Town Square

City Council OKs new Housing Element, ending 7-year legal battle at cost of $3.9 million

Original post made on Oct 17, 2012

The Pleasanton City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday night to add a new Housing Element commitment to the city's General Plan, a move that ended seven years of debate, law suits and confrontation with state authorities and an affordable housing coalition.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 7:54 AM


Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of Donlon Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:56 am

Absolutely disappointed in our City Council! They should of stood up for the city of Pleasanton and all who live here! The state should NOT tell a city what kind of houses to have, who should be able to buy! Does Alamo have low income housing? I doubt it....

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Birdland
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:59 am

Why aren't Beverly Hills, Alamo, and Ross required to build low income housing? Why should low income housing be FORCED on any city? There is more affordable housing in Tracy, Fresno, Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward... Montana, Idaho, etc.

Like this comment
Posted by Chemist
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 17, 2012 at 9:08 am

As long as Pleasanton is a member of ABAG and the City Council is loaded with liberals, we can look forward to more and more stack-and-pack-by-the-track housing. In the future, it will not be only "low income" housing: it will be ALL housing. Our governments believe they have the right to tell us where to live, what kind of house we can own, what lanes we can drive in, where we can drive, what kind of car we can own, what we can eat, when we can eat, when we can have a fire, when we can bar-b-que, ... So go ahead Pleasanton residents, keep voting for Democrats, and be sure to elect Cook-Kallio for mayor, and get ready for them to tell you about your new home.

Like this comment
Posted by Outraged
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2012 at 10:34 am

Un-frickin- believable!!!!!
Just what we need. More high density housing. More cars, more traffic.
Like Joe, I wonder why communities like Lafayette, Alamo, etc. are not required to provide high density, low income housing??????

I am tired of local, state, and federal governments' control!

Like this comment
Posted by Charlie Brown
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:13 am

This gives a new start towards becoming Oakland.

Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Instead of bitching and moaning, why doesn't someone offer suggestions for other ways to keep the undesirables out of Pleasanton. Perhaps we can put restrictions on the people who can live in these apartments similar to the restrictions they put on sex offenders. For example, if you are convicted of burglary, you can't live within 10 miles of anything that could be burglarized in Pleasanton.

Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Ok, here's a better idea (and more realistic). Let's pass a nice hefty parcel tax and make the parcel tax scale according to the number of single family residences on the parcel. The proceeds from the parcel tax would of course go to the local schools. The benefit would be two fold. Pleasanton schools would remain top notch, helping to keep local property values strong and the added cost to rent in Pleasanton would discourage most non-family oriented renters from renting in Pleasanton.

Like this comment
Posted by Marketing Manager
a resident of Bordeaux Estates
on Oct 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm

Born and raised in Livermore, my grandparents were farmworkers in the 30s-40s in Pleasanton. I know the area well, and it never ceases to amaze me when people immediately equate "low-income" with "criminals" and "undesirables." At one point, while earning $70k as a marketing manager in San Ramon, I was considered "low-income" because of the Bay Area's cost of housing. There are plenty of people who you want in your community who will qualify for these affordable places to live, including your kids' pre-school teachers, EMTs, recent college grads, administrative assistants, and the people who bag your groceries and make your Starbucks soy lattes. The key is *strict tenant screening* and *good site management.* Depending on who builds these developments, they might also be the same people who manage the developments once they're built. Talk to them about how they plan to screen/manage. This doesn't have to be all bad news.

Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm

we are the only city in California that gets sued by the state! the only city! then we spend $4 million of city tax money and thousands of hours by city employees, knowing full well we are wrong and will lose.
Suggesting that they should continue to spend tax $$ on a losing cause is not very smart............make that stupid!

The real complaint is why didn't our city officials fix the issue before they got sued and use the $4 million on making Pleasanton better!

Like this comment
Posted by Born and Raised
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Thank you Marketing Manager, a voice of reason and knowledge. The thinly veiled racism and classicism of other comments makes me ashamed of our neighbors, I don't want to raise my children to share their beliefs. I want to live in an inclusive community.

Kudos to Sam, if the City had looked at the odds of the lawsuit they would have seen that this was a lost cause before they wasted our tax dollars, which could have been better spent.

Like this comment
Posted by Ptown native
a resident of Stoneridge
on Oct 18, 2012 at 8:47 am

Gee I wonder if one of the designated areas is
next to RubyHill??? Oh wait...they wouldn't like that!!!
I'm totally disgusted with this mayor and so glad she's
DONE. This whole lawsuit happened I believe because
someone from Oakland wanted to live here and couldn't
afford it. Well, I'd like to live in Blackhawk but I can't afford
it. Should I get the State to sue Danville so I can live there?
It would not occur to me to do such a thing. You live where
you work hard to afford.

Like this comment
Posted by disgusted
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2012 at 8:23 am

My comment to "Born and Raised". If you want to raise your children in a "more inclusive" community, then MOVE!!!!!!!!

Like this comment
Posted by liberalism is a disease
a resident of Birdland
on Oct 19, 2012 at 9:07 am

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

Born and Raised, why would you move or stay here, only to change the community that drew our residents here in the first place?

That's like going to the most popular steak restaurant in town and demanding that they serve vegan entrees, just because that's what you think everyone else should eat. Back to Berkeley with you....

Like this comment
Posted by Loyal Resident
a resident of Avila
on Oct 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Pleasanton is a beautiful city with much to offer everyone, that is, to everyone that can afford it. Pleasanton upscale in thought, spirit and character. Pleasanton is clean and relatively crime-free; it has great schools and parks. The homes in Pleasanton are newer and well kept and expensive. The per capita income level per household is greater that $100,000. Anyone that appreciates these outstanding features about our town are very concerned about continuing this quality of life here. So much so that the City spent nearly $3 million towards that effort. That's was our best effort. Greater forces with deeper pockets won the battle, but not necesarily the war!

First, let's be honest with ourselves. We are not Alamo, Atherton, Ross, Kentfield, Blackhawk, Orinda, Lafayette or Moraga. Folks, "Pleasanton ain't big money". Were it not for the Castlewood and Foothill road area of custom homes, the town would just be mostly an accumulation of track homes of various ages, sizes, prices and descriptions.Nothing very exclusive about that!!

Our treasury is not deep by comparison. More affluent cities can afford to buy influence or delay the inevitable, we can't. So far we have not received any substantial "private donations" aimed at holding back the tide. We do get a lot of complaints that don't translate into cash, however.

But we do have several large businesses that employ thousands of people here. We should focus on keeping them and their money in Pleasanton. If you look at the real statistics, you would realize that Pleasanton already has hundreds of units of affordable housing, some occupied by low and very low income people, mostly the elderly and disabled.
A recent statistic shows that more than 60% of the homes in Pleasanton do not have children, lots of "empty nest". We need additional units to keep our senior citizens in town, in smaller units as they scale down their lifestyle. Look at Pleasanton Gardens, Kottinger Place, Ridge View Gardens for examples of affordable housing. Look at the plans for increasing the number of units in those areas. There is a new upscale retirement development "Stoneridge Creek" that will have market and below market rental rates. The size of that developement drawfs any single unit Pleasanton is slated to build. Affordable housing is everywhere, right there in your own neighborhood, I can assure you.

It is not the intent of the City to allow the building of housing units that will become a blight on Pleasanton. The plans and projected revenues from these developments will insure that they will meet Pleasanton's current and future living standards, it will still be a great place to raise a family, but we are changing like the rest of the world.

For those who want a true sense of the complexity of finding a balance between the old and the new, should attend the monthly Plannning, Housing, and Human Services meetings.

Hoping everyone will have a great weekend. GO PLEASANTON !!!