Measure P asks Livermore voters to decide fate of downtown hotel | Town Square | |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Measure P asks Livermore voters to decide fate of downtown hotel

Original post made on Jan 29, 2020

With the presidential primaries stealing most headlines for the upcoming March election, a years-long battle over the future of downtown Livermore will have at least one aspect resolved with Measure P on the ballot.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:56 PM

Comments (8)

7 people like this
Posted by Rich Buckley
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 29, 2020 at 12:01 pm

I'm Voting No on P. As a property owner in the downtown core my personal evaluation on the benefits to the community at large and to buildings we own in particular, and the life style I want to help my children and grandchildren enjoy in Livermore, I will be Voting No on P. We get one shot at doing this and then we live with it for many decades.

No On P will help recapture a vastly improved parking plan for the community assets currently in place, including the Bankhead Theater. No on P will provide a larger upscale hotel and importantly a much larger Central Park that families will want to come back to use.

5 people like this
Posted by jpmarchand
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 29, 2020 at 9:39 pm

Rich - Your concept of "improved parking" only serves the Bankhead Theater. There are many other assets in the downtown that need to be served with more parking throughout the downtown.
The experts and over 80% of the participants in the outreach, including hotel experts, agreed that the hotel should be on S. Livermore Avenue.

As far as the west side hotel, when asked during public comment at Monday's City Council meeting, a founder of the central park committee member admitted that the west side hotel had no on-site parking. Look at the drawing. Furthermore, the west side hotel would require that the City of Livermore build and subsidize the parking in the L Street garage. This would require that the L Street garage would have to be built first, resulting in several years of delay. Otherwise, construction staging would result in the loss of roughly 300 spaces during hotel construction. Your "larger upscale hotel"with its traffic clogging conference center has no parking unless the City subsidies it.

3 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Jan 29, 2020 at 10:16 pm

i did not think the lot next to the Bankhead had that many spaces to argue over anyways. A hotel near the core makes sense instead. The Central Park looks pretty on paper but it’s way too economically valuable land than turf. Besides people want more active and smaller plazas than large passive turf areas that still have no synergy from the downtown streets and businesses. I think it will become a dead or under-utilized place. Based on how full the surface lot is now, the expensive parking garage makes sense as well as aggregating lots along the north side of Railroad Avenue for future parking opportunity next to the rail line. Good Luck Livermore. Sad it’s gotten decisive as to make headline news.

3 people like this
Posted by bill willaner
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 30, 2020 at 12:10 pm

central park plan sounds like a good place for homeless junkies to hang out.

Like this comment
Posted by R white
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 1, 2020 at 11:22 am

Where is entrance to hotel and check in on Central Park plan. Also entrance for and parking for residential on city’s plan

Like this comment
Posted by Jeff K
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 1, 2020 at 9:50 pm

The Council meeting referred to above was a display of some of the most obvious, egregious dishonesty from the City yet seen. Around 2:24 in the video of the 1/27 meeting ( the city put up a map showing what it claimed was the potential size of one of the initiative's cultural buildings. The Mayor observes "so it actually goes into the area they propose as a hotel." Sure, if you ignore easily verified facts. First, they show it as a single story, and the initiative requires 2 - 3 stories, so at most it covers half the space shown. And further, the initiative maps where the park is to be (area 2.4.2 in the initiative) meaning it would be impossible to build what they showed. The most generous interpretation is that none of staff nor council read what is in the initiative. But given that this was during an agenda item for "...preparation and dissemination of factual information..." you might think someone would have checked. This disregard for facts suggests that the Council realizes they don't have much of an argument. You don't need to trust me either - two minutes of web work and you can verify this for yourself. for the meeting and, search for the initiative. The map is pg 23, description page 40 and similar. If you were looking for a solid reason to vote No on P, how about standing up for honesty!

Like this comment
Posted by Rich Buckley
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 2, 2020 at 10:44 am

Inexperienced City Council Members

It’s very easy to trace back the divisiveness that exists in Livermore to specific broken promises of the city council with long term honorable city activists and sincere community participants starting, give or take, with one particular council person rejected by the voters several years back.

Coupled with the astoundingly intolerable weaponization of the City Clerk’s office filing suit against these well meaning and sincere activists the City Council is beginning to see what they have sowed and continue to sow.


Someone threw a Fart Bomb (that’s the name on the device) into yet another city coordinated, us-against-them, Main Street sponsored luncheon rally according to an East Bay Times local news. Either an editorial comment from an anarchist or a false flag attack to gain attention to make us feel sorry for Yes On P.

The tone deaf yes on Measure P coupled with the weaponized City Clerk's office against the local activists has escalated the divisiveness into a higher issue for some of the voters.

“The more I see the city ignore us, the more I watch them suppress us, the stronger is my intention to Vote No On P.“

“I don’t care where they build the hotel, I’m voting No because the B........ don’t listen.”

“Somewhere down deep there’s some kind of corruption.”

Let’s take a breather.

Part of the problem is the city is too big and the inexperienced council is too remote from the people they are supposed to represent. We need to have at least 6 city districts plus one mayor, not 4 city districts plus mayor. Everyone wants a piece of the old downtown and that leads to chaos. The old town needs a single voice and we better achieve that by one district in the core, plus the mayor, not everyone taking a tiny slice of the downtown in their district.

Like this comment
Posted by Michael White
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 14, 2020 at 8:30 pm

Who is supplying the money for both sides? I am concerned neither side offers sufficient parking. I am also concerned if the down town development was favored for a large park, this will be a major hangout for homeless, drugs, and turn into an area that is not safe for our communities. Also Livermore has an abundance of wonderful parks, and adding another one where it could be used for retail and entertainment development, might be a hinderance to all

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.

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Traffic Lights for the Whole Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,578 views

Rest in peace Senor Bob Athenour
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 1,016 views