...wait until the facts come out...the district is looking for a scapegoat...they've purchased a new facility and need the sale of their current site to pay for it...maybe it's not the city being difficult but the district being greedy...

>>they've purchased a new facility and need the sale of their current site to pay for it

that was always the plan, nothing new there. District doesn't control what the site will be appraised for if that is closer to what you trying to say?

Just remember if the city doesn't play ball, the state will force the issue and the city can't do a thing. Something to noodle on.

I would appreciate it if someone could answer these for me; my apologies if they have been discussed in previous posts.

*What are there any guarantees and % of this housing going to teachers and staff in the district? Or can international investors purchase?

*Does PUSD receive 100% of the sale, or is it spread to other districts in Alameda County?

*Who is providing the data to PUSD, and what 3rd party real estate firm have they consulted with?

>>Does PUSD receive 100% of the sale

PUSD fully owns the site and is the listed owner. They would get all net proceeds.

*What are there any guarantees and % of this housing going to teachers and staff in the district?

The district has not guaranteed any specific number of houses/dwellings going to teachers/staff.

Many are missing the point. Whether teachers buy the houses or not is not the main issue here. The issue is that the school district will go the route of state law AB2295 which will make the decision on how many houses and density of the housing and it will be completely out of the hands of our city council. The reason PUSD will do this - because 3 of our city council members voted not to go with the proposed PUSD plan, they wanted lower density and fewer houses. With AB2295 state law the housing density will be more than double and up to 5 stories on the Bernal property and a mixture of very low housing and moderate housing. Our city loses control - this is the point. 4 of our council members think they can win against the state. Another costly lawsuit and from past experience a losing venture for our city. Let your council members know they need to reevaluate their stance and accept PUSD offer! Send emails today or attend the meeting tonight.

Very thought-provoking article by Cheryl where she balanced the views with practical outcomes with a win for all parties. Another losing lawsuit for the city and wasted effort and money in the making. I feel there is a significant bias against lower-income housing and lower-income residents, and everything is done to create roadblocks in the name of "density" and "infrastructure."

PS: Moller Ranch needs to be added in the communities list.

Interesting.
PUSD takes taxpayer money for a new school they don't intend to build.
PUSD provides raises to administration before teachers
PUSD failed to listen to the community on reasonable bond measure commitment language
PUSD wants to sell land that belongs to taxpayers for their new offices.

PUSD has been notably absent from the top rated / distignuised school list this past year.
PUSD has failed to provide students with state mandated minimum instruction hours during covid, or make them up.
PUSD has failed to attract enrollment even though the number of students moving into Pleasanton is greater than those leaving.

Think its time for a board and administration change at PUSD.

The good news is that the 3 city council members who voted against PUSD proposal in December changed their minds, maybe enough public push back? Now they have accepted the original PUSD proposal rather than a fight with the State.

PP, great summary, and I suspect just the part of the iceberg that is showing.