Plenty of confusion with Measure K | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

Plenty of confusion with Measure K

Uploaded: May 31, 2016
The Measure K campaign in Pleasanton has evolved just as expected—confusion for the voters.
I have read many blog comments that demonstrate just why the messages from both sides are strikingly similar.
For instance, how can 43 homes result in open space? Well, if you put the homes in a valley on about 200 acres of land, there’s plenty of open space left over for public use. In contrast to some other projects—Kottinger Ranch, for instance—the City Council approval requires 174 acres of open space that is accessible to the public.
On a property that easily could hold three or four times that many homes, it’s a cost of doing business for the developer to dedicate that much land to the public. What it does is drive the cost of each house higher because there are costs that Greenbriar must cover and the firm still expects to make money.
The same goes for why Greenbriar is footing the bill for the “Yes on K” campaign. What other entity would contribute? There may be a few citizens and businesses that believe in fulfilling the city’s General Plan in that area, but Greenbriar is the firm that expects to benefit and thus will pay the bill.
On the opposite side, it’s residents in Bridle Creek and a few others that fronted the money for using paid signature-gatherers to qualify the referendum and then are paying the freight. Judging by the messaging points that are being used, they have employed a professional firm that has done enough polling to know what words to use.
As I have previously observed, this is a new game in Pleasanton where enough wealthy people have moved in the past number of years (they are by no means limited to Ruby Hill) that residents have the means to pay to achieve their political goals.
The irony is that typically has been the charge of paying to play that is leveled at homebuilders, but now has been extended into affluent neighborhoods in Pleasanton.


Comments

 +   1 person likes this
Posted by SHale99, a resident of San Ramon,
on May 31, 2016 at 11:52 am

SHale99 is a registered user.

oh boy, another thread. Please no old arguments pro/con. You guys just keep going in circles. I predict K will win by wide margin. these safe boards are not an indication of the voting public by any means.

No homes in the hills
Huge amount of FREE, open protected land/trails etc
No cost to taxpayers, well mostly

Only negative those 43 houses will be McMansions and so not middle class digs.



 +   11 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 31, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Thanks again, Tim, for telling it like it is.

From 1/1/16 through 4/23/16 alone, the No on K side's personal financial contributions total over $42,000, including several contributions totaling thousands of dollars each from Pleasanton residents Allen Roberts, David Melaugh, Bill Lincoln, Greg Wohlenberg, and Greg O'Connor.

This same group (along with two others) has since made another $30,770 in personal financial contributions from 4/25/16 through 5/20/16.

Check it all out here: Web Link

Bill Lincoln - lives atop a hill/ridge in the Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek neighborhood, looking down upon the valley the Lund Ranch II project will be built (i.e., no homes being built on his or any hillside in the project area).

Lincoln's now personally contributed nearly $9,000 of that total.

Greg Wohlenberg - lives in Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek. Wohlenberg has now personally contributed over $8,000.

David Melaugh - lives in Bridle Creek. Melaugh has now personally contributed over $8,600.

Allen Roberts - a developer who lives atop a hillside, in a gated (private) community, Grey Eagle Estates. Roberts has now personally contributed over $8,600.

Greg O'Connor - a current City of Pleasanton Planning Commissioner. O'Connor has now personally contributed over $8,600.

Luis Beas, a resident of Bridle Creek, has personally contributed close to $12,000.

Timothy Chu has personally contributed over $4,800.

A "no" vote is all about appeasing and satisfying the selfish NIMBY desires of these select few wealthy individuals who refuse to accept a fair compromise decision regarding the traffic access to 31 of the 43 homes through Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek via an extension to Sunset Creek Lane.

Vote YES on Measure K - NOT for the Developer, for ALL Pleasantonians, instead of satisfying a few selfish, wealthy residents' NIMBYism.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 1, 2016 at 4:50 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

The confusion exhibited is from all those supporting no on measure K.
Those supporting YES on measure K are not confused.
They understand it and have it analyzed correctly.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Jack kevin, a resident of Amador Estates,
on Jun 6, 2016 at 4:56 am

The impacts on mental and physical prosperity, wellbeing related personal satisfaction and long haul adherence to physical movement, of interest in physical action in regular habitats contrasted and physical action inside. Web Link


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Steve, a resident of Stoneridge,
on Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 am

I'm confused as to why we need to vote on this. I can't believe that we need to vote Yes just to get free space.

Don't existing laws allow the development to go ahead? If not, what is the part of existing law that doesn't allow it? That is the part that I haven't heard from Yes voters.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jun 6, 2016 at 11:49 am

@Steve,

Let me try to clear up the confusion for you.

The reason we're voting on this is because the No on K supporters spent close to $30,000 to get enough signatures to qualify what is currently an approved project onto the ballot for all Pleasanton voters to either reaffirm or reject the City Council's previous approval on 1/5/16 via a referendum, which, if it (Measure K) does not pass, will rescind/reject the currently approved project, but won't stop development of the property. Just means the developer comes back in 1 year with yet another proposal.

Voting yes ensures 'free,' or rather, PUBLIC open space. The 174 acres is currently the private property of the developer, Greenbriar, who, if Measure K passes (via a simple majority of Yes votes), will give that acreage to the City of Pleasanton to be deeded as permanent, PUBLIC open space that can NOT be developed. It'll be off the books for any future development.

Yes, existing laws, namely, the City's General Plan, allow for the development of the Lund Ranch II property to go ahead. This property has been on the books for residential development since 1986.

Hope that helps.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Assemblyman proposes driving up housing costs to delight unions
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 1,628 views

“Give Me Liberty AND Give Me Death”?
By Tom Cushing | 7 comments | 467 views

My New Letter to President Trump
By Roz Rogoff | 4 comments | 368 views

Women’s History Month
By John A. Barry | 6 comments | 277 views