Original post made
on Oct 23, 2012
This story contains 52 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
The city council need to rethink the idea of building an affordable apartment building in the Hacienda Park. It is not a good idea at all. It will increase crime that is a given! Me and my neighbors are willing to fight the idea! Let's keep the city safe!
We as Pleasanton residents can work as hard as we can to make any low income person who moves into any of these places feel as unwelcome as possible. We can get right up in their faces and ask them to leave. We can shun them from our social gatherings. We can make it known to them in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome here. We can make them feel so uncomfortable, so distraught and so discouraged that they will eventually give up and leave. If we can keep enough of these apartments vacant, eventually the developers will give up, and the units will be torn down.
Most Pleasanton residents worked hard to earn the privilege of living here. We need to organize to and to stick together to see to it that each and every one of these developments is a failure.
Jack - that is one of the funniest posts I have ever read on this site....masterful.... hopefully your sarcasm is not lost on all....I assume you were being sarcastic....Jack?... please say that was sarcasm....
Thank you for your kind words, dan. ;-)
What is left out of this article is that low income housing does not allow Pleasanton to collect adequate fees to mitigate the need for more space in the schools. All Pleasanton schools are already overcrowded so any new growth will dramatically impact the quality of life for existing residents. PUSD will be coming to the community for a bond as well as a parcel tax to pay for new growth. New growth does not have to be bad if it pays for itself, but this does not and will hurt Pleasanton.
This is only the beginning there will be thousands of additional housing units built in what is now being discussed for the Eastside plan.
Be as cheeky as you like Jack, development is bad if it does not mitigate it's impacts.
I agree with you, that was left out. I'm not saying all is well. We will need bond measures and a parcel tax, and there will be an impact on schools.
Why should existing residents pay for new growth through tax measures when we have paid for the existing infrastructure and amenities? New growth is supposed to pay for it's share of needed amenities through fee's. I would not oppose new growth if it was properly mitigated. The demand for 'smart growth', which means it will bring with it benefits without harm to the existing community, has been forgotten with our council majority and special interest groups.
So why did Karla Brown object to growth that surely would have been "mitigated"? Do you agree with that?
I believe all neighborhoods have a responsibility to protect their interests. Most community activists begin with an issue that is close to home or heart and there is nothing wrong with that.
I did not have any problem with the Oak Grove development until the developer went after our citizens who were rightfully advocating their concerns. 10 years ago I stayed out of the Ponderosa pumpkin patch development issue until they brought in hired thugs to threaten our citizens.
Pleasanton will be negatively impacted if there is not a resurgence of concern for unmitigated growth!
The people least concerned about the ghetto-ization of our neighborhoods are the one living very far away from these new, urban slums. Or, their comrades are wanting to move their families into a town they couldn't work to afford.
seriously some of these comments im reading are the most disgusting useless piece of garbage ive read in a while get over yourselfs and realise the world doesnt revolve around you.