the far away community used for summer homes by those in San Francisco. This article has maps of the projections: Web Link

Better to have good land use of 43 homes than to leave it up to a future where it will be another thousand apartments instead. The land will not remain vacant in that future. We have an opportunity to be smart about development now with most of the land set aside for all of us. Clearly it's yes on K.

Posted by res
a resident of Birdland
on May 13, 2016 at 4:22 pm

The best thing is for the community to allow the 43 homes now and put the rest of the land in a conservation easement that is controlled by a third party. If this is not approved now, the state can come back later and say we have to build even more housing and that land will be subject to the whims of the state and the high-density they will demand at some point. The best thing the community can do now is lock up the land. Guaranteed that as time goes on, the state will require more and more housing and anything that is not locked up will end up with higher density.

Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on May 13, 2016 at 7:57 pm

Voting YES for the Truth is a registered user.

We can't stop growing. Let me say it again - we can't stop growing.

Why? Because we LOST THAT LAWSUIT. For everyone that says they don't want any more homes - go ask the State of California. We are required to build more homes.

Google this.

Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Downtown
on May 14, 2016 at 12:04 am


The City Council approval included 89.5% of the property deeded to the City as permanent open space. If Measure K wins, that 174 acres is public open space, unbuildable forever.

Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on May 14, 2016 at 8:10 am

@res :"If this is not approved now, the state can come back later and say we have to build even more housing and that land will be subject to the whims of the state and the high-density they will demand at some point."

Anyone who thinks that we were required to build high-density housing because of the "whims" of the state and court system is completely ignorant of what happened between the city of Pleasanton and the state courts. There is a state requirement that the jobs-to-housing ratio of any city be kept in balance. Pleasanton tried to skirt around that requirement by inviting all sorts of businesses into the city but limiting the building of new housing. The result? The number of jobs in Pleasanton skyrocketed up to the level of 1.6 jobs for every working age resident of Pleasanton. Big mistake. Pleasanton had stepped not just a little, but way, way over the line. Courts upset. Pleasanton had to build a lot of housing including high-density to get the jobs-to-residents ratio back into balance. However, the requirement has now been satisfied and we're now safe from having to build more housing including high-density housing - unless we do something stupid like inviting in a lot of new businesses again with lots of employees like giant Costcos in which case we can be expected to be required to build a lot more new housing again. And, no, we're not going to escape that requirement by this naive idea of "crowding out" all available land with lower density housing that some people here seem to have. It doesn't take much land to build high-density housing. I

Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 14, 2016 at 9:47 am

BobB is a registered user.

Sam said "... inviting all sorts of businesses into the city ..."

Sure Sam, we should have just walled off Pleasanton to businesses and residences years ago. We should have just frozen Pleasanton back in 1955. Only, most of us wouldn't be here and Pleasanton would be a backwater town with no tax revenue, horrible schools and poor facilities. No thanks.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Tell Me More About University of California-San Diego (UCSD)
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 1,272 views

The pile of bad City Council decisions keeps growing
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 1,152 views

The sticker shock from electricity bills
By Monith Ilavarasan | 4 comments | 603 views


2023 guide to summer camps

Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

Find Camps Here