Tim, please help me understand the thinking that went into the crafting of this statement: "It?s hardly a doomsday for Pleasanton?it?s a recognition that the policy of welcoming those who could afford to buy their way in while banking tax money?does not meet the test of the law."

Banking tax money? Is the assumption here that the money of those who worked hard to get there is the governments first and we get whatever is left over. Or, did I misunderstand your point?

I get that it's been deemed futile to try to impose a cap or plan for controlled growth, so we're supposed to roll over and take this, but I'm wondering if anyone at the state level is considering the impacts to our infrastructure. Nah, they would never think about the unintended conseqeunces of their meddling in the planning of our cities future growth.

Banking tax dollars? The school district is broke, overcrowded, and facing a shortened school year. The city, who was smart enough to set money aside, had its savings raided by the state. It's not the type of housing that worries me, but how The impacts of additional housing will be addressed and who will pay, in taxes or services.

"Pleasanton had been harvesting jobs and retail tax revenue while approving upscale housing"

It's useful to color this discussion by pointing out that some past ABAG regional housing allocation numbers actually encouraged Pleasanton to build more housing for "above moderate" and "moderate" income levels than for "low" and "very-low". Why would anyone want to build 729 "very-low" units when the profits to be made off 2,636 "above moderate" units are awesome?

Does regional housing allocation work to create sustainable communities? If a city is allocated more "above moderate" and "moderate" units than "low" and "very-low" units in one planning cycle and then allocated more "low" and "very-low" units than "above moderate" and "moderate" units in the next planning cycle... In no way does that seem to reflect the kind of organically grown mixed-use style sustainable living spaces humans used to build for themselves.

Thanks for the comments. When Hacienda Business Park was approved in the 1980s, a group from Livermore sued because the jobs in the general plan would greatly out-number the housing in Pleasanton. As a result of the suit and a settlement, the general plan was modified to address this issue. The city has been banking revenues substantially greater than communities of similar size because of its robust business community that includes both the business parks and an enviable retail base. It also benefited from developments such as Ruby Hill that have high property taxes, but require minimal public services behind the private gates.
School district finances are entirely separate from those of the city--and Pleasanton still receives more per student than neighboring districts in Livermore and the San Ramon Valley. Because all of school funding is tied to the state--an unfortunate, unforseen consequence of Proposition 13--schools' funding (except local parcel taxes)rise and fall with the economic fortunes of the state. And, what too much of the state's revenue is tied to the investment results of the top 2 percent.

Tim, The operations are separate (city and schools), but I'm mailing tax dollars to one place and then it is doled out. As has been discussed at length on other topics, both entities are also looking at pension commitments that could hobble them even if the economy becomes more robust.

Prop 13 was the wrong answer to a real problem. Problem still remains though: tax, spend, repeat.