Volume
Four, Number 3 What ElseYou Need To Know December 9, 2004
New council should study council
report card for 2004
The last city council, like the council before it, had few accomplishments and its deficiencies were many. It is apparent that ex-mayor Tom Pico and his council colleagues were happy with doing things slowly. Even clearer than before, this policy has cost Pleasanton citizens millions of dollars and plenty of headaches. Mayor Jennifer Hosterman only means more of the same.
The process, embraced by bureaucrats and liberal politicians, simply is to study proposals to death—except those favored by the eco extremists. The studies, usually conducted by outside consultants, come at a considerable financial cost. More importantly, the enormous cost in staff time and wasted motion by well-intentioned citizen volunteers is staggering.
Ms. Hosterman assigned herself to 23 committees because it is all about controlling the agenda and all about the process. Like Mr. Pico, and apparently the council, it is all about process. Accomplishments be damned.
Sadly, all we have to say in this year’s report card is ditto. Mr. Pico was a failure. The council—even with shifting, more flexible votes—failed. The city’s professional staff let us down by being run over by the council’s eco extremists. Today, they are honored heroes. The new council at their inaugural meeting waxed poetic about the new staff so expect nothing to change. The go slow baton has been handed off.
Other than specious environmental issues such as sustainability, the “process” will apparently take its course. The speedup on energy and sustainability issues is in the liberal playbook--get something on the books and it will never be rescinded.
With two new environmental extremists on the council, it is even more
likely now that global warming and frog habitat will trump traffic and
flood control as priority items worthy of speedy council action.
Below is OpinionPleasanton’s council report card on the important
issues facing the new mayor and city council. The report card is for 2000-2001,
2001-2002, 2002-2203, in italics and 2004 in bold.
2001 Traffic—F--It
just keeps getting worse. The council must provide for current
needs
even while advocating no-growth. There are several areas
where
the council can make a major contribution without inducing
growth.
A mass transit hub and the long-promised ACE Train
station and high-density housing on the Bernal property will take
many
cars off the city streets and the freeways. The Stoneridge
extension
to El Charro is a vital east-west connection. El Charro
to
Stanley would be a vital north-south connection. Realigning
West Las Positas Boulevard to its long-planned for four-lane
configuration
would move traffic off of Foothill Road to the
Hacienda
Business Park. Improvements to the Stoneridge/I-680
interchange will reduce accidents and speed traffic off Foothill to
Hacienda and eventually to El Charro. Synchronizing traffic signals
would speed-up traffic along Stoneridge, Hopyard, West Las Positas,
Stanley,
Foothill, Bernal.
2002 Traffic—F. The puny
experiments with traffic lights have not done much. If that
is
all the council can offer, we might as well dig in for the long haul.
Now they are considering turning on metering lights on the entrance
to east bound I-580. They are still pushing Sierra Club (high occupancy
vehicle—HOV) lanes. They are also rolling over on Highway 84
improvements. Finally, they refuse to complete the road network
(Stoneridge and El Charro) on Staples Ranch.
2003 Traffic—F—Not
one thing has been accomplished. All of the issues outlined
above
still apply today. The metering lights are clogging things up on
city streets and the freeway still only chugs along.
2004 Traffic—F—The
lights are out of sync, they are agonizingly long when no
traffic
exists, and road improvements are on the back burner. Do not
look
for much to happen until the West Las Positas over crossing and
the
Stoneridge Drive extension are written out of the General Plan.
The
ACE train station, long promised, is flying under the radar. A mass
transit
center with ACE as the centerpiece is only spoken of in terms of
Stanley
Boulevard where no one can will use it or if they do, they will
drive
there and increase the gridlock in downtown where freeway
commuters
will have to pass to reach a Stanley station. Finally, do not
look for the mayor and current council to work on realigning Highway
84
or lending support to Congressman Richard Pombo’s freeway proposal
connecting
I-5 near Tracy with US 101 in San Jose. Instead, look for
encouragement
for the building of HOV lanes (High Occupancy Vehicle
lanes)
that only clog the already clogged freeways and spew pollutants
into
the already edgy air quality.
2001 Bernal—F--The
council has abdicated its leadership position to a citizens
committee
and offered no direction to the committee. The committee
founders
trying to prioritize potential projects including a spot for an
animal farm. The Bernal property has been under study for more than
10 years and intense study for about five.
2002 Bernal—F. The committee,
that was formed to stall and obstruct anything happening
on
Bernal, was doing a modicum of good in discussing potential uses when
the
plug was pulled by the mayor. It was serendipitous. One woman, with
a protest poster advocating a park, was all the opening the mayor needed
to nullify the work of the rudderless task force he formed and stacked
with
obstructionists likely to advocate a park anyway. On the heals of changing
the discussion--a sea change--was the Bernal Initiative, which eventually
won at the polls. It happened so smoothly that it appeared to be
choreographed. No one could be that lucky. However, the mayor is. Along
the way, the mayor also apparently dodged the bullet on being an elitist
and
anti senior for backing the anti-housing initiative. He was reelected
by a
good margin.
Today,
Bernal is fallow awaiting a lighted sports park—the compromise for
nothing else going on the remaining 300-plus acres. The expense for this
charade is incalculable. Wasted consulting contracts, wasted committee
meetings,
and wasted staff time are all buried in the city budget and the
professional staff (alone or at the will of the council) will not give
up the
costs.
2003 Bernal—F—We are still
studying uses for the land not promised to the powerful sports
lobby.
2004 Bernal—F—Well,
we now have lighted sports fields on the books. The only thing
missing is the money with which to build them. In fact, if the city
continues playing a shell game with the treasury, it is no telling when
the money will be available. The sports lobby is interested in more
practice fields and that will only add to the pressure of funding Bernal.
2001 Happy Valley Golf Course—F--The
council is perfectly willing to suffer the
environmentalist’s
Red-Legged Frog demands but unwilling to even
consider yielding one inch to the demands of the state and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for subsidized housing. The golf course
study is approaching five years. By the time the council gets around to
the
course, green fees will be in the hundreds of dollars.
2002 Happy Valley Golf Course—F.
Here, it is money that covers up for the council
and
professional staff ineptitude. Up to 2002, it was the special interest
agenda of the environmentalist council that cost $17 million in golf course
construction costs. Delays from outside agencies which issue permits for
these type of local projects demanded habitat mitigation. In other words,
they made the city (the developer on the golf course project) buy land
elsewhere to save frogs and some such. While begging for those permits,
the cost of building a golf course doubled. Additionally, the annexation
of
the land for the course was turned down by Happy Valley residents intent
on maintaining their rural lifestyle. The city’s annexation of a
smaller piece
of land has resulted in a lawsuit initiated by landowners who feel that
for
technical reasons the annexation should be set aside. Their hope is to
bludgeon
the city into building the bypass road of their liking. The gambit has
worked,
the council voted unanimously to focus on the Spotorno alternative proposed
in the very beginning. It was an extremely safe vote as there is no money
to
build that road even if environmental extremists would issue permits to
do so.
The Spotorno road would require the environmentalist council to approve
more
houses and the golf course was approved and pursued to prevent development
on Pleasanton’s southern boundary. Although the mayor said that
the city
would have to look at increased densities to fund the road, he did so
knowing
that it is extremely unlikely that the road will happen. However, it is
his
willingness that will look good when and if the landowner suit
goes to court.
The city already turned down a Spotorno development plan thought
to have
too many houses. It would also require habitat replacement land—just
in case
that a Red Legged Frog ever showed up there—and that will likely
add
millions of dollars more to the already bloated golf course project.
2003 Callippe Preserve Golf Course—D—The
course (named after an endangered butterfly)
is under construction. The $36 million project is more than double the
original
estimate of $15 million. A promised Happy Valley by-pass road is not a
part
of the original project and is now in court at considerable more cost
to the
city. The economy is down and golf rounds are predicted to be fewer than
in
the original estimate and we still have not heard how much a round will
cost
using the new numbers.
2004 Open Space and Driving Range—F—Golf
will eventually be played at Callippe Preserve
Golf Course and Open Space. There is just no telling when that might be
or
how much it will cost. The Developer on the project (City of Pleasanton)
just
lost control of its contractor and subs. Grass did not get planted before
the
rainy season began this autumn and it will have to be sown in spring.
The
good news is that the city can spend plenty of time with the driving range
pole problem while watching the grass grow.
2001 Subsidized Housing—F--The
council appears to be elitist unwilling to clutter the landscape
with houses selling for less than $1 million. The Bernal property and
the
newest
fad of putting high-density housing near transportation hubs stare the
council in the face and they appear as though they are deer caught in
the
headlights. The city has nearly $10 million in a subsidized housing fund
and
is considering buying shopping centers and trailer parks for subsidized
housing
rather than work with developers on Bernal or elsewhere.
2002 Subsidized Housing—F. Here
is where the council has really let down the people of
Pleasanton. Bernal has plenty of room for senior subsidized housing for
those most in need. The mayor and new council majority claimed that they
favored other sites for such housing. They now have the opportunity to
prove
that they are not disingenuous when it comes to senior housing. However,
their
failure to speak out for the Elder Care Alliance’s— a coalition
of the Sisters of
Mercy, Burlingame Regional Community, and the Sierra Pacific Synod of
the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America—proposed project on the St.
Augustine
Catholic Church’s nearly five acre parcel at E. Angela Street and
Bernal
Avenue.
The church has pledged to return half of the land lease payment to
provide charitable care for church members and Pleasanton residents. The
silence on the proposed assisted living project is one more piece of evidence
that they are elitists preferring to approve million dollar homes and
to talk
about some nebulous plan for a run-down shopping center site. And, why
would they speak out? They have plenty of lemming followers who will go
over
the cliff singing the same chorus of “too much traffic” and
“too much out of
proportion.” Evidence is also mounting that they are as mean spirited
as agenda
driven.
2003 Subsidized Housing—F—It
is dwindling since those original apartment developer contracts
are coming to an end and so are the subsidized units. The council’s
answer was
to raise subsidized housing fees charged to homebuilders and commercial-
industrial developers (right when the economy is at its worst and business
is
fleeing the area and the state).
2004 Subsidized housing—F—No new
housing stock has been added. No expenditures from the
modest fund have been made. No new sites have been identified. And the
most promising site at St. Augustine’s on Bernal Avenue was dismissed
by
environmentalists and the usual whiners as neighborhood unfriendly.
2001 Staples Ranch—F--The
council should be leading the charge for the IKEA project.
Pleasanton needs the sales tax revenue and the Staples Ranch location
is
perfect for a high-visibility retailer. The Council seems perfectly content
to
study this project to death wrapping it into an East Pleasanton study
area.
The project is a perfect segue into extending Stoneridge Drive
to El Charro
and El Charro to Stanley, two approved plans.
2002 Staples Ranch—F. This
property is perfect for high visibility retail such as IKEA, chased
away by council and staff stalling. IKEA needed streets. The council position
that roads cause growth clearly was in play. IKEA could see the handwriting
on the wall and skipped over the freeway to see if Dublin was friendlier.
(The jury is still out on that.) If the council had chosen to extort tremendous
amounts of money from IKEA as they have with Applera Applied Bio Systems
and others we could have had developer help extending Stoneridge Drive
to
El Charro Road and El Charro to Stanley Boulevard which will ease commute
traffic
gridlock and add vital links out of Livermore in case of emergencies at
the labs. Since those options run afoul of the council majority’s
agenda, it is
clear that stalling and studying will be the course of action. We can
expect
more bills for consultants, committees, commissions, and task forces for
the
“East Side” study. Look for a corridor here and an overlay
there, a scenic
corridor here and district there— Just about anything to slow down
the
process of development. The council feels that we are so flush with money
that we can afford to flush down the drain a potential of $1 million in
sales
tax revenue. Had we accommodated IKEA a year ago, we might have
a
grand opening just in time to produce sales tax revenues to replace the
loss
of car tax revenues from the state.
2003 Staples Ranch—F—They
are moving dirt. But for what reason? No projects have been
announced
for the 126 acres. No street network has been approved. No
approved road extensions begun. IKEA is finalizing plans for
a Dublin facility.
The result? Pleasanton gets the increased traffic and bupkis in tax revenues.
Good job Mr. Mayor.
2004 Staples Ranch—F—A baseball
stadium with no Stoneridge Drive access? Senior living
with no Stoneridge Drive access? A stadium will over utilize this property
and senior living will under utilize it. Since ex-mayor Tom Pico and current
mayor Jennifer Hosterman chased away the Swedish furniture retailer IKEA
to Dublin, California, no major retailer is likely to propose retail development
that would add to the treasury. Dublin’s Waterford
shopping complex, that
combines residential and commercial, would be an appropriate use that
would
also
add housing to meet our state obligations. Do not, however, hold your
breath on such a development.
2001 ACE train station—F--If
anyone should embrace public transportation and a mass transit
village it should be environmental extremists. Our council leadership
is
afraid
of houses and business and the ACE Train station that they promised
(especially on the Bernal property) would encourage (be perfect
for) high-
density housing and compatible office, retail and hotel development.
2002 ACE train Station—F. The
council waited long enough to look seriously at the station
they promised that the down economy took its toll on ACE ridership and
now
the council will appear prudent when they nix the station on Bernal, everyone’s
location choice. They fear the station at Bernal because most forward
thinking
cities are now looking seriously at transit villages and building nothing
on
Bernal is still their special- interest agenda priority. They claim that
a transit
village at the BART station is preferred. They do so because a transit
village/
station at Hacienda will prove too costly. This is one more way that they
do
not have to commit to doing anything. So much for their commitment to
mass
transit, cleaning up the air, and relieving freeway and cross- town traffic.
2003 Ace train station—F—There
is no station planned. We gave up our seat at the table of the
ACE board. Traffic continues to worsen. Freeway lanes are not in the
foreseeable future. Highway 84 is years away from being improved. BART
is too expensive to get to Livermore. But, the Dublin transit village
is moving
forward at the West Pleasanton BART station. Good job Mr. Mayor.
2004 Ace train station—F—It might
have a home on the Bernal property. It might be
developed on Stanley Boulevard. Either way you look at it, there is no
home other than the temporary spot on the Alameda County Fairgrounds.
The environmentalists who control the council agenda cannot bring
themselves to back a diesel solution even if it means getting cars off
the
grid-locked freeways and saving fossil fuels in the process.
2001 Assisted Living—F--The
council talks a good game. Their actions speak louder than words
however. There has been no council action over the last year even with
an
outside operator on board. Inviting Marriot to convert their Courtyard
by
Marriot property on Hopyard Road into assisted living in exchange for
land
on Bernal and allowing them to develop a regional conference center and
hotel complex seems beyond the rural, off-the-hard-road mentality of the
mayor
and council. Their idea is to give away land and then loan money to get
a puny
project off the ground. Because it is seniors who need subsidized housing
and
assisted living the most, it also makes sense to assist in building rooms
at Valley
Care hospital in exchange for subsidized housing and assisted living credits
with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the state.
2002 Assisted Living—F.
The city is in the assisted living business. Only they do not have a
facility. The facility and management have been on the drawing boards
about six years. Typical of anything Pleasanton touches, the gestation
period defies logic. Hum? Could this also be why our counselors and mayor
are mum on the Elder Care Alliance project on the nearly five acres at
St.
Augustine’s?
2003 Assisted Living—F—Not
a thing has happened. Our city-sponsored project is idled by
a slowdown in the economy. However, the boomers are getting older and
parents from the East Coast are still trying to get closer to their children
and grand children.
2004 Assisted Living—F—The bloom
is off the rose? All the political points that could be
had off senior issues have been had? When a faith-based proposal was
presented, nothing but howls came from the eco-extremists. The project
is too big, the project is too massive for the neighborhood, the project
is
too traffic generating. Or, is it really because it is supported by a
church?
After developers, churches must be the next evil bogeyman.
2001 West Las Positas Overcrossing—F--The
current study is now about four years old. The
interchange has been in the General Plan since the mid-seventies. It seems
that most people would just like to put the issue to bed and there is
excellent
support for shelving the interchange and simply making improvements to
the
current overcrossing.
2002 West Las Positas Overcrossing—F.
The mayor and his quislings have the horsepower bu
t not the intestinal fortitude to pull the trigger on pulling this project
out of
the General Plan. As recently as last week we heard about how it was going
to be done.
2003 West Las Positas Overcrossing—F—It
looks as though it will be removed from the
general plan but no plans have been announced to realign the
current
roadway to optimize traffic flow from Foothill Road to Hopyard
Road.
Pulling it from the plan needs another consultant at about $100,000.
Say what? Who is fighting for us to save this expense?
2004 West Las Positas Overcrossing—F—It’s
coming out of the General Plan and that
will cost a bundle. However, nothing has been offered up to deal with
traffic and safety on West Las Positas.
2001 Stoneridge Drive Extension—F--This
extension has been in city plans for many years.
It should be no surprise to anyone that Stoneridge would connect to El
Charro. One need only to look from its dead-end a few hundred feet to
El Charro to see that the extension was planned. Additionally, connecting
Stoneridge to El Charro will complete a vital link to and out of Pleasanton
in the case of a national emergency at the two Livermore labs. As it stands
now only Stanley, Vineyard and Highway 84 are the safety links west out
of Livermore.
2002 Stoneridge Drive Extension—F.
Build these roads and they will come. People that is.
Or so say the environmental extremists on the council. As a result of
that
convoluted thinking, these roads, long in the General Plan, will be studied
to death. It will take the next progressive council to get these built.
That is
if this council leaves the land available. They could tie it up so nothing
can
be done with it except save frogs.
2003 Stoneridge Drive Extension—F—All
that has happened is that nay sayers have begun
their public relations project to sink the extension. The approved project
is being studied in the Eastside Plan and restudied in the general plan
review. The only bright spot is that neighbors in the area can abide the
extension if they receive some concessions in return—namely four
lanes
instead of six.
2004 Stoneridge Drive Extension—F—With
Ms. Hosterman and Counselor Matt Sullivan
on the council, the long-planned Stoneridge extension is moving toward
extinction in the General Plan. Stoneridge is a vital east-west artery
to
move people in and out of Livermore in the case of an emergency. By
getting people to El Charro Road and then to I-580, congestion will be
relieved on city streets. Those residents along, Stoneridge from Santa
Rita to the dead end near El Charro, must cope. The road was clearly
meant to be a thoroughfare when residents purchased their homes.
Additionally, sound walls block the noise and the visual impact of
through traffic. This part of town is no different that Hacienda Business
Park where travelers move at 45 mph past hundreds of homes.
2001 Flood control—F--The
council has taken a dangerous wait-and-see position on
upgrading our flood control plan. This could be the year of the hundred-
year flood that they talk so much about and do so little to mitigate.
Drought-like conditions have helped the council up until now but when
might their luck run out. Costs for upgrading keep going up the longer
that we wait just like the Happy Valley Golf Course. Letting developers
do the upgrading is a good idea except that Pleasanton does not allow
development. More importantly, there are several neighborhoods that
are subject to flooding and the council puts those homeowners in
jeopardy by not acting.
2002 Flood Control—F. Still
nothing concrete, pardon the pun. We saw the water in the
arroyo rise a month ago and thought this might be the time for it to
flood. The council lucked out again as they have for the past dozen or
so years. Down by the green bridges watch the banks. They are not
getting any better.
2003 Flood Control—F—The
Bernal property did receive collection ponds. They are
pretty ugly though. The Arroyo de la Laguna is still untouched. The
relatively dry winters have continued which means that future councils
will be forced to deal with flood control.
2004 Flood Control—F—As in 2001,
the council has taken a wait and see approach to
Pleasanton’s flood-control. There is nothing sexy about flood control.
It is much more pleasant planning parks, theaters, and teen facilities.
The sky is not falling today…
|
Now
that the November election is over, OpinionPleasanton will have
new moving targets—the agenda is the same only the names
have changed. The June 2005 special election to fill Mayor Jennifer
Hosterman’s vacated council seat will determine the balance
of power on the council. Jerry Thorne, a gentleman and a dedicated
community volunteer, would be our choice. But because much of
the city’s final development rests in this council’s
hands, don’t believe that the environmental extremists will
pass on running someone against Mr. Thorne. Planning commissioners
Brian Arkin and Anne Fox are the possible candidates. The next
six months will be fun. |
Feature Opinion
Hosterman ticks off McGovern and
Brozosky on appointments
Right out of the gate, Mayor Jennifer Hosterman put herself in the middle of a controversy. By taking the lion’s share of the committee assignments, she drew the ire of Vice Mayor Steve Brozosky and Counselor Cindy McGovern. Ms. McGovern was concerned that Ms. Hosterman would be too busy to adequately represent the city on 21 committees--Ms. Hosterman has ceremonial duties along with committee assignments and she is also a law student who works in her husband’s law office. She also expressed concern about the committee assignments for the fifth counselor when that person is sworn in after a June special election to fill the council seat Ms. Hosterman vacated to assume the mayor’s chair.
Ms. Hosterman proposed several changes that were adopted along with the proviso that she revisit the committee assignments in early January. One of those appointments was Mr. Brozosky as Vice Mayor.
Ms. McGovern wanted to serve on the school liaison committee and the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA). She served 10 years on the school board.
Mr. Brozosky wanted to opt out of a couple of committees where he had little interest.
Mr. Brozosky and new counselor Matt Sullivan were appointed to seven committees each and Ms. McGovern was appointed to five.
Mr. Sullivan was unfazed by the appointments and by the number of appointments. He rightly concluded that the appointments were the job of the mayor and that the mayor should not be “held hostage” because her appointments. He, of course, feels that Ms. Hosterman will more correctly represent “Pleasanton’s views”on the regional boards and committees. That position is militantly extremist when it comes to traffic management, air quality, and species habitat.
What was only obliquely said at the meeting was that Ms. Hosterman, by appointing herself to 21 committees, keeps the highest profile (for a run for higher office?) and controls Pleasanton’s public positions on myriad issues. Anyone who thought before the November election that that was not what her candidacy was all about must surely see the error of his ways. And, yes it is about trust. Ms. Hosterman does not trust Mr. Brozosky and Ms. McGovern to represent the eco extremist, anti business agenda to which she and Mr. Sullivan strictly adhere.
We admire Mr. Brozosky for broaching the subject. We admire Ms. McGovern even more for her early steadfastness. She, however, caved in under pressure (the compromise she accepted let the mayor off the hook). We cannot say that we were surprised. Ms. McGovern comes to the council from the school board where board members follow collegiality and consensus out the window. Preferring touchy feely collegiality to forthrightness, Ms. McGovern could not pull the trigger on deadlocking the council and putting Ms. Hosterman on the spot for appoints that are clearly doctrinaire, self serving, and patently unfair.
We cannot say that we are unhappy that Ms. McGovern will not serve as the school liaison. The school board and the city council are too cozy. The city council should not be financing schools as has been proposed and the city should not expect that the school board will continue to share the expense of playing fields and gymnasiums on school property.
We would like to see Mr. Brozosky on the LAVWMA committee. His business orientation will serve Pleasanton better than the mayor’s no growth “shut off the water and sewers and you shut off growth” agenda. Because of his long-time involvement in youth activities, he would be better as the school liaison.
The first January meeting will be an interesting one. We do not anticipate that Ms. Hosterman will back off her position now that she has slipped the noose. And we cannot predict what Ms. McGovern might do if the committee assignments are not re-jiggered. We can only hope that she will hold Ms. Hosterman’s feet to the fire. No matter the committee assignments, Ms. Hosterman will still control the agenda but she will be less conspicuous—an uncomfortable position for an eco egotist.
News
Opinion
Who pays for the eco—extremist
environmental experiments? You do and it is a big ticket. Homes sell
for a million plus and golf is $100
Did anyone notice that the $40 million Callippe Preserve Golf Course is now the Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space? The bureaucrats, heading for cover for the $25 million-plus overrun on the project, are trying to put on an eco-friendly happy face on the colossal screw up. If it is an open space project, they conclude, then it will be okay to spend an extra $25 million. (Why do they do that? Because we let them.) For the eco extremists, who are responsible for the expensive golf course, the extra $25 million is a small price to pay for screwing landowners and house builders out of evil profits.
They are still at it on several projects near the Happy Valley golf project. Lund Ranch, and Spotorno Ranch projects are being given the classic Pleasanton stall—stretch out the process so long that the projects become unprofitable and they will disappear or insist upon the extremely expensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that makes the housing “unaffordable” and causes the builder sell his interest in the project and move on to communities run by reasonable people with reasonable development policies. Dublin comes to mind. Or, we keep getting million dollar homes.
The next expensive project for the eco-extremists is the Staples Ranch property. Right now they have several arrows in their quiver. That property, they opine, would be a perfect place for a professional baseball stadium. Or it would be well suited for senior living. In either case, Stoneridge Drive can be dead ended, their final objective. It is interesting that IKEA would not have worked to kill off Stoneridge’s extension like the stadium will. Both will require plenty of parking and traffic circulation. Maybe those eco-extremists are also anti business? Hum? Were they not the same bunch that used the bully pulpit to excoriate Wal-Mart? Remember, Karen Pico was against Wal-Mart from the very beginning and husband Tom’s approval of Wal-Mart his worst decision.
Quick
Opinion
Former City Manager Deborah Acosta McKeehan said things move a little slowly in Pleasanton. She is correct, but five meetings behind?
Pleasanton’s Website
is too difficult to navigate. What’s more the information is
outdated. Worst of all, the council minutes are way behind schedule.
There is just no excuse not to have the minutes of the September 7,
2004 meeting and subsequent meetings completed and on the Website
for citizens to review. Certainly it is easier for citizens to acquaint
themselves with the inner workings of Pleasanton on the Internet than
it is to watch meetings on local access television. After all watching
on TV cuts into Vegas and hopping on the Internet only cheats the
boss of a minute or two.
After all of her experience,
we are surprised by her tentativeness
Mayor Jennifer Hosterman used her gavel very tentatively at her first council meeting. Admittedly, she was keelhauled right out of the gate by Vice Mayor Steve Brozosky and new Counselor Cindy McGovern when they objected to her committee appointments. But she never recovered.
Ms. Hosterman seemed confused about the conduct of the meeting and that is after two years on the council and a year or so as chair of the Bernal Property Task Force. We can only hope that she will settle in and rely less on the staff.
What she did well was to parrot ex-mayor Tom Pico and his “welcome” to every citizen who approached the speaker’s podium. We assume she will continue the childlike tradition of pointing to the community of character claptrap enumerated on a council chamber wall plaque and admonish citizens who have rough edges to be nice.
He waited until the audiences were small before speaking up
New Counselor Matt Sullivan appointed himself Mr. Energy before he
won election to the council. As a counselor, he gushed congratulations
to the Energy Committee (he was chairman) and then fired the first
environmental shots across the bow of the good ship capitalism. Mr.
Sullivan wants a higher profile energy and environmental committee,
commission, or permanent task force. All of this is working its way
toward the United Nation’s socialist sustainability proposition
using energy and the environment as the conduit. Sustainability is
bureaucratese for social engineering. Uncharacteristically, he waited
until everyone went home and the TV sets were turned off before putting
himself on the record. Hum? Come to think of it, he had very little
to say during the meeting. Maybe consent calendars, dog parks, and
Downtown Association funding are pedestrian obligations that must
be met before one can attack Wal-Mart.
Guest Opinion
Your say printed here
When the other newspapers cannot or will not print your conservative, business friendly opinions, give us a try. With another election in the offing and with another eco extremist council, you should have plenty to say.
-30-
Copyright © 2003 Opinion
Pleasanton. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Legal Stuff
All images on this site are copyrighted by N.E.W.Graphics,
with the exception of some altered public domain graphics and varous business
logos belonging to local businesses who support Opinion Pleasanton. No
graphic located on this site may be altered, sold, or put into any collection
without written confirmation from N.E.W. Productions. No article, poll,
or visitor comment may be altered or reprinted on another website or news
article without the express written permission of the Opinion Pleasanton
edtors,Bob Cordtz and James Jordan. To do so may result in legal action.
For more information on copyright laws and protections
click here.