Volume Five, Number 7                                        What ElseYou Need To Know                                    May 25, 2006

 

Do not re-elect Mayor Hosterman. She is more concerned with her national agenda than Pleasanton’s traffic problems

Mayor Jennifer Hosterman thinks she should be re-elected because of her leadership on: “transportation and traffic issues, economic development, fiscal responsibility, delivering quality city services, a strong downtown, protecting the environment, fostering cultural diversity, and maintaining integrity and character of our neighborhoods are high on my list of priorities,” the mayor announced. Like most liberal politicians, she lives in fantasyland.

There is no doubt that Ms. Hosterman is a socialist. The list above includes two items that are proof positive that the mayor is more interested in ideology and agenda politics and less interested in Pleasanton problem solving. Fostering cultural diversity is code for Caucasian men need not apply. Protecting the environment is code for building and living in Pleasanton will be substantially more expensive than in most communities without “environmental protection.”

Environmental extremists who feel “four legs good, two legs bad” are conflicted because their brand of extremism usually means that economically challenged citizens cannot afford to live in a community whose environment is “protected.” Protection is usually study after study of real or imagined species, habitat, or habitat mitigation by state and federal agencies that issue “permits” and whose charter is to stop development. Protection can also mean lawsuits from the likes of the Center for Biological Diversity or the Sierra Club—usually with the winks and nods from the government agencies involved.

In the past the extremists have been able to substantially subsidize housing so that those who cannot normally afford to live here could (there are many apartment units in the city subsidy program and we have rent control to favor another group). The problem they have recently run into is that those housing units usually set aside for subsidizing are also now so expensive to build by those evil developers that even the subsidy does not work to make these units “affordable.”

The result is elitism. Under Ms. Hosterman Pleasanton is one of the best examples.

Fostering cultural diversity becomes a little more difficult when only wealthy Indians and Asians can afford our $million homes. Fostering is supposed to be an income redistribution system—from each according to his means to each according to his need. Certainly no one would feel any obligation to wealthy residents.

Ms. Hosterman and other community socialists have been able to slip the noose because the schools do most of the celebrating and fostering and the press with a gratuitous picture here of Indian boys dancing in traditional dress and a story there of a food fair featuring humus, foul mudammes, and curry usually did the trick. Today, however, it is much more complicated. Most people know that this is not cultural diversity but simply pap to assuage socialist guilt for their electorate having so much and being unable to redistribute it for them to those who do not.

The only good to come of the school’s co-operation in pursuit of one-world government is the beginning of the indoctrination process of our children toward pluralism, wealth redistribution, and anti-Americanism. But it comes at a price—the hypocrisy of the elitism is easy to spot in wealthier communities such as Pleasanton, Danville, and San Ramon.

Consequently Ms. Hosterman’s elitism Velcroed to her arrogance disqualifies her for
re-election in a capitalist community. Furthermore, she is more interested in working with Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley and Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez to block energy exploration. And, her record on issues important to Pleasanton has not even been put under the microscope.

Traffic and transportation issues should be Ms Hosterman’s undoing. In her years on the council and as mayor traffic has gotten substantially worse and transportation has seen little or no improvement. About the only thing that Ms. Hosterman has contributed is that she thinks BART is dirty and a turnoff for her elite constituency. Worst of all Ms. Hosterman believes that Stoneridge Drive should not be extended thereby removing a planned and approved road system element from the city traffic circulation plan. The result (even with the city-county compromise on the Stoneridge Drive extension) is for the Livermore to Pleasanton drive to remain next to impossible. Ms. Hosterman has done nothing to support the ACE Train service through Pleasanton to Silicon Valley. In fact, her opposition to the long promised ACE Train station on the Bernal property has a negative effect on the system itself. Her passion for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes or diamond lanes (Sierra Club lanes) is proof positive that she is more interested in rhetoric than solutions to traffic and pollution—HOV lanes do not work because there are few users and the remaining lanes bog down with cars traveling at less than freeway speeds which contributes to air pollution. Her membership on the various transportation committees is window dressing.

Fiscal responsibility is a joke when spoken in the same breath with Ms. Hosterman. Housing costs too much in Pleasanton because of environmental hoops that Ms. Hosterman supports. Housing costs too much in Pleasanton because of the fees and permits the city attaches to projects. Housing costs too much in Pleasanton because of the city bureaucracy—predisposed to denying development. What’s more, prices in Pleasanton are high because business owners pay high rents because Ms. Hosterman also supports all of the same red tape for business development as she does for housing.

She has also left to future city councils and mayors the repayment of the Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space bond retirement on the project that was 100% over budget—certainly not fiscally responsible.

Finally, she has offered no plan for sustaining the level of services and government we have when building stops and there are no more builders from which to extort amenities and fees.

She has no plan for economic development. Having such a plan would imply that she wants economic development. Development means growth and that is an anathema to Ms. Hosterman. So whatever successes we have had in business and job creation has been in spite of Ms. Hosterman and not because of her.

Who would not want a strong downtown and just what is a strong downtown? If it is a downtown crowded with cars and pedestrians and busy restaurants and shops, that is what everyone wants. If it is something else, what is it?

What is maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhoods? That sounds simply like stop the Stoneridge Drive extension. She has successfully stopped the extension (see story in Feature Opinion this issue) and should be blamed for it not praised—we are less safe for it and certainly more inconvenienced because of it. But that is not the extent to how maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhoods has been bad for the city. Pitting competing interests against one another has Balkanized the city. Pitting neighbor against neighbor, special interest against special interest had done little to unite the various neighborhoods behind the common good. Downtown and good schools are the two things that indicate to the outside world a united community filled with pride about their quality of living in Pleasanton (not to be confused with the claptrap of quality of life—two hour commutes in and out of the city cannot be considered a quality of life positive).

Lastly, what are quality city services? Chasing tax-paying business away from town cannot be considered quality city service—except for the eco extremists who want no growth, period. Long waits to get permits to build anything here or remodel anything here cannot possibly qualify for quality city services. Expensive architectural peer review with the same outcome no matter the project is not quality city service except to the city bureaucrat or the consultant who lets the review contract. Outrageous fees and permit costs tacked on to already expensive land and building costs cannot be considered quality city services. Ms. Hosterman has shown no interest in changing this city corporate culture.

There is probably nothing Ms. Hosterman can do to change the impression of her as an eco-extremist who spouts her “man needs earth, earth does not need man” drivel from the extremist left hymnal—no make that playbook, we have separation of church and state. But it will be interesting to see how far she goes to cover for her socialist views—her address to the Chamber of Commerce about the state of the city being the last and most humorous example of Ms. Hosterman’s Hillaryization.

 

 

Why is City Hall hostile to building applications? Who is Larry Cannon and why has he gotten the commission to design the city? Does the feminized planning staff make for a prettier city? Plan reviews are outsourced, why? Is the direction of the City Manager to staff up with generalists and outsource to specialists? Are we paying too much for generalists? Wage comparisons-- how can you can you do it when there are not that many private sector cushy jobs with a tremendous retirement package and other fringe benefits where you call all the shots.


Feature Opinion  

 

Staples Ranch accord only good for the obstructionists

The Staples Ranch accord between Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton paving the way for the development of the Hendrick Automotive Group auto mall development and the Continuing Life Communities senior living project is not good for the city or for our Livermore and Dublin neighbors. The fact that the auto mall, that will produce more than $1 million in sales tax revenue, is moving forward is the lone positive in the accord.

We are disappointed that Supervisor Scott Haggerty, holding all of the cards in this negotiation, did not hold his ground on the Stoneridge Drive extension to El Charro Road and eventually El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard. Stoneridge Drive, long-planned to complete city and regional traffic circulation plans to connect Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, is too vital to Tri-Valley traffic not to be completed as soon as possible (with the development of the auto mall and the senior housing project). Leaving the extension up to future city councils is ducking the issue today and rolling the dice for tomorrow.

Having a blocked Stoneridge Drive available to emergency vehicles is not a solution to getting emergency patients to Valley Care Medical Center, disaster evacuations from the Lawrence Livermore Lab, disaster relief from the Livermore Airport to Pleasanton and Dublin, or the free flow of police and fire vehicles for mutual aid. While it is better than nothing it is still a band-aid.

We are hoping that Mr. Haggerty—along with Dublin Mayor Janet Lockhart and Livermore Mayor Marshall Kamena--will continue to exert pressure on Pleasanton to make the extension a permanent, open to all, roadway as soon as possible. Ms. Lockhart and Mr. Kamena are anti-developer, environmental extremist types and can have a positive influence on Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, who continues to operate under the mistaken notion that opening this long-planned thoroughfare will increase so-called cut-through traffic—long disputed by Pleasanton’s own traffic engineer.

There is more at stake in this issue as well. While it is completely understandable that those who live near the extension would not want it completed, it is beyond the pale to believe that the long-approved and long-planned project should be held hostage by those same residents. They bought there knowing full well that Stoneridge Drive would be extended. If they did not, shame on them for not seeing the obvious or investigating the issue.

City counselors and council candidates who support the residents do so strictly for political purposes it is plain to see. Their “fighting for the neighborhood” endangers Tri-Valley residents in case of a disaster or an emergency and they inconvenience their constituents just for a few votes. More importantly, their transparent attempt to garner votes pits residents looking for traffic relief against Mohr-Martin residents.

Making the Mohr-Martin residents into victims is laughable. But what is not funny is that this transparent political ploy stifles rational discussion of the issue and ramps up the heated, divisive rhetoric. This situation spills over into other citywide issues as well. Voting NO on the Bernal plan this November will be characterized as anti-environment, anti-sports, and anti-education. Proposing a lifting of the housing cap to ensure a well-planned build out will be characterized as pro-developer, anti-environment. Opposing the school parcel tax that will certainly be on the ballot—even without the $37,500 for the consultant—will be characterized as anti-children, anti-education, and selfish.

The Stoneridge Drive extension was well planned. This is not shoehorning a four-lane road through an existing neighborhood. It was more of building homes near a well- designed major thoroughfare. The only mitigation not implemented in the extension project is speed limit—that will be left up to the police department to determine when the time comes. But all other mitigations have been a part of the Mohr-Martin housing developments. Sound walls, large setbacks, generous landscaped medians, and few streets opening onto Stoneridge Drive have all been implemented.

It is time for the people of Pleasanton to stand up for what is good for the entire city. If that means voting out otherwise acceptable counselors, so be it. This issue is dividing the community and stifling legitimate discussions on this and other important issues.

 

News Opinion


Brozosky announces for mayor

Counselor Steve Brozosky has decided to run for mayor against incumbent Mayor Jennifer Hosterman who announced her re-election hopes May 18, 2006. (See Page One story.)

Mr. Brozosky, who served as Vice Mayor while Ms. Hosterman was tied down with law school studies and the bar exam the first time around, decided to run for mayor rather than run for re-election to his council seat because he wants to “pick up the level of his community service.”

Mr. Brozosky, a businessman himself, hopes to influence the city bureaucrats to become business friendly, or at the very least, not hostile to business.

Mercer quiet in his king making

Former Mayor Ken Mercer has not given any indication that he will try to sabotage the candidacy of counselor Steve Brozosky like he did two years ago to former Vice Mayor Kay Ayala. Ms. Ayala lost to Mayor Jennifer Hosterman in a three-way race for mayor. Mr. Mercer’s out-of-nowhere candidate, Gabe Kralik, changed the election dynamic just enough to sink Ms. Ayala. Mr. Kralik recently missed on his appointment bid to fill the vacant seat on the Pleasanton Unified School District board so he is available.

Thorne announces for re-election

Counselor Jerry Thorne has thrown his has into the ring for re-election to the city council seat he won last June—the seat that Mayor Jennifer Hosterman vacated to become mayor.
He hopes, like counselor Steve Brozosky, to change the corporate culture at City Hall so that Pleasanton can become more business friendly. He also wants to look at city expenses that he feels might be out of control.

She just will not stop. No buses? Ride your bike

Mayor Jennifer Hosterman’s school busing pilot program proposal is an excellent one. In buses our children would be safer, our streets less congested, and our air cleaner if students and parents garaged their vehicles. Bravo Madame Mayor.

Ms. Hosterman, however, cannot leave well enough alone. In a letter to the editor in the Tri-Valley Herald, May 17, 2006, she suggests that bicycles and bike trails will have an impact on traffic and the environment. She just doesn’t see the forest for the trees. The kids will not ride bikes to school and the trails are used for recreation—mostly by adults. And energy efficient buses? If energy efficient buses are a prerequisite for her program, Ms. Hosterman is dooming it even before it gets started. Battery buses, solar busses and hydrogen busses are impractical. The technology is just not there but if it were the expense is pretty much out of reach for a local pilot program.

Should we reward mediocrity with more money from a parcel tax?

We told you that the Pleasanton Unified School District would propose a school parcel tax. It was inevitable once they formed their Excellence Committee. Excellence does not come cheap.

Right off the bat is has already cost $37,500 for a consultant, the Lew Edwards Group, to see if the taxpayers will stand for such an outrageous idea. Consultant fees will be spent mainly developing an “overall outreach plan to build community awareness” and to prepare brochures, mailers, and radio and TV spots. Polling will cost an additional $25,000 and mailing another $32,000. (The savings from moving school board elections to even years is now out the window with the consultant and propaganda expenses.)

Oh sure, the educrats will go through the charade of “finding out what the community thinks” of the idea but they can hardly contain themselves thinking of the new programs they can put into place. The board wants the tax and with a wink and a nod will get their consultant to reach the conclusion that the community also wants the tax. That is easy to do. The consultant simply rigs the community survey to get the desired result—that is the way it is done and with staff and school volunteers being trained by the consultant to do the polling, it is a slam-dunk.

Not more than a handful of Pleasanton residents will tell the consultant or the school staff and volunteers that the schools already have too much money and that their educational results do not warrant giving them any more money. Chalk that up to political correctness. With no objections it will look as though the community is behind the plan.

Nevertheless, the consultant will prepare a push poll—pushing the respondents to give the desired answers. For instance, “if the school district could increase API test scores five points or more wouldn’t just fifty cents a day in parcel tax contributions be worth it?”

It is a sure thing that you will not have a question such as “the school district, with some of the highest paid teachers in the state, has been unable to improve API test scores above mediocre when compared to other communities with similar demographics and socio economic make-up. But, would you be willing anyway to spend an extra $182.50 a year in property tax to most likely deliver the same result?”

This likely proposition comes as a result of a 55-member Excellence Committee report calling for increased counseling services, class size reduction, and increasing technology support.

First, be skeptical of anything from a committee called the Excellence Committee. Second, distrust anything that comes out of a 55-member committee. Third, be aware that any committee comprised of educrats, teachers, and parent volunteers will come up with programs that involve more teachers and much more money. Fourth, do not believe the numbers, they are almost never correct and the taxers will be back looking for more. Fifth, “making all middle and high schools wireless hot spots and installing smart classroom technology and increasing computer technicians” is the stuff that only educrats could appreciate.

Class size reduction has not worked. Test scores prove it. Of course, class size reduction is the most expensive of the committee’s priorities taking up more than half of the $15 million price tag for all three priorities.

Because the Excellence Committee’s complete wish list has 22 items, you can be sure that the district will ask that the parcel tax be continued beyond its deadline to cover the 19 other items that were not covered by this fist tax. Count on it.

Guest Opinion

 

Just what does Paulette want?

Paulette Kenyon is a way out there. In her May 16, 2006 letter to the Tri-Valley Herald she says in part, “I can only hope that the millions of Latinos coming here will bring with them the same fire that fueled the labor movements in the 1920s and ‘30s. I see Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales speaking of empowering the workers, and it gives me hope that out of all this, a flower will begin to grow. If Americans are incapable of growing this flower, then maybe our new immigrants will show us the way. Si se puede!”

Ms. Kenyon’s anti-Americanism is beginning to wear a little thin.

It is evident that there is no labor movement especially when big labor stands impotent watching those millions of Latinos coming here taking away American jobs, seats in American schools, and destroying medical care by overburdening the system.

Living wage is mumbo jumbo to make liberals feel better

Joe McAdams’ letter to the Pleasanton Weekly last October 21, 2005 is a little off kilter ala Paulette Kenyon’s letter (above) to the Tri-Valley Herald. Mr. McAdams says “When I entered the workforce way back in the 60s, it was the norm that a young, one-wage family could purchase housing.” He did not mention where that was the norm but it was not around here.

Minimum wage earners will never afford houses in Pleasanton. This is just like it was in the 60s and 70s when affordable homes for young Concord and Walnut Creek workers were in Dublin and Pleasanton. Consequently paying a living wage to minimum wage workers in Pleasanton is irrelevant since those workers live in Ripon and Riverbank or three families to an apartment in Archstone where it is affordable.

Finally, Mr. McAdams really wants to bash big business and the world economy and simply mistakenly hitches his argument to Mayor Jennifer Hosterman’s living wage wagon. The living wage is a limousine liberal guilt trip.

Show us the accomplishment and we will show you the money

Joe McAdams redeems himself, however, with his April 21, 2006 letter to the Pleasanton Weekly calling the idea of a parcel tax for the school district to deliver more of the same is right on target. Mr. McAdams said, “…a new tax shouldn’t be required to accomplish reading and math goals, which most residents will agree are current expectations of the school district.” (See parcel tax story in News Opinion.)

 

 

 

-30-

Copyright © 2006 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.