Town Square

Post a New Topic

Affordable housing is good for Pleasanton

Original post made by Tim Hunt, Castlewood, on Jan 24, 2012

This story contains 349 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (6)

Like this comment
Posted by SteveP
a resident of Parkside
on Jan 24, 2012 at 8:39 am

SteveP is a registered user.

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.

Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jan 24, 2012 at 9:48 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

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.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 24, 2012 at 10:46 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"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?

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 24, 2012 at 10:58 am

Stacey is a registered user.

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.

Like this comment
Posted by Tim Hunt
a resident of Castlewood
on Jan 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Tim Hunt is a registered user.

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.

Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jan 24, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

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.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

First Amendment under attack
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 835 views

Who Won the Debate?
By Roz Rogoff | 25 comments | 676 views

Debate: What do you think?
By | 5 comments | 282 views

Props 62 and 66: To Kill or Not to Kill, those are The Questions
By Tom Cushing | 1 comment | 198 views