My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
050713
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2013 11:35:57 AM
Creation date
5/6/2013 11:37:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/7/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Opinion-Friday,September 5, 2008 <br /> Guest Opinion <br /> NIMBY initiative is bad news <br /> by Peter MacDonald <br /> I had hoped with Pleasanton almost built out,that the growth v. no growth wars could quiet down.When City Council <br /> reached agreement on the draft General Plan Land Use Element early this year, it seemed that the council and community <br /> were coming to consensus about Pleasanton's future. But that consensus would be shattered by the poorly worded and <br /> unnecessary Peoples' Hillside Initiative(Measure PP on your November ballot). <br /> Measure PP is primarily a NIMBY(Not In My Back.Yard) Initiative. City Council approved the Oak Grove project last <br /> November by a 4-1 vote, and that triggered this NIMBY Initiative.A citizens'committee made up from adjacent <br /> neighborhoods endorsed the final project design by a substantial majority.The approved density is only half the density <br /> stated in the General Plan. <br /> So a minority of that neighbor committee broke away and started both a referendum and an initiative, against Oak Grove and <br /> other projects like it.They incorrectly believe that city politicians can interpret the stated density as rneaning any density <br /> between zero and the stated density. In their view. allowing even 50 percent of the stated density is a political gift, and <br /> dedicating a 490-acre public park is too small of a gift back. <br /> If a neighborhood minority can take away all of the property owners' rights in Oak Grove and similar properties,with no <br /> regard for the general plan or the Constitution, then the incentive for political gouging is too great, and the political wars will <br /> never end. <br /> That is good news for the lawyers who will litigate the tricky clauses and ambiguous wording of this NIMBY initiative. <br /> *That is good news for people who see our city government primarily as entertainment--a circus in which outcomes do not <br /> matter. <br /> * But this NIMBY initiative is bad news if you want city government that develops consensus, provides good service, is <br /> predictable, and is fair. <br /> This NIMBY initiative is bad news if you want parks and trails, and quality of life. (e.g.490-acre park on Oak Grove.) <br /> This NIMBY initiative is bad news if you want the general plan update finally completed, and a gereral plan that embodies <br /> a community consensus around a worthy vision for Pleasanton. <br /> The far better alternative is the initiative sponsored by our City Council (Measure QQ on your November ballot). Measure QQ <br /> sets up a consensus process to develop a hillside ordinance consistent with general plan hillside pclicies. <br /> [These views are strictly mine. I am not(yet)associated with the"No on Measure PP"Committee, if there is one.] <br /> Peter MacDonald was formerly the city attorney for the city of Pleasanton from 1982-1988 and formerly the chair of the Pleasanton Downtown <br /> Association board of directors. He practices law from his firm in downtown Pleasanton. <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.