B
laming 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.
