Opinion Pleasanton Announcement  

When we are up-to-speed we will publish our opinions and yours every two weeks just after the city council meetings. For two weeks, we will be studying the opinions of others in vacation spots north and east. Issue four will appear at the end of August. We will be rested and relaxed and look forward to getting our reporter Deep Croak’s reports into your hands a.s.a.p.

Why Landowners Form Unholy Alliances With Greens
 

The Red Legged Frog has taken off the table a substantial number acres for “development” in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Alameda Whipsnake is about to take even more acres off the table. There are still many acres in play for the environmental extremists and they will likely use the San Joaquin Kit Fox to complete a trifecta confiscation of the remaining undeveloped private and public property. The eco-extremists will not be happy until all raw land is off limits to anyone but them.  

The Alameda Whipsnake issue, reported by Lisa Friedman in The Herald, Wednesday, November 22, 2000 has bubbled to the surface. It is no surprise that it happens now. It is a pattern of liberals and environmental extremists to bombard opponents with multiple issues and findings so as to confuse the agencies they’re goring and the people, who typically expect that those who represent them will protect their interests. A side benefit is the demonization of “developers” who the extremists have successfully labeled greedy, spoilers of the world. I think it will surprise the average citizen to discover that their representatives are oftentimes the backbone of the extremist organizations.  

In Friedman’s article there are a couple of curious lines. “They (whipsnake) feed on the northwest fence lizard and are, in turn, a tasty snack for golden eagles. ‘If you pull them out of the ecosystem, I can’t tell you what would happen. There are always repercussions when a species disappears, ‘ said biologist (Heather) Bell (a Fish & Wildlife biologist.) We wouldn’t know what those were until an animal completely disappeared, and we don’t want to go there.”  Bell can’t tell what would happen? She and the eco-extremists can’t tell what would happen and that is why their proposed habitat policy is based on faulty science and borders on unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment—the taking of private property.  

When ranchers and farmers pledge support for the confiscation of a portion of their property (Measure C), there’s something rotten in Denmark. They know they will never be given a fair shake by environmental extremists. (They really have never gotten over the eco-extremist opposition to bovine flatulence or Fish & Wildlife calling a tablespoon’s indentation in the land a wetland.) It is obvious that their accountants have convinced them that dedicating some of their “environmentally sensitive” land in exchange for the “right” to sell or develop the rest produces revenues far greater than could be generated by selling to this or that park district. In a desperate effort to maintain the value of their assets, they were willing to make a deal with the devil. Pragmatic or hypocritical? Pragmatic but a little disingenuous. Their alliance with builders has always been up front. They wanted their payday. Builders—especially in a good economy--were willing to pay the freight because they were going to realize a payday as well. Who, except socialist eco-radicals, could see anything dirty is this demonstration of capitalism? Their deal with greens, however, forced many of these landowners to offer only qualified public support for Measure C. Behind the scenes they hated their position but ultimately decided that a half a loaf was better than none. What they reaped from their Measure C support was Measure D—the unintended consequence of their temporary coexistence with terrorists.

Measure D proponents and backers are, straight-on, against all development. Development is evil. People who develop are evil. People who sell property to developers are evil. To stop all development, the D’s who are the eco-extremists, employ every guerrilla tactic they can remember from their anti-war, anti-establishment days. They have a new wrinkle—one with which we should pay particular attention. They now have money. The Sierra Club, the once proud champion of the little people (us), has now become a political action committee willing to finance local stop-growth measures. How did that happen? The U. S. Government is now doing their bidding. The Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act and habitat conservation plans have freed the club from their complete undivided attention to conservation and have most of all freed-up their money to jump into local politics. And since all politics is local, the Sierra Club is now free to support candidates and measures that support good and fight evil at city hall. It is not quite clear when the top-down directives from the federal bureaucrats left over from the Clinton-Gore administration will meet the bottom up directives from city halls all across the country. Unimpeded, it will not be long. A city on the move like Dublin is an anomaly. Pleasanton, Sunol and Livermore are more representative of the new kind of city hall.

The unintended consequence for this warfare is the possibility of injection of treated wastewater by the Dublin San Ramon Services District into the ground water table. The Livermore Amador Valley Management Agency (LAVMA) taking years to obtain a permit for repairing and expanding their wastewater pipeline to San Francisco Bay. The Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse is the Fish & Wildlife agency’s protected species that held up the permit. Without the pipeline and with very limited storage for treated wastewater DSRSD may not have any choice and elect to inject.

News Opinion

It’s the agenda stupid!

Over the last eight years, they haven’t been able to decide anything. Consider the council record for deciding priority issues. The over crossing at West Las Positas has been under study for 25 years, concentrated study for four years. The proposed assisted living facility on Sunol Blvd. has been under study for five years. The development of the Bernal Avenue property has been under study for 25 years, intense study for 10 years. The Happy Valley golf course has been studied for six years. Subsidized housing has been under review for 10 years with little to show for the effort except a fat bank account of $10+ million. (“Affordable housing” is what bureaucrats call subsidized housing to make welfare-state subsidies sound better. Affordable housing also differentiates it from housing projects, which usually connote squalor and lawlessness). New, and much needed power lines have been under study for 12 years.  

The Pedro’s decision (see Opinion Pleasanton, Vol. I, No. 2) was hasty, silly and vindictive. It happened during a changed meeting date--the evening Vice Mayor Sharrell Michelotti was out of town on a long-planned vacation that was scheduled so as not to interfere with her council duties. The original vote was a painful vote for Mayor Tom Pico and Councilwoman Kay Ayala. Mr. Pico and Ms. Ayala have not been used to losing council votes. It was the second setback for the new Dreamteam. They were obviously piqued at the outcome. Normally slothful in making decisions, it only took them two weeks to pack the council chamber and to successfully lobby Councilwoman Becky Dennis and ardent supporter of subsidized housing.  

What is the cost to city taxpayers for the slothful pace with which our leaders decide issues?  

First, those who would invest in Pleasanton are put off by the “process.” That process costs money and the investment may not pay off after proposals are left in the deep-freeze. Dublin gets things done and so investors can go there.

The Happy Valley Golf Course is a prime example. Developers do not know, after six years, whether they will get a return on their investment. The city, likewise, does not know whether green fees will be affordable because of increased costs.  

Consultants, staff time and support services cost the city a great deal of money. A heavy workload for the city employees also costs the city in staff morale, which is sometimes pretty low.  

Our city manager’s admission that “we do things pretty slowly in Pleasanton” is an understatement. She explains that because we want citizen involvement, we must go slowly. Her implication, of course, is that to go slowly is to do it right, which is not always the case. The rest of the story is that the citizen involvement is with the same people—a small number that many times represents only one point of view and one political agenda. In many cases, the decision to do nothing is reached ahead of time (Dreamteam agenda.) The years and years of studies and consultants are simply a way to ultimately dodge citizen ire if the final decision goes against the grain (the citizen committee takes the blame.) The longer a project languishes in one of the council’s citizen committees or task forces the easier it is for the people to lose interest and they will ultimately no longer care if this or that project materializes.