Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Aug 10, 2008
No, Borzosky, the council was not saying you can't fight city hall. I think it was saying that it needs to done right with all parties at the table, not just the ones who don't want Oak Grove. I think the council wants to make sure that the results of the hillside protection ordinance does not have unintended ill effects. I think the council just wants whatever is passed to be clear.
If all parties had chosen to cooperate a costly election could have been avoided. Let's not kid ourselves, the initiative is another attempt to stop Oak Grove without recognizing the other effects.
From this article:
"Instead, he said, the majority voted to put a competing measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that could confuse voters."
From Web Link
"Do they think that the community is not educated enough to make an informed decision?"
Please clarify for me. I was under the impression that Oak Grove would proceed, if it survives the appeal, even if the hillsides initative is approved by the voters.
I'm amused each time I hear someone say "it needs to be done right with all parties at the table". If it's "done right with all parties at the table" guess who would dominate the decision making and guess who would be ignored(after all, we're told "they" have no idea what's good for the community). Perhaps that's what's driving the "citizens sector" to push this initative. By the way, who gets to say when "it's done right" - council members, so-called community leaders, developers, attorneys for developers, property owners, attorneys for property owners, Chamber of Commerce, Save Our Hills, "ordinary members of the community", ect., or will it be by popular vote of "all parties at the table". Will the meetings be public or will some be held in private at the Operations Center, with a select few present, as has been done in the past.
Since the City Council members were "ordinary citizens" before they were elected to office - does elected office make one more intelligent than "ordinary citizens". If the present council members, as a group, elected to put an initative together as "ordinary citizens", at someones kitchen table, would it carry as much weight as their proposed "elected officials" initative. Would it be considered "politically motivated".
This entire "we know best" attitude is hilarious.......Ahhhh, small town politics at its best. You can't beat it......:)
Oak Grove was the driving reason behind the creation of the initiative (or at least the ridgeline part of it). Oak Grove would proceed if the appeals court holds up the decision against Save Pleasanton Hills and the initiative therefore would have no effect. That is why Save Pleasanton Hills appealed. They want their initiative to prevent development in Oak Grove.
Read it here: Web Link
I've written in the past and I'll put it here again, I honestly wish "those guys" didn't couple the housing cap issue with the hills issue. Separating out the issues allows people to vote on the individual issues. I think they must have coupled both issues together into one initiative because they weren't sure they would get enough signatures on individual issues.
Thanks, Stacey. I stand "clarified"....
I thought I read somewhere that since the Council had approved the Oak Grove project prior to the signatures being filed, the project would not be effected if the Save Pleasanton Hills initative was approved by the voters.
I have always thought the two pieces were put together for simplicity only. Both are no brainers that will pass easily. There may be 100 people in this town that would not support clarifying the housing piece.
The "Do they think that the community is not educated enough to make an informed decision?" question is smoke screen to excuse the anti-citizen action of putting a competing (and absurd) initiative on the ballot. We all know confusing competing initiatives have become standard practice as we just saw in the last election with 98 and 99 Web Link.
The "Do they think that the community is not educated enough to make an informed decision?" question was not a response to the Council-sponsored initiative. It was a response to Oak Grove supporters (certain Councilmembers included) campaigning against the referendum by asking people not to sign the petition. Brozosky had the gall to suggest in that letter that campaigning against signature gathering is anti-democratic. My opinion is that Brozosky needs to attend one of Amador's fine "We the People" classes because his understanding of democracy seems quite limited.
Greg, I wonder if you know the driving reason behind why competing initiatives get put on ballots? It isn't to "confuse voters". Initiative language cannot be modified, even by the people who wrote the initiative. The only way to override one initiative is with another. I don't know if you recall, but there is a recent example of this problem! Remember two Oakland Children's Hospital initiatives two elections ago? The writers of the first initiative had to campaign _against_ their own initiative and try to get people to vote on their second initiative! Because of this weakness in the initiative process, voters must be given choices at the ballot box. Even if Save Pleasanton Hills wanted to, they couldn't fix up their initiative language with recommendations from other people.
Law made via the legislative process doesn't have this problem.
FYI, California used to have an indirect initiative process whereby initiatives could be amended by a legislature prior to enactment.
"The indirect initiative is frequently offered as an improvement over the direct initiative because it allows for legislative analysis, committee hearings and floor debate. Legislative deliberation and debate on the issue itself and its effect on other existing policies may result in an improved initiative proposal because unintended consequences and errors may come to light."
Hosterman quote: "We have...strengthened public safety,..."
Really? Guess she didn't read about the armed robbery last Thursday afternoon at Longs Drugs on Santa Rita Rd. and Rosewood.
I'd be very interested to see local crime statistics for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and this year.
Stacey: "The indirect initiative is frequently offered as an improvement over the direct initiative because it allows for legislative analysis, committee hearings and floor debate. Legislative deliberation and debate on the issue itself and its effect on other existing policies may result in an improved initiative proposal because unintended consequences and errors may come to light."
You really must be joking here. Maybe 50 years ago we could count on our state legislators to act on behalf of the greater good of The State. Not today. Dream on - decisions today are base on the wants and desires of Special Interests, regardless of what side of the aisle you play on.
That's a quote from the web link I provided. Why is that joking? You said yourself that decisions today are based on the wants and desires of Special Interests. The initiative process is NOT excluded from that!
What I want to know is where I can get some Brozosky signs. I will support anyone but Hosterman so it looks like Steve is my guy. Let Hosterman move along with her personal agenda for higher office. Or anti-war declarations. Whatever.
Why, brozosky.com, of course!
Great website, thanks.
Just one more comment on Hosterman and her elitist attitude -- I attended First Wednesday with 2 friends, Hosterman supports alas, who wanted to speak to her. We walked over to her on the street, they had some questions and I was anxious to hear how she would answer. The moment she saw me (she knows I am a non-supporter)she abruptly turned her back on us and walked away. This was from less than 3 feet away, there was no mistaking the fact that we wanted to talk to her. I now have two more friends who are FORMER Hosterman supporters. Keep up the good work Jennifer, you can torpedo your own candidacy with that nasty attitude and juvenile behavior.
LOL! *shrug* What is to be expected if she knows you're not a supporter? I mean, you'd probably do the same thing if you saw someone walking towards you that you felt you didn't get along with... Very human!
I will tell you with complete confidence our last two mayors would not have been so childish. Tom Pico certainly treated people who did not agree with him with respect. I would expect an elected official to remember they represent everyone even if they did not vote for them. Our mayor should treat every citizen with respect regardless of their personal feelings.
I would say "Voters" experience is why I could no longer support Jennifer after many years of working together on issues, she has a "your with me or you're my enemy" philosophy.
Yes! An elected official has to represent the interests of the greater citizenry. That's why I can't understand why people get so upset over the Council not bowling themselves over to accommodate 5,000 signature signers.
And another yes! I've written here before how I think the election of someone to a leadership position has as much to do with personality as it does with issues. Hosterman isn't so good at that. If she were, we would've seen a much larger spread in votes in the last mayoral election. I won't say if Brozosky is any better. I've seen him speak at recent Council meetings and was somewhat taken aback when he sounded like he was on the verge of yelling at the Council.
I have watched almost every council meeting I have always seen Brozosky behave respectfully.
I'm not best friends with the mayor, but we are neighbors. I walk with her often downtown for coffee with her dog, Faith. She is for real! If you want to have a conversation about something that is important to you, she will listen. I'm sorry somebody thought they got cut off by her - she probably had to go to the bathroom! If you doubt her sincerity, just call her or e-mail her. I have, and I can tell you, she is a good neighbor, a good friend, and a great mayor.
About the 5000 signatures: I was approached outside the grocery store by someone who wanted me to sign - I told him I was not familiar with the issue and asked for literature to read and become informed, or the name of a website. His response? There is no time for that, we have a deadline to collect signatures, so please sign. Well, I did not sign, of course, but if others did sign under pressure, are the signatures really valid?
"She probably had to go to the bathroom". Haven't heard that one in quite a while!!!
CHP - "Do you know why I stopped you".
Motorist - "No".
CHP - "You were exceeding the posted speed limit".
Motorist - "But I had to go to the bathroom"!!!!
CHP - "Oh, ok!! I understand! That's a perfectly reasonable excuse! Have a nice day".
Many of us have had a very different experience when we have not agreed with her.
You are still in the "with her" camp, just hope you never find yourself in the against her camp.
Jerry, I believe Melinda's "bathroom" comment was tongue-in-cheek. You focussed on it exclusively, but did not give any cognizance to her central point. Therefore, it is clear you are biased. I'm not saying that's not OK, but just calling it out.
Frank, Frank, Frank!!!!
Now how do you know my comment wasn't in jest. I thought the CHP vs Motorist would give it away but apparently you failed to see the humor.
To ease your anxiety, I understood Melinda's remarks were intended to indicate she's a casual friend, and neighbor, of the Mayor and Faith. They have coffee together from time to time. She feels the Mayor is sincere, listens, can be called or e-mailed anytime, a good friend, a good neighbor(I'm assuming Faith is also a good neighbor. Don't know about the hawk, she didn't mention it :))and a great Mayor.
Now, from the tone of her "central point", would you consider HER "biased"?
I don't know if I'm biased, but if I am, yes, that's OK and I don't really care if anyone would approve or disapprove. By the way, when were you elected the "Who's Biased" Judge.
Dude, you need to relax!!!! Opps, who elected me the "Relax" Judge....:)
I was with "voter" at First Wed. so maybe I'll just have to put in my 2 cents here. Jerry, you kill me, right to the point. Gotta go to the bathroom my b***. When we walked up our third companion had begun to speak to Jennifer. When Jennifer realized that "voter" was with us she immediately turned her back, walk a few steps and turned the fake smile back on for another conversation a couple of yards away from us. No where near a bathroom. Melinda -- here's the reality. Jennifer likes you (or at least tolerates and pretends to like you) now. When she no longer needs your support or agrees with you, you will be making your blog posts on the website called something like "my neighbor from hell". Sorry, but that's how Jennifer operates these days. Remember that until that little performance on Wednesday I was a Hosterman supporter!!! She is a very public persona and a politician, she does not have the luxury of behaving that way.
It’s gotten worse…she kicked my dog and slapped my baby on my way to church Sunday. No wait, it was Steve. No wait, wait, it was her. Oh I don't remember, I was busy looking up to see if the sky was falling because someone posted that it was...but it WAS one of them.
Wow! Postings for both sides on this article and others look like super-low budget versions of cheesy political negative attack ads we see on TV for the big dogs.
Mark your calendars for the remainder of the games: Beijing Olympic Games: Scheduled now through August 24. Pleasanton Surrogate Games scheduled now through Nov 4.
…and now back to the show…Go USA! Go Pleasanton! Go for the Gold! Enjoy! :)
Get a load of us bloggers: We sit in our homes in our underwear and solve all of Pleasanton's problems. In today's day and age, I think it's pretty cool that we have a Mayor who will stand in the middle of Main Street at a street party in the first place...
Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 90 comments | 1,378 views
New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 6 comments | 557 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2018 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.