Town Square

Post a New Topic

Affordable Housing, Not High Density Housing

Original post made by Happy Disposition, Downtown, on Jan 3, 2012

Proposed high density housing is being pushed onto the Pleasanton community again under the mask of affordable housing, and forced by a questionable Housing Coalition who's agendas seem to profit developers. Yes there is a need for affordable housing. but, as you know, that term is relative. Affordable housing yes, High density, NO. Schools will become even more crowded. Class sizes will have to increase. utilities will increase. Traffic has become worse and will get worse. There is enough affordable housing in nearby towns and areas without having to force it in Pleasanton. Record forclosed homes are available and affordable. But We all know it's not about whats right, its about what is proffitable. Notice all the development in the 580 area. New outlet stores, more Safeways per a sq mile. More Targets HMMMM, seems like there is a plan. This area is on its way to becoming the next San Jose. I am sure there will Be a Proposed Arena in the future. Get involved and voice your objection to high density affordable housing. Use Forums like this. Talk about it to your Friends, In your Mothers clubs, with parents at your kids sporting events, at church. Remember your invovment will affect your kids future quality of life in there home town.

Thanks for listening

Comments (21)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nora
a resident of Birdland
on Jan 3, 2012 at 11:04 am

"Yes there is a need for affordable housing. but, as you know, that term is relative."

I agree hole-heartedly. Face it. Everything is relative. Hunger. Poverty. Take hunger. People who cry about not being able to feed their kids should just realize that hunger is a relative term. Instead of telling one's kids to go without, just define hunger as a weakness that comes from not having the strength or conviction to accept a prolonged crash diet. My great grandfather worked in a steel mill for most of his life.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 3, 2012 at 12:01 pm

nora...did you mean to say "hole"?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Yes, Spread 'em out
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Having high density low income is not good. Turns into instant slums.
Much better would be to share the "wealth". If the majority in an area have high standards, it can help prevent the rapid deterioration in ethics.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bowler
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jan 3, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Happy Disposition, you should do some research on what is driving the City of Pleasanton Housing Element Update plan.

In a nutshell, the city lost a law suit because our general plan included a housing cap that was set decades ago and did not meet state requirements for inclusive housing. The remedy included, among several things, a Climate Action Plan and the rezoning of 15 sites around the city. Those 15 sites will be available for development at 30 units per acre.

As for the social impacts, again, you need to do some research. Your blanket statements about the negative aspects of density are not based in fact, but in fear. This document from the California Planning Roundtable is a good start:
Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm

I am disappointed by the City's helpless victim mantra. Should we all be helpless victims and watch Pleasanton's quality of life be lost because of the law suit? Three thousand units are just the begining of new housing numbers that will be assigned to Pleasanton every year.






 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 3, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Hacienda Business Park was constructed to be just that. Land set aside for businesses. In fact, over twenty years ago, a developer wanted to build apartment complexes on this land. The developer was told that the business park was not for residential and could not be re-zoned as such.

Along came the recession of the early 90s and all of a sudden Hacienda became re-zoned for mixed use. Prudential was losing money on all the empty land and office space. They begged the city to allow the re-zoning for development of the apartments along Owens and the townhouses at Los Positas and Stoneridge. This was suppose to be the extent of the "residential" development.

Then came Hart middle school. Another exception to the rule.

Pleasanton's motto of City of "Planned" Progress is laughable. Things are planned but they can always be changed. Especially if the developers fund the city council's re-election campaigns.

Question - if you are female and worked at Oracle, and parked your car in the multi-story garage, how comfortable would you be leaving work at night when you know that a high density housing complex is across the street?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nora
a resident of Birdland
on Jan 3, 2012 at 1:25 pm

"Should we all be helpless victims and watch Pleasanton's quality of life be lost because of the law suit?"

Heck no!!! We need to begin an "UnOccupy Pleasanton" movement. Being the wealthiest small city in the United States puts us in the top 1%. And we deserve to remain here!!! There can be no justification for low income people to move into our midst and spread their lack of ethics throughout our morally holesome community.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curious
a resident of Del Prado
on Jan 3, 2012 at 2:02 pm

I understand we lost the lawsuit, but why do cities like Danville, Alamo, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga not have the same requirements for affordable or low income housing?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Nora you are such a hostile promoter of class warfare. When I, and I think most Pleasanton residents, show concern about quality of life, it is a concern about unmitigated growth that will over burden Pleasanton's infrastructure, like schools, roads and libraries, that are already beyond capacity. I do not refer to income level.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by analyst
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 3, 2012 at 2:34 pm

Yes, I bet JT went on and on about expansion of box stores in the area. Because it's not low income housing, it's 'unmitigated growth' that's the problem. Right. Believability quotient: 16%.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 3, 2012 at 2:57 pm

If you are having a problem parking in San Francisco, just drive over to the nearest section 8 housing project. Plenty of on street parking. Of course if you do, your car will be stripped.

Danville, Alamo, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga probably do not have to build high density housing projects because their city attorneys and city council members understand that they are representatives of the will of the people and will actually fight for the rights of their citizens. Our city attorney and city council members are just riding the political gravy train. Looking for the next step in their political careers. Don't want to make waves with Governor "on a safari with Linda Ronstadt" Brown or a communist organization like Urban Habitat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm

It's my hope that high density housing will introduce Plutonia to people from all over the world...Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East.

That would be a dream (or a nightmare) come true!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Jan 3, 2012 at 4:35 pm

cholo, when you actually live in Pleasanton, we can all take your posts seriously (or not) when it comes to quality of life here.

I have to admit, you did embarass nora/jane/slippers with her 'hole' gaffe in her first post.....I'm sure she believes everything she writes, hole-heartedly.

You two certainly are a good representatives for the fringe left. I'm sure your comrades in berserkely must be proud of all you've accomplished in attempting to tear down society, punish achievers and ridicule people with your pathetic attempts at sarcasm. You're starting to sound like a Lewis Black monologue......


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mt Auburn
a resident of another community
on Jan 3, 2012 at 4:49 pm

All cities in California are required to show the state how they will accommodate enough housing for people at all income levels. Everyone deserves the right to a roof over their head so they can have security and build opportunities for their family. Besides, don't you want teachers and first responders to be able to live nearby and not add to pollution and traffic by commuting from far away? The reason Pleasanton is being singled out is because it had a housing cap that made it impossible to accommodate residential growth and pushed the burden of providing housing on other areas. City staff is making a good faith effort to find smart ways to allow growth and let people of limited means live here. Ask Concord, Walnut Creek, Dublin, Alameda - affordable housing enhances the community; those who call it 'instant slums" probably just aren't aware that many beautiful apartments built in the last twenty years are actually affordable and managed by responsible non-profits.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 7:27 pm

The 3 members of the city council, Hosterman, Cook-Kallio and Thorne, want nothing more than to build more and more houses, get more and more cash contributions from developers in order to run for each and every possible political office for the rest of their lives.

That's why the lawsuit was filed during their term. They knew the 3 would never appeal any ruling made by a lower court judge (they never appealed to the appeals court). And they didn't. Bring on the bulldozers and the campaign cash.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by follow the money
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:11 pm

"Besides, don't you want teachers and first responders to be able to live nearby and not add to pollution and traffic by commuting from far away?" HUH???

Quit giving this argument as this subsidized housing will not help our teachers or first responders. Their starting salaries are above the qualification point. Most of our teachers already live in the Tri-Valley (district did this survey recently). If you think the subsidized housing helps teachers or first responders, how many of them are in our current subsidized housing? I bet none (or maybe one or two at the most). First Responders make a pretty good living plus an incredible benefit package including retirement at age 50, making up to 100% of the salary after they retire at age 50.

If the City and the Hacienda Business Park were really concerned on affordable housing, or any housing for that matter, they would support converting commercial entitlements into residential entitlements. But they refuse. They want to keep all their commercial square foot entitlements and add the residential on top of that (using parking structures and different parking lot configurations). Pure greed from the Hacienda Business Park. We would actually be able to build much less housing if Hacienda converted business to residential. The residential requirements are based on the business capacity. The more commercial we have, the more houses. So if they converted some commercial entitlements to residential entitlements, there would be less commercial square feet potential, bringing down the number of housing units. The Hacienda Business Park was supporting the lawsuit against Pleasanton solely so they can make more money; what a surprise.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:32 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

follow the money,

A few of the proposed properties for rezoning in Hacienda with existing commercial look indeed to be complete teardowns for residential.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bowler
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Concerned, per the city's stipulated levels of income, a family of five earning $79,750 is eligible for consideration in the low income category (80% of median income) for below market rate housing. Web Link

The average income for a teacher at PMS is $71,506.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bowler
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:55 pm

Oops. Above comment should have been @follow the money.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by follow the money
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2012 at 11:07 am

Bowler, you can go to ed-data website and see the average salary of a Pleasanton teacher is $82,958. I would also imagine that somebody having a family of five has a second income pushing the family income much higher.

Stacey, although there are some proposed teardowns,the approval for the Hacienda Business Park was for a specific amount of square feet of commercial. Hacienda, even with a teardown, refuses to convert some of their square feet from commercial to residential. They insist on additional square feet. The residential requirements from the state are calculated on square feet of commercial potential (in theory to have enough housing to meeting the job needs). If we did a conversion of square feet, our housing requirements would be less.

To add insult to injury, then Attorney General Jerry Brown said we needed to provide the additional housing to help regional traffic congestion. However, if you look at the data, 70% of those who live in Pleasanton commute out of Pleasanton (latest survey had 60% of those already living in Hacienda commute out of Pleasanton), with a majority going to the South Bay (i.e., they cannot use BART). So for every 100 houses we approve, that puts another 70 or so cars on the freeway.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Auburn -

If you ask me the apartments on the Dublin side of the 580 freeway look as appealing as San Quentin. This is what you call beautiful?

The hills above these apartments are being populated with row after row of zero property houses. Looks like Daly City to me.

I much rather see cows grazing on these hills and waterfowl in the wetlands that Lowes was built on.

Once I680 was a scenic route. Now it looks like any other freeway with chain stores and gas stations at every exit.

As for public safety personnel and teachers, they make a good salary. They can pick and choose where they want to live just like everyone else. These people probably do not want to live in the same town where they work just like I chose to live in town rather then on base housing when I was in the military. 80% of San Francisco's firefighters choose not to live in the city.





Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Bandwidth and the spinning wheel: Net neutrality
By Gina Channell-Allen | 4 comments | 1,011 views

A fitting tribute to Ken Mercer
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 761 views

Lulu is back home!!!!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 522 views