Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council approves plan to scuttle housing cap, open up more land for low-income housing

Original post made on Jul 22, 2010

The City Council Tuesday approved a tentative settlement agreement with two affordable housing coalitions and the state attorney general's office that will scuttle Pleasanton's 29,000-unit housing cap and set aside undeveloped acreage for high density housing for low-income residents.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, July 22, 2010, 6:34 AM

Comments (53)

Posted by Jerry, a resident of Avila
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:12 am

Build those low-income units at Staples Ranch and keep them out of our sight.

Posted by nothappy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:27 am

Just what we need. More traffic, more crowding in our schools, more crime.

Posted by Toni, a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:42 am

It is really sad. Small is what makes Pleasanton. Things are already changing and not for the better.

Posted by Mourning, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:44 am

Well, the Pleasanton we have known will be gone, along with a chunk of the (already diminished) value of your home. Another thing to thank the left-wing loons for. They are decimating the country, now they decimate Pleasanton as well. Remember that Jerry Brown had a lot to do with perpetrating this on Pleasanton, so please remember to vote for Meg Whitman for Governor. Moonbeam Brown inflicted damage on California, from which it never recovered, during his first go-round as Governor. The last thing we need is for him to get another chance to further destroy this state.

Posted by Tom, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:46 am

There goes the neighborhood. Ask Fremont, Hayward, Castro Valley Concord, Tracy, and any other city what low income housing has done for their communities. Crime will go up, schools will go down, along with property values. The ONLY way to make this any better is to designate the vast majority of the low income housing as senior housing. Otherwise, standby for the crime wave....sad.

Posted by concerned, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:47 am

it should have requirements like priority like families that have lived here already ,seniors that are have lived here a long time.
Back ground check . rules not followed good bye !!!

Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:58 am

I was on the fence about who to vote for in the Governor race....this just cemented my vote for Meg. Maybe Pleasanton voters need to do a write in campaign to our State legislature about these land grab issues. If we all write our assembly person and State rep. things might get changed....especially with the State taking more money away from local governments.

Posted by Sophia, a resident of Willow West
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:04 am

We can blame Jerry Brown! it is not the fault of the council that put the cap in place, nor is the fault of this council.

It is unfortunate that someone that has never lived or probably been to Pleasanton can make the decision to dramatically change our community. I don't know if anyone has thought of this, but we are going to have to the provide services which I am sure we will be greatly impacted.

Put the low-income housing at Oak Grove, they didn't want Mega Mansions or a trail,and to avoid traffic run a wheels bus.

Posted by Sue, a resident of Val Vista
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:04 am

Just another reason to vote for Meg Whitman. Look at the low housing apartments they have around 73rd Ave in Oakland. I thought it was a good thing at the time, but the people who were fortunate to rent these apartments don't appreciate it. Drug dealears took over and now the apartments are slums.

Posted by maja7, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:12 am

Just ask any Law Enforcement personnel about their experiences with low-income apartments. Let's build housing for all of us, aging baby boomers! Seniors don't create alot of traffic nor crime.

Posted by jaca, a resident of Mission Park
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:42 am

As usual, our votes have no meaning. Yep, I'm also voting for Meg Whitman

Posted by Bowler, a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:46 am

All counties in California are required to set affordable housing targets, and those counties assess each community for their fair share of affordable housing to reach the required goals. That is state law.

Jerry Brown, as our state's attorney general, is required to uphold state laws, including this one. Pleasanton's ordinance preceded the state law and was not allowed a "grandfather" exemption, therefore it violated state law, and had to be found invalid. There was no other alternative. He did his job.

The city is not required to build affordable housing, merely set aside land that can be developed as such. In this economy, it may be years before the city receives it's first set of development plans for approval of an affordable complex. In the mean time, guidelines for such projects can be written to assure the general appearance and welfare of the community is assured.

All recent developments in Pleasanton already have an affordable component because developers were required to set aside units designated as below market rate properties that could only be obtained by someone who prequalified in that income range. A teacher at Pleasanton Middle School with a family could, and did, meet these requirements. Those that qualify for affordable housing in Pleasanton are our friends and neighbors, not criminal elements from out of town.

"Affordable" is a category of home finance, not a category of people.

Posted by Not Best Afterall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:58 am

Well, Pleasanton "Best Place to Live" is only temporary ! pretty much history. Sad. Let no Pleasantonian forget it is JERRY Brown who started this suit against us. AKA Gov Moonbeam because of the unpredictable BIZARRE things he does (excuse, but right out of left field !)..He's still nutty! He rightfully earned his nickname. So you under 50's heads up ! This is the real JERRY Brown. CC Times this morning got the name wrong...said the suit was initiated by Edmond Brown...I think the biased reporter couldn't bring herself to report it's JERRY !
I agree, SENIOR housing is all that can even be considered ! I could qualify for low-income SENIOR and I would move. And we DO desperately need low-middle & middle income senior houses & apts. We certainly can't absorb those numbers in our schools ! Santa RIta, Owens area sidewalks are already full of pregnant mommas pushing strollers right now....don't know where they'll be going to school. The last influx was dumped on Alisal...can't go there again !

Posted by Not Best Afterall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:21 am

Yes, BOWLER, you're right. Most housing built in Pleasanton in the last 18-20 years is already loaded with people we are subsidizing.
So the families don't feel shame, subsidizing is now euphemistically called "affordable". First, nobody in recent years even knows the meaning of shame. But those that like the concept of subsidizing, intentionally conned the UNinformed masses of taxpayers, by substituting the word 'affordable'. Yes, subsidizing helps some, by TAKING FROM OTHERS ...probably YOU ! That's what happens when you're not paying attention ! We use to have places for seniors & low income that were subsidized BY CHURCHES... BUT, once they found they could satisfy their desires and pass it all on to taxpayers , yippie ! that's how we'll do it from now on. So here we are. YOU must work to save your downpayment, and house payments. AND it's your "DUTY" regardless of your personal familial needs, to provide housing for a large chunk of your neighbors too. You help many who are doing quite well... Quite an injustice.

Posted by Gelson, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:30 am

Most of you whining about Jerry Brown forget that the cap was originally put in place to control growth and preserve land, not keep out low-income people. The comments on the post really expose the anti-poor views of many in our community. Did you ever stop to think that the people who can't afford to live in Pleasanton might not be "lowlifes", but police officers, teachers, and nurses who help make Pleasanton a great place to live?

Despite all the typical fear-mongering, the end of the housing cap doesn't mean Pleasanton will become the new Oakland. Pleasanton will still have considerable ability to control development and NIMBYs will still have referendums at their disposal. If you are really worried about maintaining home values in Pleasanton, put your money where your mouth is and pay a parcel tax for our schools. A few low-income units within an apartment complex or development don't bring down home values, selfish residents that turn their backs on our public schools do.

Sorry Jerry Brown had to ruin the whitebred homogeneous fantasy many of you had for Pleasanton. If that is what you want, go move to Utah or Idaho. Pleasanton doesn't exist in a bubble and you can't just put a gate around Pleasanton hoping to keep out "different" people.

Posted by David Cannon, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:36 am

David Cannon is a registered user.

Look around our town. There is low-income housing already integrated into our neighborhoods. You know who lives in them? Teachers, police officers, hard working folks who live and work in our community. The sky has not fallen. Our property values are much better than average. Done properly, integrating low-income property into our community is an asset we should appreciate. Many, if not most, of our children cannot afford to live in the same community they grew up in.

Posted by Maggie, a resident of Valencia
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:50 am

Nothing like stereotyping low cost housing. Residents of wealthy households also cause havoc. I agree that more housing means more people to accomodate in the schools and on the roads but our dispute shouldn't be over whether it is property on the ridge or low cost housing for those that deserve to live in a nice environment - it should be about whether the extra housing makes sense to stay within the plan of trying to retain the "old town" atmosphere. Leave the politics of the have and have nots out of it!

Posted by Bowler, a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Jul 22, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Not Best Afterall - Actually, there is a significant difference between the legal definitions of "affordable" and "subsidized", which is what you were describing. The only publicly owned subsidized housing in Ptown is 50 units for seniors at Kottinger Place. The county may provide vouchers for others that qualify for Section 8 housing subsidies, but those vouchers are paid directly to the land lords of the only two apartment complexes in town that accept them and it offsets their standard market-rate rents.

"Affordable", on the other hand, is not subsidized. It means that the costs are scaled to the means of those who intend to buy or rent the unit or home. These are working families.

In Ptown, the developer of new single-family residential developments of 15 units or more must provide at least 20% of its units at a below-market sales price, or at least 15% of the total units for multi-family developments. These are usually for-sale units, not rentals. There are 234 family apartments in three complexes considered as below market rate listed on the city's website not set aside for seniors. That is a small number in a town with a population of 68,000.

To qualify for "affordable" in Ptown, a family of five must have an income under $77,150. Again, teachers make less than that here.

Posted by Appauled by Residences, a resident of Dublin
on Jul 22, 2010 at 1:15 pm

I'm rather shocked by the comments posted to this article. I grew up in Danville and am familiar with the egotistic opinions of affluent housewives. However, I had no idea Pleasanton residence who posted here rivaled Danville's snobbishness.

Pleasanton isn't above state law, period. Look beyond your million dollar homes and opening your eyes and hearts to those around you.

Posted by Not Best Afterall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Bowler, you're part of the lie. It IS subsidized at the builder level, and other hammers along the way. The NEIGHBORS prices are higher. The costs ARE there and they ARE met, but not by the occupants.
This stinks and I bet YOU are behind urging Jerry to 'carry out his duties' ON PLEASANTON. And if you think this assult on us is going to the 'POOR' police, fire, and teachers...this scheme's all over NOW !! Surely none would stoop SO LOW, after robbing us blind, to ask us to subsidize their housing to boot ! Playing the POOR card would definitely NOT fly. You probably shouldn't lump teachers & fire together. But fire unions have pretty much lost that 'poor card' for all the others...forever. There would be a bloody war in the streets if that's your scheme. You've played favorites with them far too long. Obama has protected them over and over, while the rest of us lose our jobs and houses !I want the low-middle senior housing I'm entitled to !NOW ! We're entitled. Thanks for the tipoff on your plans. More than ever this must be stopped.

Posted by Cal, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 22, 2010 at 1:55 pm

I agree with Brown. I'll take a moderate income resident over some classless, nouveau riche, SUV driving, McMansion loving, Stepford wife any day of the week. If you don't like the new Pleasanton, move somewhere else or take a time machine back to 1952. Jerry Brown's job is to enforce state law, not appease a bunch of knee-jerk, fear-driven moron.

Posted by Cal, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 22, 2010 at 2:14 pm

Not Best Afterall,

Boohoo!! Poor you! Cry me a river of suburban resentment in your Glenn Beck doom bunker. Of course, you just had to throw in Obama, as if he has drastically changed your myopic, whitebred existence. When you are not busy whining about unions (and I thought you conservatives didn't whine, just pulled up your bootstraps) and kicking homeless people, you might want look into finding a conscience that extends beyond your cul-de-sac.

Posted by Not Best Afterall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Hey smart axx Cal,you get your crap from MSNC to lump together anybody right of Boxer. So petty and wrong. I dislike Glenn Beck altho only saw him a few times...because I never watch fox or listen to their radio stations. Only tiny thinkers would sterotype. Shame on you for being so shallow. Obama HAS provided money to police, fire, & teachers repeatedly....but nothing to the average small company of average guys, making average products....only to special interests. If we have to make it on our I have my entire life, then so can the people we employ. ....and I do not live on a cul-de-sac, and I do not own a home. You've got to stop watching Mr ED spew lying sterotypes. I think you, Bowler, & Becky D have orchestrated JERRY BROWN's suit against all of us in Pleasanton for your own special liberal interests. This is not a good time when our skin is REALLY thin on the idea of being forced to give more than we have.

Posted by maja7, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 22, 2010 at 3:01 pm

Can't have it both ways, complain about how much police, fire and teachers make and then say that they are inhabitants in the low-income housing? And I know for a fact that Pleasanton teachers make a better salary compared to teachers in other school districts!

For me, this isn't about low-income housing as much as it is about providing housing for seniors. Have you heard about the retiring rate of Baby Boomers? Have you heard about the average life expectancy of older individuals thesedays? We would be wise to prepare for this Senior Citizen Boom. Otherwise, Mom and Dad are going to be living in another state while you live here in a wonderful P-town, apartment or house.

Posted by Republican, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 22, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Not Best Afterall is right. Obama is ruining our country. The brown people are taking over this country! Stop the madness and watch Glenn Beck to find the truth.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 3:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Glenn Beck is just some guy saying what you want to hear and making money off of you.

Posted by Republican, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Stacey, You're wrong! Glenn Beck is a very smart guy and speaks for most Americans. He does his show for free just so he can get the word out on how Obama and his socialist followers are ruining this country.

I miss George W Bush. He did so well for this country and made great decisions to defend the land that God has given us.

Posted by Cal, a resident of Downtown
on Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 pm

"Glenn Beck is a very smart guy and speaks for most Americans"

...who happen conspiracy theory loving, fear-driven bigots

Posted by Mike Patterson - not afraid to use my name, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 22, 2010 at 5:17 pm

This is shameful. I hope these rantings are just one schizophrenic person writing back and forth to themself!

Posted by Lahommed, a resident of Dublin
on Jul 22, 2010 at 5:44 pm

Lahommed is a registered user.

All low income housing ever does to a neighborhood or city is destroy it! Pleasanton is headed for more crime and many more issues and lord help the police dept because this once little sleepy little town is growing up and and its not going to be nice!

So long Pleasanton..Once the jewel of Alameda county....that was then...this is now!

Posted by Brian, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 5:59 pm

I have a wild idea. How about letting the free-market dictate rather than government intervening and screwing things up. I am from Chicago and you can see very graphically how all those public housing projects worked out. This will be a disaster for Pleasanton. WAKE UP!!!

Posted by Bowler, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 7:21 pm

Nothing in this settlement requires the construction of "public housing projects". Nothing. It will allow the working families of this town to own or rent property here which they might not otherwise be able to afford. Period.

If the future posters on this thread would please educate yourselves about the legal and historical aspects of this settlement before posting, I am sure that the dialogue will remain civil and the hyperbole will be contained.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jul 22, 2010 at 7:30 pm

I applaud, Bowler, Gelson, and David Cannon for their well thought out opinions. It distresses me to see some reactionary thoughts about this situation. It is true that low income/high density housing can increase crime. But why can't we look at this situation as an opportunity to change that? If we study some Bay Area high density housing and see what can be done to design it in a way to prevent crime, then we can become a model for other small towns to look to. This housing should be designed as if YOU were going to live there. Pretend you will be ousted from your mega mansion (or whatever) and really try to understand what it would take to make an apartment livable for YOU. I keep thinking of some European metropolitan areas which the residents must live in close quarters. Is this not high density? Many of you will assume that the folks moving into brand new low income housing will bring their problems with them. Yes, some will and some won't. Let's focus on how to prevent crime from the ones that DO have issues. Social Programs? (assisted by community volunteers to help keep cost down) Diversions?...a coffee house right in the neighborhood to develop "community" and foster connections. We have to learn to take care of each other. Stop whining and start thinking of solutions!

Posted by God, I hate this town, a resident of Castlewood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:04 pm

I cannot believe the egotistical, self-centered people in this town. It is so obvious this town is made up of new money-people who are selfish and in it for themselves.

Posted by Not Best Afterall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Yes Becky Bowler, affordable is not a group of people , but a catagory of home financing. And that would be on the backs of OTHER PEOPLE ! Why, if you put together a nice package of 'freebies from others', you can live as well as the suckers who actually work or do without....and you can have a LOT more free time.

Posted by Creek, a resident of Val Vista
on Jul 23, 2010 at 8:18 am

I sometimes wonder if all the people on this board are really from Pleasanton because some of the things written are so ignorant, hateful and judgmental - and I thankfully never see that in our community.

I agree with Bowler.

Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Jul 23, 2010 at 9:09 am

To all you bleeding hearts that chimed in yesterday afternoon (after just rolling our of bed?), you can't legislate 'conscience'. There are no public employees in this area that require 'affordable' housing in Pleasanton.
In short order, with the money and benefits they make, they can do what the rest of the responsible adults do--save up for a 20% deposit on a house and then purchase one only when you are ready to make the payments.
With all the foreclosures in the past few years, thanks to bad lending practices (thanks Freddie and Fannie) to those who were conned into thinking they could buy a home without making continuing payments, there's still plenty of inventory out there for working adults.
Dublin and Livermore have their share of foreclosed homes, only a short drive away (so much for the whole commute ploy used to leverage this fiasco). I'm sure those folks that really are responsible enough to be homeowners can find homes in these areas.
In other communities, they like to promote infill residency, which makes more sense then continuing to pave over what little open space stil remains......not to mention the increases in traffic that more sprawl will bring.
Anyway, I hope you folks who are so generous with other peoples money and property end up having a nice 5 story prison-like edifice built next to your homes so you can experience the joy of your utopian world where no one has to rent and even the lowliest janitor can 'afford' a home.

Posted by Maggie, a resident of Valencia
on Jul 23, 2010 at 9:28 am

Appauled by Residences & Lahommed - both apparently in Dublin - your town has its own problems - how many more houses and apartment buildings are going to fit in your city lines. Save your opinions for your own town.

Posted by neighbor, a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Jul 23, 2010 at 9:53 am

If we have to have high density, make it senior and handicapped. We need housing for them. Plus, it won't impact schools or traffic since most of them take public transportation or paratransit.

Posted by hoops, a resident of Birdland
on Jul 23, 2010 at 10:01 am

My son and his wife are in their mid twenties with degrees.They make less than 77,000 between them.They would love to live in Pleasanton and cannot afford anything but a small condo.These are the people along with teachers,etc.that would be helped by the housing law.I love Pleasanton but could do without the crazy right wing Sara Palin loving brainless fools.Sara Palin is getting very rich and is playing all of you for fools.It is amazing to watch.She is very smart in drawing you all in and laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by Sorry..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 23, 2010 at 10:22 am

I've been watching this argument for a while now and have to ask: WHY do you think anyone at all is entitled to live here? Grew up here and can't afford it? Tough. It happens. So save your pennies and buy later when you DO have the downpayment available. Look, I'd love to live in lots of places I can't afford - lots of spots in Hawai'i are mighty nice. But no one's going to offer me an 'affordable' housing option there. If you can't afford it here, too bad. Live in Dublin or Pleasanton or Hayward or Castro Valley until you can.

Posted by Sorry..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 23, 2010 at 10:23 am

Sorry, typed too fast - last line should've said Pleasant Hill, not P-ton.

Posted by james, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jul 23, 2010 at 4:20 pm

I have a feeling that a lot of the people who are for this expansion have never had the experience in living around or near affordable or low income housing. it will make a huge difference in this town, and not one that you will like. fortunately, those who are speaking in favor of this housing have the means to move from pleasanton when it becomes another fremont or hayward and leave the rest of us here in a hell of their making.

we are talking about adding another nearly 4000 housing units, over half of them allocated for affordable or low income housing. that could mean the addition of anywhere between 4000 to 16000 additional residents, who will require the same services as the rest of us without having to pay the same amount in tax assessment.

and make no mistake about it. don't let them fool you when they say that low income housing doesn't describe the people. there will be a whole new criminal element here who will make shopping at our malls and downtown a lot less attractive. you think downtown is dying now? just wait, in a few years most of us won't want to go anywhere near it.

the schools will become a lot less safe place for your children, for boys getting into fights, and your girls being harassed. the quality of the pleasanton schools will be right up there with oakland.

and all because some group of professional activists who don't even live in california, much less pleasanton or even the bay area, have decided on their own to take pleasanton to task over their unfair housing cap. I'd be willing to bet not one of them live any where near low income housing.

can someone tell me if blackhawk has high density low income housing?

Posted by Not Best Afterall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 23, 2010 at 10:19 pm

I agree James....I want assistance to provide me the Blackhawk home I'm ENTITLED to ! I've had obstacles to overcome, so the means I AM ENTITLED. RightO steve, no public employee in THIS area NEEDS public programs ! They can spend every penny of every paycheck....they don't to to SAVE for retirement live the REST of US !! THey have different needs all right...NOT even CLOSE to my NEEDS !
HOOPS ?? I cannot believe you had the gall or (Word removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff) to write that your kids in their MID-TWENTIES, with degrees need assistance. Were they not taught personal PRIDE ? or to have a desire for self-sufficiency over handouts.

Posted by Gunslinger, a resident of another community
on Jul 24, 2010 at 7:52 am

I like the fire. We gotta keep it people. Do not let the state dictators force crime and congestion into our gentle towns. Low income housing in the Dougherty area resulted in a huge spike in grand theft and violence. No one has the right to endanger your child. We worked hard to create safe, clean towns for the safety of our children. Anyone who endangers our children should be terrified of our wrath. We need to think outside the box to strike fear into the traitors in our government

Posted by cant believe, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2010 at 3:43 pm

NO ONE is entitled but many would have you believe two things that encourages the entitlement mentality.

No one can ever fail on one end of the spectrum and on the other end, you do not have to earn what you get. Either way, you are fed the propaganda that you are oppressed or incapable to achieve without some kind of intervention, usually government.

And to argue that you are entitled to live where you work regardless of what your role you serve in this community, is baseless.

My P-town born/raised kids, all young professionals, (and they contributed significantly to their college costs before someone suggests it was given to them) work in Pleasanton , San Ramon and San Fran. They live in Dublin, Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill, respectively. And the decision was driven by what they could afford.

Entitlement mentality is as deadly to the human spirit as are the people who promote and justify its practice.

Posted by cant believe, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm

PS: Hoops: if your kids in their MID-TWENTIES, with degrees, need assistance then YOU (let me repeat...YOU) need to assit them. And do so quietly, least you harm their ego. (or is it your ego??)

And the fact they live in a "small" condo but would "love" to live in Pleasanton, makes you, not them, pathetic.

And quit being so obviously jealous of Sarah Palin and her success.

That makes you look pathetic too.

And yea, grow some Pride while you are at it.

Posted by annonymous, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 26, 2010 at 4:05 pm

I moved to Pleasanton so I could live in a place with a low crime rate. I'm willing to pay more for a house in order to live in such a place but now I'll be paying on a high valued house in a city which crime rate will increase. Look at the crime rate over on Vineyard, it's a perfect example of how crime and low rents go hand-in-hand.

Posted by lyndalu98, a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jul 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm

I totally agree with Sorry - very well said. If you can't afford to live here in Pleasanton, there are nearby cities which are more affordable - people need to live within their means and not feel entitled to live in a certain area just because they want to. Lets all move to The Hamptons and make that city give us "affordable housing"!

Posted by J Sebastian, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2010 at 5:59 pm

What is revolting is seeing these class warfare vultures swooping on Bowler and others telling the truth about these leftist housing ordinances that are designed to do only one thing: house illegals and force citizens to pay the bill.

This stealing from each other has got to stop. We can't have a civilized society based on theft of personal property, it is not sustainable and it is morally bankrupt.

What CA and this nation need is a good revolution in which Marxists are painfully defeated and mocked and punished as public spectacles. This might seem drastic to some, as a lot of people reading this are meek, political moderates who abhor conflict of any kind, including standing up against thieves and bullies.

I fear for the future of this nation when a paper can describe theft as "affordable housing" and some people don't bat an eye.

Posted by J Sebastian, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2010 at 6:57 pm

Hoops, we can't all live where we'd like. You said they can afford a small condo, so what's the problem? The condo isn't big enough? Well then they can rent an apt until they have the money for a bigger place, right? I mean, why should everyone else pay MORE money for their homes so your son can pay less for his? Its thievery. I hope you raised him better than to steal from other people.
If you wouldn't want him mugging people for their wallets, why is it okay for him to use a law to do it?

The problem with America isn't Sarah Palin or any other sideshow entertainment brought to you by the producers of the political drama, but a corrupt society that has lost its moral compass and now believes that its okay to steal from each other.

What separates us from the animals, when might makes right?

Posted by J Sebastian, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2010 at 11:23 am

"Posted by God, I hate this town, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2010 at 8:04 pm

I cannot believe the egotistical, self-centered people in this town. It is so obvious this town is made up of new money-people who are selfish and in it for themselves."

Being self-centered is the inherent nature of biological organisms. I don't understand your comment. You're angry because biological life requires self-interest? Selfishness is what makes the world go 'round! You may as well rant against our insistence on breathing oxygen. It is what it is!

As for "egotistical", now you're getting into strange waters of psychology that don't seem to have much relevance to the discussion. Whether or not someone is egotistical doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether they abide by the general principles of self-interest or not.

Posted by Gary Schwaegerle, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 22, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Gary Schwaegerle is a registered user.

We must be Grateful to Meg; many are saying she will not Win. So let us say "Thank You very much for providing her portion $162 million dollar "Stimulus Package" contribution to "The Kalifornia Economy" For those that work in Political campaigning, Media, printing, air time, photographers, News People, Fuel, tires, Restaurants, Motels & more. "THANK YOU! Meg Whitman for Giving Back to California where Dreams can Come True!" Sincerely, Gary Schwaegerle

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Preserving Disorder
By Tom Cushing | 71 comments | 1,987 views

Bi-Polar Disorder
By Roz Rogoff | 25 comments | 1,691 views

The drought drives lawmakers to action
By Tim Hunt | 12 comments | 1,394 views