Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Pleasanton Weekly has always had a difficult time reporting the facts, but your June 2 editorial, “Voters want a Costco, so let’s move forward,” was stunning in its misrepresentation of events and a shameless attempt to promote the project.

For example:

* There is no council-appointed “Johnson Drive Task Force” planning the project. Unless you consider the city staff, Costco and project developer Nearon as the task force. There is certainly no public representation involved.

* It’s true that No on MM won by 62% last November. But from the many people I talked to during the campaign, there was a lot of confusion about what Yes or No meant. Does voting “No” mean no to Costco? I’m not so sure that the results represent resounding support for Costco.

* The city was conducting secret negotiations with Costco over taxpayer subsidies for the project prior to and throughout the election campaign and provided no information to the public. Do you think the results might have been different if it was widely known that the taxpayers would be footing the bill to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for the project infrastructure as was revealed by a public records request at the time?

* You characterize the taxpayer subsidies for Costco as “commonly used by cities around the country to finance such public infrastructure costs associated with development.” In my over 20 years of civic participation in Pleasanton, including eight years on the City Council and six years on the Planning Commission, this never occurred. Development was always required to pay its own way. In addition, experience has shown that taxpayer subsidies provided by cities for Costco and other big box stores usually ends up as a bad fiscal deal for those cities.

* Your simplistic example of how the subsides would work is laughable. An analysis performed by Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth based on data obtained through the records request showed that the project wouldn’t break even for 20 years. That analysis was sent to the Pleasanton Weekly during the campaign, but of course you ignored it because it didn’t fit your chosen narrative.

* Finally, you are using the scare tactic that if we don’t permit Costco we will end up with more high density housing on the site. This is highly unlikely as the site was not rezoned for housing during the last Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle and there is no need for additional rezoning until 2020 at the soonest. Fear-mongering by a newspaper to achieve a desired result on behalf of business is ethically reprehensible.

Based on the delays of the subsidy negotiations — still being conducted in secret — it appears that the city and Costco are having difficulty coming to a final agreement. We can only hope that the city staff is not willing to completely give away the store to a $80 billion corporation and is looking out for our best interests.

We should just be thankful that the Pleasanton Weekly is not negotiating this deal on our behalf!

* Editor’s note: Matt Sullivan served on the Pleasanton City Council from 2004 to 2012 and is a former Pleasanton Planning Commission member. He has been active in civic issues locally for more than 20 years.

Join the Conversation

No comments

  1. The vote was 62% Matt. I am not sure about the friends you hang out with, but none of mine had any trouble understanding the Yes vs. No vote. But when the vote doesn’t go your way, you just assume everyone was too stupid to understand. The MM vote lost, but you are still in disbelief. It is a trait I am seeing more in people. Perhaps, just maybe, the people voted in a way you disagree with. Live with that, or move please.

  3. City staff represent and work towards the interests of most Pleasanton voters.

    Your persistence claiming that voters were confused with a yes or no vote regarding Measure MM is simply baloney.

    The confusion was with the people voting yes, believing they supported Costco build in Pleasanton with their yes vote.

    The Val Vista neighborhood where the Costco build will be, voted over whelming in support for Costco build.

    The Pleasanton Weekly never involked a scare tactic of “stack and pack housing”. It was the readers and commentators on the weekly site that involked the stack and pack housing concerns.

    The Weekly simply reported on it.

  4. Matt, didn’t you use formation of a task force as part of an ethical complaint against the mayor and now you say there was no task force? Did you offer an apology to the mayor? Let me guess . . .

    The no on mm signs stated “we want Costco” not to mention the ads as well as the door hanger dropped off at my house. It couldn’t have been clearer—want Costco then vote NO. The economic development zone has yet to be approved–how can there be subsidies when zoning for Costco hasnt been approved?

    Is Matt okay if Costco builds in Dublin, where we receive no economic benefit yet have the traffic burden? Think outlet malls as an example.

  5. As a follow-up Costco is going to build another store in pleasanton or Dublin. I would rather have Costco in pleasanton even if there is some sort of reasonable subsidy then have Costco in Dublin where we get ZERO tax benefits but All the traffic impacts!!

  6. and yet there is no lease between the developer and Costco. There is no signed letter of intent. There is no City agreement that has been ‘agreed’ to.

    And, if there were a few who didn’t understand how to vote on MM, it would have made no difference due to the landslide numbers. If you just include Pleasanton voter they WANT a Costco. Expand out to the region and THEY want a Costco. Only a few, very vocal people (ooops, business owners) don’t want a Costco at that location.

  7. I think that almost all of you commenters above are missing the central theme of Matt Sullivan’s concerns about a Pleasanton Costco. He spoke of “subsidy” or “subsidies” no less than five times in his essay. But of the five commenters above, only one of you even mentioned the word “subsidy”. The rest of you just ignored the issue of Pleasanton subsidies for Costco entirely in your comments. Apparently a full-cost subsidy of $1500 per household just isn’t a problem or issue?

  8. Sam, the problem with matt’s statements is that there is no deal so therefore how can you say there is a subsidy. Further Matt makes statements that aren’t true such as saying using traffic impact fees are a tax payer subsidy when the improvements would be done regaress if there is a Costco or not. The traffic impact fees are paid by developers not tax payers yet Matt has yet to acknowledge that. I could go on but its a waste of time since he refuses to deal in facts.s

  9. Well I’ll be, I agree with Sam on something. Anything is possible in this great land of ours.

    People and their love of Costco, I just don’t get it. Yeah I’m going to spend my Saturday fighting crowds to buy a 5 gallon container of red vines.

    Too bad what’s happening in this town

  11. Sam: You do realize any lease signed will be between the developer and Costco. And that has yet to happen. Any City or County ‘breaks’ will be between them and Costco. Nothing has been agreed to. All conjecture. Something will be going there and somehow it will be paid for in full.
    AND keep in mind no shopper at a ‘new’ Costco will give a hoot about who paid for the infrastructure. Those who do care, simply will won’t shop there….or will they? Been voted on, and the majority spoke.

  12. “AND keep in mind no shopper at a ‘new’ Costco will give a hoot about who paid for the infrastructure.”

    No, really? When I’m off to buy a sixty pack of two-ply TP, I’m always asking myself, how was this infrastructure financed? lol

    “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”

    -Mark twain

  13. Vis-it-tor: “AND keep in mind no shopper at a ‘new’ Costco will give a hoot about who paid for the infrastructure.”

    LOL! An inadvertent “own goal” by “Visitor”. Thanks for suggesting that a lot of Pleasantonians are simple dupes and haven’t given a thought about how much this Pleasanton Costco will really cost them. I think that you may have just caused a lot of them to re-think this Costco idea and think some more about how much it is really going to affect their wallets.

  15. We need Costco. The no vote was fully understandable. All the signs and the other items fir the MM campaign was very clear

  16. Besides subsidies; there are loans that no one is speaking about. Costco demands financing from the City. They will not come to Pleasanton without this.
    Why would a company with billions of dollars in cash want a loan? Ask yourself; obviously, there is a reason. Even if they were short on cash, why not borrow from a bank? The answer is simple: they will payback the loan with our money! Yes, our sales tax, (which they call revenue sharing), will pay the monthly payments. The loan becomes a gift. They are not sharing their tax dollars; they are our tax dollars. If other retail goes in, instead of Costco, we do not share. Costco’s own study shows other retail would produce about the same tax dollars, without us sharing– without a loan.
    Infrastructure subsides are a small part of this deal folks. Wait until you see the “free” loan amount.

  17. Sorry Matt, it’ a good thing you are no longer in the Pleasanton City Council. You’ve been there, you’ve done that, now let it go !!
    I can see you and your family shopping at a much need Costco here in Pleasanton. Don’t wear sunglasses, we know who you are.

  18. We have all this high density housing now directly because Matt and his no growth buddies wouldn’t build single family dwellings here for over 20 years. I would have much rather had the homes than the 3000 high density stuff the state stuck us with.

    It also cost over $5 million to defend our rabid no growth policies when Moonbeam figured out what Matt and his buds were doing.

    Bring on Costco or Matt will build 6000 more high density apartments there when next the state sues us.

    Move on Matt. All the rest of us have! You lost the election I think.

  19. Matt,
    Many of us do appreciate your efforts to keep us informed with the other side of issues. The PW is often biased, but I do commend them for printing your article.
    I, for one, applaud your efforts to keep the City officials transparent. I see that you have no motive except to unselfishly give you time to give information which is often hidden, or misreported.

    I question the motives of those who criticize and slander you.

  20. @Ken Chrisman

    The topic of why Pleasanton was forced to build more housing including high-density housing has been covered here before. No. Pleasanton was not forced to build more housing because it had a “no growth” policy. Quite the contrary. Pleasanton was forced to build more housing because it had a BIG business growth policy combined with a slow-growth housing policy. The result? A lopsided Pleasanton jobs – to – Pleasanton residents ratio which reached a stunning 1.6 Pleasanton jobs for every adult resident of Pleasanton. That’s what caused Pleasanton’s problems. The courts basically said to Pleasanton “If you’re going to host all of those businesses, then you have to pick up your fair share of the responsibility of housing all of the people associated with those jobs and not try to shuffle the responsibility off onto surrounding communities”.

    So, no, inviting in more large businesses like a Pleasanton Costco isn’t going to somehow “preempt” more Pleasanton housing from being built. That’s a completely foolish viewpoint which ignores the recent history of Pleasanton. If a Pleasanton Costco is built, then Pleasanton has the responsibility of making sure that its available housing keeps up with the number of new jobs that a Pleasanton Costco will introduce into Pleasanton. If Pleasanton doesn’t have the commensurate amount of available housing, then the courts will once again say “Sorry, Pleasanton. More jobs mean you need to build more housing”. It’s as simple as that.

  21. Vote’s have been cast let’s move this forward. The folks opposing Costco are complete losers. This town is exporting tax revenue to other cities – we need business people leading the city not folks reaching for their five minutes of fame. The citizens of this town are being inconvenienced every day by not having a costco in our community. I don’t care about secret negotiations – you think i have time to waste dealing with this – that’s why we have a city government. Let them do what they are paid to do – get the best deal for this community.

  22. correct @We Deserve Costco

    when I have the opportunity in Pleasanton to buy and load a pallet of kirkland signature tp into the back of my truck – at that point I will consider myself a winner in this life.

    keep that bar high.

  23. Matt must have given up on any further prospects in politics to be this persistent in supporting a measure that was paid for entirely by (1) business owner who wants city street as free parking and (2) gas station owner that doesn’t want competition

    http://www.independentnews.com/news/measure-mm-donations-highest/article_885afb0e-8b4a-11e6-b84f-7bb651d68dfb.html

    “On the “yes on MM” side, $157,522 was listed with the majority, $138,614 coming from business owner Bill Wheeler, a sponsor of MM. Most of the money was spent to pay for gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. C&J Cox Corporation donated $18,907.”

    Yet the MM people had the nerve to use “Pleasanton Citizens” as a front and useful mouthpieces like Matt to do PR work as if they really cared about “responsible growth”. Maybe they should have rented a mob to protest at freeway offramps too!

    Please Matt, keep talking. We can always use another reminder on whose side you really are. I’m not particular crazy about a Costco at that intersection as I have stated on this site, but the MM campaign was a whole other level of shadiness.

  24. Sam: Huh? You actually keep track of each business you spend your money on who actually paid for their surrounding infrastructure? You keep track of which businesses received a RE tax break? You are kidding, right?

    This is such nonsense. The folks voted. A Costco is now not blocked. You can avoid Costco all you want. You are FREE to shop where you want or never leave you house. Up to you.

  25. @FrequentWalkerMiles

    If that is your definition of shady well then you might as well call democracy itself shady. This is the way these elections/measures often work. Some interests are more self serving than others – for example the $50k donation Costco made to the other side.

  26. @Red Claret

    Then lets be honest with what it was: Bill Wheeler and Cox Corp against Costco.

    All the whining of city subsidies/secret loads/Masonic conspiracy is just to distract people from true motives of Wheeler and Cox Corp.

    If tax payers rallied against developers every time a supposedly unfair subsidies is given out to attract businesses, we would still be the little idyllic and quaint town of Alisal. 😉

  27. Although English is not my native language, I was not confused by voting No on MM. Matt, just move on, do some useful things.

  28. Sorry but any SANE person would expect an existing business that feels threatened by this type of development to line up a particular way on the issue and spend their money accordingly. That is how the system works for better or worse.

    Do some research on Costco, this is not a unique situation – this scenario has played out in many communities. However as we know the big guys typically win

    And there you go, the “either/or” tell.. of course no one is advocating going back to the horse and buggy..however if you haven’t noticed the traffic in this town is bad and getting worse by the day.

    I always thought I would retire here, but after 28 years as a Pleasanton resident I’m making plans to go elsewhere. I wish the good folks that enjoy the new lifestyle, crammed together houses and traffic congestion all the best.

  29. What wondering, Matt, is how many free limo rides are you getting for taking your position. You clearly are just as shady and manipulated by special interests as the others you constantly complain about.

    That the only explanation for your angry, disrespectful behavior.

    If you don’t realize this, you are just as stupid as the rest of us.

  32. We are still debating? The Hillary Clinton Syndrome has become a disease. It is over. Start the tractors and hand out the shovels.

  34. @ Red Claret

    For the record, I could care less who they supported. If I cared, I guess I would not be purchasing a large number of products from a long list of distributors. I’m surprised that Costco will have chased you out of Pleasanton. Your worldview seems small.

  35. @Jake Waters

    You’re the one who had to bring Hillary into this, remember? Why??? What in the heck does Hillary Clinton have to do with a Pleasanton Costco? Always know that a conversation has reached bottom when someone suddenly starts blurting out things about either Hillary or Nazis.

  36. Hi Jake

    You seemed to have a strong visceral reaction there with the HRC comment, so I was just trying to add to the conversation. Good on you for supporting the long list of distributors

    As far as my worldview, as my post clearly states it’s the growth/congestion/traffic that I struggle with; I’m old and I’ve lived here for years and have seen many changes. However I am happy for the people that enjoy the direction the city is heading in, I’m actually jealous in a weird way

    As for me – I know what I like and I just kind of stick to it. I enjoy the outdoors and my family and avoid shopping as much as possible (much to my wife’s chagrin) I guess I do have a small worldview in that sense.

  39. I’ve been here 50+ years and seen it all. this town had been ruined by too much growth. yes, there will be MORE state required high-density housing developments; yes, people ARE NOT idiots and knew what they were voting for; And yes, traffic will continue to worsen. people must like it, they continue to vote for it. I preferred it when we had a 20 year moratorium on growth. since then, ptown has gone hog-wild!

  40. Hey BobB, thanks for the advice

    Curious – why wouldn’t you have lived here 30 years ago?

    I’m glad the Costco and increased congestion works for you.

  41. I not against having Costco here…. I am totally against using my hard earned tax dollars to subsidized having them here. Costco should pay for “everything” … the retail business would have a cow if they knew that their sales tax dollars would subsidized their competition. Our city management and council should go back to the negotiation table and negotiate a deal that is fair or not do the deal.

  42. @Long Timer
    I am against Costco – traffic has gotten so much worse in the last few months.
    Costco will not pay its way. The city wants to use our $6 million reserve, Costco wants to borrow $6 million and pay it back with what they call revenue sharing. We share our tax dollars.

    Eventually, other retail will go in there. They will pay their share of the infrastructure. We will not share our sales tax dollars. They will pay full property taxes. It will not create the same amount of traffic. We will not have this massive 150,000 square foot warehouse and 700 car parking lot of asphalt as the entrance to our city, visible from the freeway.

  44. SULLIVAN CLAIMS FAKE NEWS AGAIN
    This guy is always spouting conspiracy theories and trashing City leaders along with insulting the intelligence of residents. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else. I remember when Sullivan claimed the world was ending when Walmart was approved. . All he does is throw rocks and get people upset which is devisive to our community. I applaud counter-points and healthy dialogue but Im sick of this negativity. If Pleasanton is soooo bad, then move, or accept this is not a bubble. Ive been here 30 years and still think its the best. And an average home price of $1 million would suggest many others agree and would love to be able to live here. I thank the council people who are working hard while Im only posting on PW

  45. @seriously
    Never noticed sewer plant as I drive up I680. Would see the warehouse.
    As I said, other retail will eventually come in. Not only will it pay its own way, but it will be more asthetically pleasing than a big industrial looking warehouse and parking lot.

  46. Joe: You seem a bit confused. Something is going there and that something will take up a lot of space. A hotel, a costco, something. NOTHING will be pleasing to you driving by at 65+MPH.
    Try to keep in mind WHAT was there before; an ugly office building. sheesh.

  47. @BobB

    You really don’t know what Pleasanton was like 30 years ago, did you? Pleasanton was fine. We had the downtown of course but we also had Stonebridge Mall (opened in 1980) for those who liked big store shopping. Livermore could be called “dull and small” since at the time it served as only a bedroom community for Lawrence Livermore Lab and had an old, tired, dull downtown area, but Pleasanton was actually a great place to live with plenty of shopping options not only within its city limits but also in nearby Dublin and San Ramon.

  49. @ Sam. Good description of p-town 30 years ago but it was even better 40and 50 years ago, before BART and before Stoneridge Mall, back when anybody looking for a “quaint” ( sorry BobB ) town could afford to move here and didn’t have to reach deeply into their pockets to buy a piece of the town! Now it’s people with big wads of cash and always in a big hurry to get somewhere , crime is up, traffic accidents are an everyday occurrence, and our town is turning into a parking lot twice a day, really miss the ” dull and small”

  50. @BobB. Take it from a resident born in this town that before Bart and stoneridge mall crime was virtually nonexistent, we never locked our houses or cars, you didn’t hear sirens everyday, and all the neighbors knew each other. Check out that police blotter now for everyday multiple car break-ins, home burglaries, and petty theft, welcome to that “big” city you have been wishing for, stay safe out there.

  51. I’ve been here for 40 years. Pleasanton with its current traffic congestion is far worse. Accidents on streets and freeways are far worse.
    Costco will add more traffic. Now that their deal with the city is going to be more transparent, it will not be as good for them. I hope they go away.

  53. Since you apparently know the detailed stats like the back of your hand, how ’bout if you simply post them here for all to see?

    Thanks in advance

  54. @BobB

    The crime rate in Pleasanton today is indeed lower than it was 30 years ago. It was relatively low 30 years ago but it is even lower now. Not sure why you suddenly decided to blurt out the fact, though. First you posted that Pleasanton was “dull and small” 30 years ago, and then right after that you went off on some tangent and suddenly blurted out that Pleasanton had a higher crime rate back then. Huh? Did you offer the fact that Pleasanton had a higher crime rate 30 years ago in support of your argument that Pleasanton was “dull” back then? (Seems to me that it actually does the opposite and undermines your own argument.)

    So what’s going on BobB? Did you have a brain hiccup and lose your train of thought?

  56. Would any of the gumshoes on the board please provide a link to an authoritative source that includes the data on annual crime rates over the past 30+ years in Pleasanton?

    Not 10, not 15, not 20, but 30 years and older. Thanks!

    I’m not doubting the crime rate may have been a smidge higher back then, but I’m assuming we’re comparing a LOW % to a LOW %.

    Woop dee doo Bob.

  57. Thanks Bob – then it shouldn’t be too hard for you to provide a link..an old guy like me I type in AskJeeves and the link doesn’t seem to work.

    Looking forward to being educated. Thanks

  58. What I am really interested in Bob

    Is the most recent year the numbers are available – I assume 2015/16. And then going back 30+ years and not 20-ish

    Thanks buddy

  59. As population goes up, the rate can go down, but the number of crimes can go up.
    The topic here is about Costco. Costco has crimes. Two in a two week period at Costco Danville is scary. Especially with guns being fired.

  60. I’ll take that Bob as an indication you can’t back up your claim regarding the rates over the past 30+ years

    Interestingly, I’m looking at a stat that shows the overall crime index spiking appreciably, starting three years ago. 28% increase just from 2014 to 2015. (the data I’m looking at doesn’t stop in 2012, as yours does).

    Care to conjecture what that jump is all about Bob?

  61. No Bob, you didn’t provide complete evidence. Your data didn’t go back 30 years and your most recent year is 2012. Only partially helpful at best

    To assist in your effort: go to the city govt website, search on “police annual report”

    Check out the 2016 report. Take note of the crime stats (part I) from 2014 to 2015/2016.

    Report back and enlighten us further. Thanks

  63. I see at least 15 blogs which have argued a decrease or increase in the crime rate. Finally, it was concluded that the rate per thousand people increased significantly in 2015/ 2016 compared to 2014.

    I have spoken to two police officers who are not happy about the possibility of Costco coming to Pleasanton. I suggest that if any of you doubt this, speak to officers yourselves. Listen to what they tell you.

  64. Crime is worse in Pleasanton than it was in 2014…quoting RC, a 28% increase in 2015/2016 over 2014. Costco will bring more crime. It is impossible to conclude otherwise. Look at the two robberies recently at the Danville Costco. One was armed and shots fired. A customer was taken to the hospital for shock. Sacramento Costco had a lady’s purse stolen by 3 men. On the internet you can find parking lot crime.

    The proposed Costco is just off the freeway, and will be visible from I-680, inviting more crime. As Joe said, talk to police officers. Ask their opinion.

  65. Haha Bob you are one funny dude

    Like I mentioned, go the city website and check out the 2016 annual police report. Check out the stats from 2014 into 2015 and 2016

    http://pleasantonpd.com/ (the section is “annual reports”)

    Care to conjecture why there has been this marked increase in crime?

    Since you stated it with such certitude, we’re still wating for your crime stats that cover 30+ years ago into LAST YEAR. (not 2012/2013)

  66. @BobB
    I did not say the Police Department had officially made a pubic statement of concerns. This would not be appropriate considering the city manager, the mayor and the majority of the council want Costco.

    I do urge you to speak to police officers as I have.

  67. Dang Bob

    As someone who has criticized others for their lack of keeping up with the various posts – you should know that I never stated there has been an increase over the past thirty+ years

    You stated there has been a decrease over that time frame. OK fine. What I am looking for is the data that supports 30+ years ago until last year. You haven’t been able to provide this.

  68. Boy, Red Claret must have blown a gasket when she heard about that proposed hotel down her way, if she is this upset and obsessed about a Costco on literally the opposite side of the town from her.

  69. @Red Claret,

    Please go. Retire somewhere else. I think you’ll be happier.

    I, for one, like what Pleasanton is becoming. I wouldn’t have lived here 30 years ago, but now, it is getting livable. The more like Mountain View or Cupertino Pleasanton gets, the better.

    Meanwhile, let’s build Costco in Pleasanton.

  73. @Sam,

    Please use your scroll bar and/or search function on this page. I was answering the post that said “crime is up”, when I posted that it was not up, but down. Scroll up. Do you see it now?

    “Did you have a brain hiccup and lose your train of thought”

    Again scroll up. I don’t get why you are asking.

    “Did you offer the fact that Pleasanton had a higher crime rate 30 years ago in support of your argument that Pleasanton was “dull” back then?”

    No, I didn’t. Once again, I was answering that post.

    “Seems to me that it actually does the opposite and undermines your own argument.”

    No, I don’t equate “dull” with low crime.

    “The crime rate in Pleasanton today is indeed lower than it was 30 years ago. It was relatively low 30 years ago but it is even lower now. ”

    Yes, it is. Glad we agree on that.

    @”Red Claret”, google is your friend here. The crime rates are fairly widely known, and “Flightops” was making the claim that “crime is up” without any evidence. But as Sam correctly points out, crime is down, not up.

    I think what a lot of you aren’t getting is that there are many of us current Pleasanton residents who like where Pleasanton is now and where Pleasanton is going. Yes, many of us are more affluent than previous residents — I’m not sure why that is a problem. You should just be aware that you may now be in a minority position on these issues.

  75. @Red Claret,

    I think you can do it. You have a good start above. 🙂 I don’t think that fact that the crime rate is down over the last 30 years in Pleasanton is much in dispute.

  77. @Red Claret,

    “I’m not doubting the crime rate may have been a smidge higher back then, but I’m assuming we’re comparing a LOW % to a LOW %.”

    I missed where you said that. We are in agreement.

  79. @Joe,

    I wasn’t agreeing ” that the rate per thousand people increased significantly in 2015/ 2016 compared to 2014. ”

    It may have, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Do you have a link? Even if it is true, it would still be a lower rate than 24 years ago, so I am not particularly worried.

    I also haven’t heard anything from the Pleasanton police department about concerns about crime associated with Costco.

    Sounds more like grasping at straws to me.

  80. I would again suggest that some of the people who oppose all growth in Pleasanton (except senior centers) may now be in the minority of Pleasanton residents. Many of us would welcome the opening of a Costco at this location.

  81. @Red Claret,

    I’m still waiting for your evidence that “crime is up” in the last 30 years, or should I assume you don’t have any?

    If I look at the link you provide, it clearly shows that crime is down over the last 24 years. So, as long as you’re asking me to conjecture, I’d say the addition of 2 BART stations and many businesses and new housing is what brought the crime rate down.

Leave a comment