News Opinion

Pleasanton cannot come to grips with so-called affordable housing. No one wants to be called a bigot

In a guest opinion in the April 29, 2005 Pleasanton Weekly, former Vice Mayor Becky Dennis says, “Pleasanton doesn’t have to build any housing, but only to zone land to accommodate its fair share of regional housing need.” Does this mean that we dodge the question today and leave the solutions for future councils? Or, does it mean dodge the question today and hope that we will not have to deal with the solution ever because no land is available to re-zone? In either case, it is disingenuous. We are either obligated to provide so-called affordable housing or we are not. Dodging the question simply gets out of a potential jam but makes no statement about our commitment to affordable housing or our desire to plan our own community without interference from social engineers.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have mandated that California cities provide housing for many demographic groups including the very wealthy and the very poor with the very poor receiving subsidies.

ABAG is a quasi-governmental organization formed to compile data for member cities so that the cities themselves would not have to make that considerable investment. The data are used to address myriad issues with federal, state and local governments. It was not formed to make or enforce laws.

You already know the State of California. That is the dysfunctional organization that puts its hands into your pockets for myriad social programs that are across-the-board unsuccessful in solving the problems or manufactured problems they were designed to solve.

Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, no shrinking flower, wants to confront the state and ABAG. This David and Goliath position, which we support, is suited to Ms. Hosterman’s “bring it all down” political ideology. In this case, it is more honest to tell the state and ABAAG that we respectfully decline to meet their artificial goals for housing and will be forced to seek remedy should either organization impose sanctions for not giving in to this extortion.

That done, Pleasanton can go about the business of debating so-called affordable housing.

Feature Opinion

Will Scott Haggerty call the Pleasanton City Council a lousy pack of liars over their reneging on the ACE station?

Chances are slim that Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty will take the Pleasanton City Council to task for their abandonment of the Bernal ACE station promised several years ago. Eco-extremists far outnumber mass transit and clean air advocates in the Tri-Valley where Mr. Haggerty must troll for votes in his next election.

He has, however, much ammunition to rip the spineless counselors who ultimately caved in to a small group of Johnny come lately homeowners across the tracks from the best possible Bernal site. However, the council received cover from the homeowners because they were already planning to axe the station because it would not look pretty and because it would clash with sports fields, animal parks, and collection ponds.

It is evident that Mr. Haggerty has applied sufficient behind the scenes pressure to keep the station on Bernal because City Attorney Michael Rousch recently advised counselors that they would be setting themselves up for litigation if they removed the station completely from the Bernal plans they are considering. Mr. Rousch suggested that the council continue to “study” the station on Bernal and that would satisfy the promise they made to Haggerty and to ACE. This is the same kind of double-dealing that the city has pulled in Happy Valley.

It is now up to Mr. Haggerty to go full steam ahead for ACE or track left and tie in with the obstructionists. We look for the latter.

Quick Opinion

They do not want your opinion. They only need a body count

Citizen input is not what City Fathers have in mind when they hold townhall meetings and workshops. They simply need a guest list to perpetuate the myth that this or that issue has been fully vetted by the public.

At their last traffic workshop their four to zero vote to eliminate the Stoneridge Drive extension to El Charro Road clearly showed that they have already formed an opinion and no amount of information will change their opinions. (That is even in the face of traffic models developed by city traffic engineers that show that the extension would relieve traffic throughout the city.)

No more fighting

We suspect that candidates for City Council will stop protecting us and stop fighting for us when the city reaches build-out. Until then, we must endure the pugilistic pontifications of a bunch of odd balls who think business people are evil and citizens are stupid.

In the June 7 election, we have two candidates who are protecting Pleasanton’s future and fighting for neighborhoods. We recommend that voters run from these two who have never specified just who is menacing us. Some of us who have been around since the 70’s know that they are speaking of developers and homebuilders. However, for newbies, homebuilder is not a bad word. Consequently, the enemy to be fought will remain vague so as to avoid the fight’s being specious. The mayor has been fighting for us for a little more than two years and when she runs for re-election next year, she will be back in the ring rest assured.

We have never understood why there was so much fighting in Pleasanton. Homebuilders and developers have given in to the extortion of the extremists on the council. They simply tack on the extortion cost onto their rents or their selling prices—easy peesy here in Pleasanton. Surely it cannot be about the environment. Gridlock, created by the eco extremists, puts more pollution into the air than free-moving thoroughfares.

With so much protection and fighting over the last fifteen years, why do we still have traffic gridlock? Why do we still have flood control issues? Why do we still have mass transit issues? Why do we still have downtown parking issues? Why do we still have public facilities issues?

Rather than fighting, maybe it is time to cooperate. When we all got along, we produced the Stoneridge Mall, the Hacienda Business Park, and a vibrant downtown--the three projects that have given us our quality of life some say that they are fighting to maintain.

Guest Opinion

To Planning Commissioner Brian Arkin:


Your election blurb arrived in the mail last week. My opinion is that it is ego driven and the tone elitist. You have protected me? From what, a senior citizen terrorist group who couldn’t get as little as five acres on the Bernal property for senior housing? Those who cannot live here because only millionaires can afford to buy in? (accept possibly those who could pick up a doublewide trailer.) Or, maybe from someone who is just trying to get to work?

Rather, in the final analysis, I would suggest that Pleasanton needs protection from the existing City Council, three of which endorsed you. Then let us not leave out the mayor and the queen of green Jennifer Hosterman and your cohorts on the Planning Commission, the mayor’s primary tool.

Sorry brother, you give lip service and nothing else.

Gerry Brunken

Goose-stepping in New York

Pleasanton Mayor Hosterman was marching with Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates and his wife, Loni Hancock. Loni is the daughter of [Donald S. Harrington, chair of the New York Liberal Party in 1967.] They were marching with [Mike Rotkin] mayor of Santa Cruz in the New York parade event. Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Pleasanton! Power to the people! Wake up Pleasanton!

Judy Symcox

Will not vote

In his letter to the editor in the “Tri Valley Herald on May 26, Herbert H. Marshall has it exactly right when he says “…our current leaders and those running for office are bowing to the parochial viewpoints of those who live on the east side and to hell with the long-term needs of our entire city.”

-30-