Article reprinted from Pleasanton Weekly Town Square, published 10/16/18:
It has been a good two weeks for proponents of “Yes on Measure MM”, known by many as the “No Costco Initiative.” Documents provided to the Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth under the California Public Records Request have given new details into the negotiations between the City and Costco/ Nearon. City and taxpayer costs have been revealed at nearly $20 million, substantially more than originally thought, and could go much higher with increased construction costs which will undoubtedly result. The borrowing was revealed at $7,500,000 for 25 years; not the $6,000,000 as previously stated in the April 12 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop- (minutes and audio missing). The negotiations between the City and Costco were finalized in April, and confirming emails were exchanged on May 11 and 12. Both parties agreeing that this the final deal, Costco using the term “non-negotiable”, and the City using the word “impasse”, if not accepted.
The details from the documents and alleged secretive negotiations have led the Pleasanton Citizens for Planned Growth to file complaints with both the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury and the Fair Political Practices Commission. This citizens group (PCRG) is in no way related to Bill Wheeler, or the Citizens for Planned Growth (CFPG), a separate citizens coalition.
In another favorable development, the Alameda Democratic Party in an unprecedented move, rescinded its previous position on “no on Measure MM” by a 72% majority vote. Obviously, there were compelling reasons.
Additionally, Pleasanton Voters, a strong advocacy group for maintaining the quality of life in Pleasanton, endorsed “Yes on MM” on Monday.
On Thursday, the only two Pleasanton candidates who showed up for the forum/debate moderated by Juliette Goodrich, KPIX Channel 5, at the Firehouse Arts Center– Karla Brown and Julie Testa, both endorsed “Yes on MM”.
And finally, even the Pleasanton Weekly in its editorial of endorsements on Friday, mentions MM and the need for sales tax revenue, but did not directly say “no on MM”, as previously stated. Could there be a softening in their position after learning more of the details?
More documents are scheduled for release by PCRG as reviewed.