Town Square

Post a New Topic

YES on D fights FUD

Original post made by Becky Dennis, Foxborough Estates, on Jun 2, 2010

Take it from a veteran of a few campaign wars, convincing people to vote "no", especially on development related issues, is a lot easier than getting them to vote "yes". It's a time honored strategy known as promoting FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Karla Brown's recent letter (Web Link a pretty good example of how it's done:

Make scary(not factual)assertions frequently and stridently until the audience rejects your terrible vision. Tell people voting "no" will prevent any unwelcome change in their lives, and that nothing bad can happen as a result of voting “no”. Of course, they don’t say that voting “no” on Measure D means the permanent loss of Pleasanton’s opportunity to receive, and permanently protect, 90% of the Oak Grove property as a 500 acre natural hiking park. That would get people thinking.

Out on the campaign trail, I've been pretty impressed with the perceptiveness of Pleasanton's voters, and their willingness to delve deeper into the Measure D issue. But while voters try to think, the "no" side's job is to make it emotionally difficult for them to focus with FUD, FUD, and more FUD on every street corner. They need to work really hard get folks to reject 500 acres of parkland with an intense campaign that stimulates voter limbic systems rather than voter intellect.

Unfortunately, FUD works, especially when reason, facts, and expertise are lacking. The architects "no" campaign, in spite of dubbing themselves “Save Pleasanton Hills”, have never saved any hills in Pleasanton. Nor were any of them involved in creating the strategy that ensured expansion of Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park. We are voting YES on Measure D.

Comments (6)

Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Becky, you probably know a lot about FUD since you have typically been on the "No" side of measures on our ballot. You were against the measure that prevented more houses on the Bernal Property as well "No" on the measure to do ridgeline protections in the last election. I guess it is only FUD if it is against the campaign you are working on?

Like this comment
Posted by Agree
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I think most people vote NO if they do not understand the proposition or measure. I know I do. In this case, I am voting YES because I have researched measure D and think it is the best thing for Pleasanton.

But in general, if I do not understand a proposition or measure, I tend to go the safe route and vote no, especially if money is involved (ie, I will be taxed to pay for it).

One of the things that is wrong with California is allowing everyone to put measures and propositions on the ballot. Then you have a bunch of potentially uninformed people making the decisions for everyone else.

I know at least 4 people who took their no sign down after I talked to them and explained what D was all about.

They are planning to vote YES on D and so am I. Come on, Steve B. is for the no campaign and so is McGovern, that has to tell you something!

Like this comment
Posted by Bobbi
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jun 2, 2010 at 4:00 pm

One thing the NO campaign has proven is that Karla Brown Belcher is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 3, 2010 at 9:20 am

Of course it is easier to get the people who have houses in Pleasanton to vote "no" on more houses in Pleasanton, because once you have one, housing in Pleasanton isn't your biggest problem!

Like this comment
Posted by Face reality
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2010 at 10:53 am

Face reality ! Houses WILL be built on that site. 51 is the fewest possible. How could a critical thinker vote against 51 really nice houses, plus a great 500 acre park, and some money for schools ? ? I haven't heard any intelligent defense for the NO position. No is totally UNrealistic... STOP being UNrealistic, stop bickering...Your going to screw around and wind up with more house, and something you'll REALLY REGRET ! Shame on you.

Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2010 at 11:09 am

51 is not the fewest possible. To comply with the ridgeline protection ordinance overwhelming approved by the voters at the last election will probably make it around 20 homes I have heard. Could be less, might be a bit more.

Less than one year after the voters overwhelmingly approve a ridgeline protection ordinance, the city council is already trying to override the voters will. I agree with the endorsement the Tri-Valley Herald did on voting N on D, "For the second time in as many years, Pleasanton voters are being asked to weigh in at the ballot box because their City Council has been deaf to their concerns about hillside development. This fight could have been avoided. But that would have required the City Council to listen to residents' concerns rather than overriding them."

NO on D.

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


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Central Oregon population is soaring with former Californians
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 624 views

What Exactly Is FAFSA and Why Should You Complete It?
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 219 views