Had Pardee promised grapes they might have had a chance

Livermore’s Measure D(uh) was not debated, it was demagogued. Former Mayor John Shirley is right. It is funny, the lefties used to use bribes and extortion to acquire city amenities. Now that it does not suit them, they demonize those who have not kept up with the local socialist politics. Pardee who bought-in to the early eco-extremists politics, obviously has not kept up with the times. It is no longer about solar panels for every house, it is now about “urban boundaries” and “agriculture” (or more precisely viticulture) so Pardee spent an obscene amount of money advocating their amenity laden, pretty worthwhile project through what the left considers a “slick” media campaign.

Were it not sad that Livermore continues to cut its nose off to spite its face, it would be funny that radicals, with limited funds, out maneuvered the “evil doers” again. Pleasanton’s way-out-left crowd did in the Kottinger Hills project in much the same manor 10 years ago.

Had Pardee promised Chianti Fields Forever they might have had a chance.

Every few years the wacko left makes new alliances that change the dynamic of the enviro “debate.” Recently they have been strange alliances to say the least. Vintners and ranchers come immediately to mind. Who would have thought that the capitalist environmental despoiler pigs would embrace the environmental extremists and vice versa? But, it is now easy to see how it happened. The extremists stop the evildoers from doing evil and then the evildoers must cozy up to them to get their payday albeit a smaller one because of government-sponsored extortion.

Why would the wine growers not want more vines? More acres under cultivation means a greater world presence in the wine industry and, of course, greater recognition and profits. So, it is a no-brainer to turn marginal “ag” land into vineyards especially if someone else is going to pay for the water to jumpstart the projects.

This new alliance follows closely on the heels of the cattle ranchers asked to turn their bovine flatulence into fuel in order to green-up their operations to rescue their long-awaited paydays. Most were already good stewards. They simply had to “set aside” habitat, provide “mitigations,” and appear to succumb to environmental pressures.

Many would have preferred open, honest debate on the issues rather than being demagogued by the environmental extremists who were hijacked by socialists who are anti about everything to do with capitalism. But, once the socialist nee eco extremists got the upper hand, supported by the education establishment and socialist press, they would simply run out the clock on the ranchers.

Look at Pleasanton Ridge. Ranchland, owned for generations by family ranchers, is now being gobbled up piecemeal by the East Bay Regional Park District a few acres at a time—certainly not the “big” payday those ranch families hoped for and deserved as much as flatlanders who owned the Stoneridge Mall or Hacienda Business Park property, but a payday nevertheless.

Pardee, and those who follow, should go into the wine business, olive oil production, or goat herding for goat cheese so the socialist elite will “win” again. After all, a multi million dollar home in a vineyard or orchard will likely bring in as much as traditional developments and the developers can do it with their pinkie fingers in the oh-so clean air.

News Opinion

Could it be bilingual education in a holiday package?

You can easily judge how balanced a publication is by the articles it runs, by the articles it does not run, and by the headlines. The key ingredient, however, is the other side of the story, and if it is approached at all, it is often buried in the text of the story. The other side of the story, or balance, is what makes reporting as objective as it can be.

A recent education article began with a headline that set the tone: “At risk students…” At risk is bureaucratese designed to elicit sympathy for this or that supposed deficiency that of course can be corrected with a “program” and, of course, more “funds.” Oh, and when you see “outreach” that is your signal that what is being done is ipso facto good.

The article explained that 20 Amador High School students are at risk—the most at risk at Amador—because of low grades, multiple absences, and credit deficiencies. The program designed for them in place of sending them to Village continuation high school, is to keep them all together for four consecutive periods for their core education and to supply them with a translator for mainstream courses such as computer, bioscience, and foods.

The writer says the program is a success because the students are attending classes, having fun, and have an instructor who understands their problems.

The pilot program is also for non-native English speakers. The article says that all the students in the program speak Spanish as their “native language” and their instructor is bilingual.

Sounds as though this might be bilingual education outlawed by Proposition 227 overwhelmingly (61% to 39%) supported by voters in 1998.

In any case, the writer did not figure this out or chose to omit it from her article. Instead, she thought that improved attendance by the students and the parental involvement of seven of the 20 students made the pilot program an early success.

She also thought that because there was a waiting list for this program, it must be successful and that continuation of the program will depend, naturally, on funding and, oh yes, test scores, too.

She did not pursue why continuation high school might not be good for these students but is good for all the rest of the Amador students with attendance problems, low grades, and class credit deficiencies.

Finally the other side of the story—skirting of the prohibition of bilingual education—that English immersion for non-English speakers and mainstreaming underachieving students might be more beneficial or at least as beneficial as a law-bending special education course. There is plenty of data on how immersion courses work and on the efficacy of bilingual education. We are certain that this data was omitted because this was a happy story about 20 happy students who for whatever reason are afforded a program that is not being offered to other students with the same issues. Might some of those students relegated to Village High School perform better with a special needs teacher and a personal translator (incorrigible students often do not speak the English needed to succeed.)

The story was not about low test scores and ways of improving them. But, it seems to us that it should have been. Twenty students can make a big difference in the test scores. Get 20 students (non-test takers) to take the tests and do relatively well and you will show improvement—modest as it might be. But for wealthy schools and districts with high achievers a modest improvement will be well received by educrats who must justify education expense to increasingly uneasy parents and voters.

Quick Opinion

 

Just get on with it

It is not the capital improvement project priorities and how the projects are funded about which the City Council should be concerned. It is about the expense to get from conception to completion. The endless meetings and steady stream of recycled consultants takes a good chunk of revenue out of any project—public or private. The council should look to ways to streamline.

There are some cities where a small bathroom in downtown would win approval and be constructed in a matter of months not years as is the case in Pleasanton. The City Council should find a way to make our money go farther and complete our capital improvement projects in a reasonable amount of time. How it determines priorities is just waving the cape at the electorate to show it is doing something.

 

Guest Opinion

 

The perils of Paulette and Pauline

Paulette Kenyon is at her best in her Pleasanton Weekly letter to the editor on December 2, 2005 entitled Lay off Hosterman.

Her anti-capitalist, anti-America, anti war clichés aside, she concludes that Mayor Jennifer Hosterman as citizen Hosterman is correct to have joined the “Mayors for Peace” and is happy she did not hide behind a veil. (But, it is the veil or Burka she will be in if Islamo-Fascists win the day and they surely will if our leftists have their way.)

More to the point, when the mayor took her oath as a non-partisan municipal office holder, she foreswore her right to be citizen Hosterman on government issues that may reflect poorly on the rest of her colleagues and the citizens of Pleasanton. (With so many issues of local consequence on her plate, she needs to be more focused. Or, she needs to resign and run for a seat in congress.)

So she is for peace. Big deal, most people are except those people involved in the world’s 15 currently active conflicts that are coincidentally Islamo-Fascitists. But when she joins other local politicians for peace she automatically signs the city on and that should be a no-no and a censure from her colleagues is in order.

Finally, to Ms. Kenyon we say: urge the mayor to do the right and honorable thing and resign and declare for Congressman Richard Pombo’s seat and put her anti-American sentiments to the test. Oh, what a twofer. Maybe a Mayor Ayala would roll up her sleeves and put the city on the correct course.

Hooray for Pauline

In the December 2, 2005 issue of the Pleasanton Weekly we go from Paulette to Pauline (Coe.) Ms. Coe’s sentiments are in tune with Pleasanton. We hope a pro-Pleasanton candidate will solve the problem if Ms. Hosterman does not resign before next November’s election. It will not be difficult to show that nothing positive has happened under the mayor and that plenty of negative has set us on the wrong course and gives us a black eye.

Oh no, not Wal-Mart again

We just love those Pleasanton Weekly letters of December 2, 2005. Tricia Gallagher thinks we should vote with our dollars and not buy from Wal-Mart. She saw the anti-Wal-Mart hit-piece film with its local showing sponsored by the National Organization of Women (NOW) and she is now concerned about exploitation, poverty, and world peace. Bravo, so are most people. And, again, bravo, we support voting with our dollars so we are continuing to buy at Wal-Mart at mostly low prices and looking for labels of countries that support America, trade freely with America, and who show a modicum of democratic tendencies. But, you know what, we do that at mom and pop stores and Wal-Mart competitors too.

And to the OpinionPleasanton writer who suggests strongly that Pleasanton is not a frontage road for the freeways we say, yes you are correct, it is not. And, it never will be even with a completed street network including the extension of Stoneridge Drive.

 

 

 

 

 

-30-