|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Blaming the state is a deflection for not coming up with any locally controlled solutions. If Pleasanton got a blank check for development and infrastructure from the state tomorrow, strong opposition for any new housing would remain.
Local governments have had control and could come up with creative solutions for housing. It is simply a choice not to. In fact, locally controlled restrictions for housing and development have only increased and exploratory proposals are rejected. Downtown is off-limits. East Pleasanton is off-limits. Single-family neighborhoods are off-limits. Any solution is a ‘no’ even before coming to a vote.
Because of the constant opposition to build any size unit in Pleasanton, our city is now obligated to accommodate more estimated units than our neighboring cities. Dublin, Livermore and San Ramon all have lower draft regional housing obligations than Pleasanton does. Dublin needs 3,719 units. San Ramon needs 5,111. And Livermore, with a much higher population, only has a target of 4,570 compared to Pleasanton at 5,965.
We can argue about what the accurate RHNA numbers should be. But it will never be zero. Cities that are innovative with housing solutions open their eligibility to receive funding, and most importantly, avoid costly litigation.
My first house in Pleasanton was a single-lot home with an ADU above our garage. And on each corner in our neighborhood, we had deed-restricted, below-market duplexes. Down the street, there were hundreds of units for senior housing and apartments to rent. It was quiet and safe.
My neighbors were teachers, single parents, title officers, bartenders, and retail managers. We rented out our ADU to a preschool teacher. Did this neighborhood ruin the character of our city? No. Did we have any issues selling the house because of being surrounded by duplexes? No.This is still a highly desirable area where any available property is off the market in days.
Is our school district overflowing? Again, no. Enrollment has fallen so much that construction of a new school had to be canceled. COVID had some impact, but this started years before the pandemic. This began since young families with young children cannot afford to live here.
Let’s remember that schools are funded by headcount. When enrollment drops, so do district headcount and jobs. Or we could turn into Cupertino, where that district may be forced to close some schools entirely after losing 13% of their students over the past few years.
The layering of restrictions that have increased in Pleasanton over the years around zoning, density, fees, etc. have added up, and the result is only large, above-market homes are the options that can be developed and sold.
These local control measures squeeze out market-rate options. It squeezes out families with incomes of $60,000 to $120,000 a year, who have high enough income that disqualifies them from below-market housing. This squeezes out teachers, paralegals, trades people, police officers and other hard-working professionals that I enjoy as neighbors and who we should want to live here.
It would be more inspiring to see City Council leadership come up with solutions to help others, rather than align with only those in a certain socio-economic status. Claiming that “life will be destroyed as we know it” because people need a home is a tired and misguided old trope.
Editor’s note: Kate Duggan has lived in Pleasanton with her family since 2003. She is currently a member of the East Bay Community Energy Community Advisory Board and vice chair of the Pleasanton Housing Commission. Duggan submitted this opinion piece as a rebuttal to the Guest Opinion that Vice Mayor Julie Testa wrote in the Weekly’s June 25 edition. Duggan reiterated that views stated here are her own, and do not represent the commission.
Brava!
The 500 lb. gorilla!
I always will wonder what our RHNA numbers would have been if the original East Pleasanton Specific Plan Task Force had never been cancelled. We had local control and we stopped work on it.
Dear Ms. Duggan,
Thank you so much for this piece. You echoed my thoughts on the Vice Mayor’s piece.
Simply stating that anything other than a large lot, single-family housing changes Pleasanton’s way of living is not just exclusionary but excludes everyone else who doesn’t meet certain socioeconomic criteria. The Pleasanton City Council has been voting against or even turning down creative proposals like the one at Barone’s site that would have provided middle housing for people like me who have a full-time job as a Govt. employee but cannot afford to own or rent w/o my spouse’s income. Looks like the City Council just wants to continue exclusionary zoning policies that will only allow McMansions and certain demographics to “maintain their way of life.” Pretty classist
Kate Duggan,
Well said!!
I’d like to live in Blackhawk, can somebody build me a 1 million dollar house? I know they sell for a lot more but I just want a small house on a little lot just like I have in Val Vista.
Great article Kate. If we want local control then we have to solve our own housing problems versus the state mandating what we do. I am hopeful our Council will read your article and look for solutions so Pleasanton maintains control over its housing situation. We don’t need another housing lawsuit like we’ve had in the past. Thanks for your involvement on the Housing Commission and always focusing what is best for our City.
Thank you, Ms. Duggan. I appreciate being informed by your perspective.
Couldn’t agree more, thanks Kate!
Well written and compelling. Thank you Kate Duggan. We must take control of our future housing obligations. Otherwise we will be forced into a situation none of us will like.
I don’t know about the rest of you.
I am glad, that back in November 2020, the effort to relocate the Oakland homeless to the Alameda County Fairgrounds failed.
Great piece! If we don’t want our communities to become places where only the rich or retired can live, something has to be done. We need workable solutions — thank you for showing what true courage in service of the public looks like!
We can do both.
We don’t need to greatly increase the density of existing neighborhoods, most of which are already parking-poor and not transit friendly by any stretch. And there’s no reason to build like Dublin, where developers eliminate lot size and yet sell at above-market, forcing traffic and noise problems.
But we should be aggressively converting the Hacienda lots and the east side into transit friendly, affordable housing. Pleasanton has plenty of undeveloped or non-residential land for that.
I’m baffled by people that think density brings affordability. The market can’t deliver affordability. Affordability requires state subsidies. Unfortunately years ago the state took away the its almost $2B in annual funding. We won’t get affordability until we get massive state funding.
Current state legislation, if passed, will only make the problem worse. State funding and anti-speculation legislation would help.
The Bay Area has vast swaths of broad commercial corridors that could be rezoned for mixed use providing enough capacity for all of our housing needs. Unfortunately bills supporting that logical expansion (SB 6 and SB 15) have not been moved forward in a legislature that seems focused on supporting special interest bills over the needs of the people.
Exactly- some of the most dense locations are the most expensive…..and interestingly enough also have
– highest crime
– highest homelessness
– worst schools
Please stop pushing your urban agenda on everyone – there is nothing wrong with suburban communities
Thank you Ms Duggan for taking the stand. We appreciate your leadership.
It is time to stop arguing and start problem solving. We are a creative community. If we decide we wanted to accomplish a goal, we can get together and do it. I agree that we want less crime, less homelessness, better schools, but shutting down ideas and maintaining status-quo doesn’t help either.
Pleasanton Ridge should be revisited for development. For some folks that was affordable housing.
Pleasanton voters defeated measure PP in 2008. Again 2010 Pleasanton voters defeated Measure D – Oak Grove development. It was approved by the Pleasanton city council.
Why is the only solution an attack on suburban living? Seems like those only seeing high density housing as a solution are shutting down ideas.
Great Editorial. Thanks Kate.
This is so much more on point and useful than the constant complaining by the anti-growthers – Julie and Karla et. al. We never see helpful, farsighted recommendations from this group, only complaints and “the state is wrong, we won’t do it.”
But if we want to maintain Local Control, we need to do a better job with Local Control. Our recent “Local Controllers” are the folks who narrowed Owens to one lane, put a Chik-Fil-A within 100 yards of an In-N-Out Burger, and can’t get out of their own way to bring a Costco to town…
Kudos to Ms Dugan for a cogent editorial with a grasp on the facts and devoid of scare tactics. Years of NIMBY attitudes have backed us into a corner to provide zoning for lots of new housing. Few recall that a successful lawsuit over a lack of housing forced Pleasanton to cease all building permits until housing was built. Now I fear the community will take the easy way out and support zoning all of East Pleasanton (industrial area) for high density instead of a combo of uses when new units should be spread out across the city.
Just let Dublin build it. They love it and want it. Buy high density housing credits from Dublin, let them build