Town Square

Post a New Topic

Brown joins in suit to invalidate city's housing cap law

Original post made on Jul 3, 2009

Following through on earlier complaints to Pleasanton officials, State Attorney General Jerry Brown has joined a San Francisco affordable housing coalition in a 2006 lawsuit that seeks to overturn the city's 29,000-unit housing cap.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:00 AM

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 3, 2009 at 8:01 am

The cap is a problem. The concept of a cap is a problem. The cap was Tarver and friends best efforts to rule from the grave (or Colorado). It's best to let the people of Pleasanton decide what is best for Pleasanton. Not the people from one moment in time...

Like this comment
Posted by mac
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2009 at 8:40 am

The article and Brown refer "79 percent of the 58,000 employees working in Pleasanton at the time lived outside the city, and that their commutes can take two hours per day or more."

One could easily compare that to the statistics of those who work 'outside' of Pleasanton and have a similarly long 'commute'. The point being 1) a majority of people throughout the bay area have horrendous commutes (not just those working in Pleasanton), and 2) Pleasanton should put as much if not more emphasis on bringing more businesses here, like was the plan. The business park has never filled out as expected. What are the deterences behind this phenomenon. Is the city greedy with its taxes? Lax with its incentives?

If this becomes only about "housing" we will become yet another 2 dimensional, bedroom community, with little well-roundedness to offer. As a bedroom community, the commutes will go up and Brown's suggestion that Pleasanton specifically contributes to pollution will self-fulfill.

The housing shortage and long commutes come despite what the attorney general's office said was ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station, which is part of the Hacienda Business Park. Several proposals for adding more housing in the business park are pending before the council and Planning Commission, although they have been delayed pending the approval of the new General Plan.

Like this comment
Posted by mac
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2009 at 8:41 am

Excuse that last was from the article on Brown's suit.

Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2009 at 10:40 am

The studies in Pleasanton show that 70% of the people who live in Pleasanton commute outside of Pleasanton for a job. Therefore, each house we add WILL add to the traffic congestion on the freeways! The more houses we add, the deeper we dig our hole.

It is sad that all this work in planning our city is going away. Our current council majority is approving everything they can and hopes the cap goes away so they can keep the approvals going. Developer money is the lifeblood of political campaigns now.

Like this comment
Posted by Mom of three
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jul 6, 2009 at 10:15 am

So we are to fill up every available piece of land and forgot what the citizens of Pleasanton want? We should increase the amount of low income housing and bring more crime into a peaceful area? Only in the great Politically correct state of California do we see this attitude of entitlement! My family has lived in this area for 60+ years and we work hard to stay in an area where it is pieceful, with good schools and a great community. So we are supposed to give up our hard work and effort so that someone unwilling to work hard can have low income housing in our quiet community? Give me a break! Philanthropy is one thing. Giving freely without thought or logic is absurd!

Like this comment
Posted by June
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Jul 6, 2009 at 11:01 am

Why have a cap at all? If its eliminated from the General Plan, the lawsuit goes away and the taxpayers save a lot of money by not fighting a loser lawsuit. Density and zoning are more appropriately decided on a property location basis anyways and not an arbitrary number picked by a former council back in 1996. Now the fair-share affordable housing requirement established by the State is another thing completely and unfortunately because it hasnt been met, the city is forced to put all of the affordable housing in one or two areas of town instead of spreading it out and making it affordable-by-design with smaller houses and apartments. That is a hugh mistake

Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Web Link

Perhaps this will satisfy Mr Brown...

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 785 views

Holiday Fund raises $70,000 for 12 Tri-Valley nonprofits
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 140 views