I don't understand why the government has to impose a certain percentage or number of units of low cost housing in each city! And why does it seem like such a huge number of units to fit 105 acres? This will cause so much traffic congestion in our streets and the traffic on our freeways will get even worse. Why don't they impose these rules elswhere where there isn't that high a population and traffic? On top of that, most of these units will be apartments or units for rent and most likely when a person does not own their own home, they don't care for their property as much as someone who had to pay big bucks for it. I don't like this idea at all.

They know better than you. It is for your own good. The old Pleasanton that we all enjoyed and moved here for is actually bad for your health, didn't you know?

"most likely when a person does not own their own home, they don't care for their property as much as someone who had to pay big bucks for it."

That is why we need more government programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHA. The biggest obstacle for some people to buy homes is the down-payment requirement. We need to look in to government programs to eliminate that so that more people can be home owners. The other obstacle is the income requirement. We need the government to come up with creative loans that get around the income requirement. Home-ownership needs to be seen more as a right than a privilege.

so how much has the city paid out in fines for not doing this?
millions of dollars I presume?
better to abide by the gov't rules than to bankrupt your city and then the houses here are worth far less than what you paid.
low income can be senior citizens and handicap people... there is nothing wrong with that...
i saw the plans for the high density apts with a friend who lives out there by mc donalds, it was very nice and appealing, pleasanton can benefit from E&S Ring building that there...that vacant lot is an eyesore with the pge substation sitting there.
city's grow and change for the best sometimes and the planning commission did a good job on this issue.

There are good renters out there.

We've been renting our home for over 5 years. Walk down our street and those next to me and I know for certain the houses that need the most care and have yucky yards are owned by the occupants.

We plant our flower beds, clean our windows, keep our driveway neat. We take great pride in our home, regardless of who owns it!

Thank Jerry Brown and his leftist followers for this intrusion on our once nice city. I guess Pleasanton had it too good for too long. We can't have that---we must insert high density, low income row houses to emulate those wonderful places to live, like Detroit, Philadelphia, Kabul, Tijuana, etc.........

Why are my tax dollars being spent to pay for someone to live in pleasanton in "affordable" housing. Let people live where they can afford. How about affordable cars, vacations, clothes at Nordstroms, etc. Spend money either lowering taxes or on other priorities like education.

Tom - are you serious? Or did you just wake from a coma...

"We need the government to come up with creative loans that get around the income requirement. Home-ownership needs to be seen more as a right than a privilege."

Take a quick look back at all the creative loans that have added to our country's economic disasters. You and I are both now paying, for those creative loans. Having shelter is one's right...not owning that shelter. It is a privilege that follows hard work, sometimes multiple jobs, and lots of saving and budgeting.

Okay, I know you were pulling our leg. But I don't think paying for the government bailouts that DO NOT return to the communities is the answer.

As far as low income housing - I think every suitable community should offer it. Why not?

[post removed because it was offensive]

So is the state/county/ABAG forcing Alamo, Danville, Los Altos, Atherton, etc. to build low-income housing? Are they sharing the pleasure/pain of this central planning?

Also, if nearby cities (within 5-10 miles) have low-income housing, why it a requirement that neighboring cities do the same?

And Tom, I loved your comments above and took them as they joke they are. But don't you know it is all Wall Street's fault and government policies couldn't be culpable?

Affordable elder care and senior housing would be a good usage of the new apartments. Not all of our parents retire rich and by the time my parent gets off the wait list.... lets just say it's a long wait!!

[Post removed because it referred to a post that was removed]

Home ownership is the American Dream. It probably the most important choice an American makes.

"The desire for homeownership is deeply rooted in the American psyche.
Owning a home embodies the promise of individual autonomy and of
material and spiritual well-being that many people sought in coming to
this country. In addition to its functional importance and economic
value, homeownership has traditionally conveyed social status and
political standing. It is even thought to pro-mote thrift, stability,
neighborliness, and other individual and civic virtues.

Throughout this century, there has been bipartisan support for Federal
policies designed to encourage home-ownership. Herbert Hoover called
the owner-occupied home "a more wholesome, healthful, and happy
atmo-sphere in which to raise children." Lyndon Johnson promoted
homeownership as part of a strategy for addressing the urban ills of the 1960s, declaring that "owning a home can increase responsibility and stake out a man's place in his community....The man who owns a home has something to be proud of and reason to protect and preserve it."

Ronald Reagan said that homeownership "supplies stability and
rootedness."

[Portion removed due to promoting websites]

I live next to someone who has converted their home into a rental and to top it all off is Section 8 Housing. I pity those nice people in Pleasanton who will have to deal with low income neighbors who truthfully don't care about the upkeep of the home. To top it all off the owner of the house doesn't care that the neighbors are loud, lazy, and play their music all day. As long as the owner receives his $3,000 plus check a month from the government, he can give a rats ass about what happens to the neighborhood.

Don't be fooled you will have s single family come and apply during the application process and before you know it there are 20-30 people in the unit all with run down cars and smoking weed all day because they don't need to work (what for? housing is paid for). You will be hearing music day and night, if you can call it music. It is RAP with cuss words and a bunch of sub-wofer thumping.

Pleasanters gather together and put a stop to it. I don't live in Pleasanton but would hate to see anyone live through the hell I live through day and night. If I were a renter I would of moved out years ago. I have to stay put because I own and am close to retirement, I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be trapped in such a horrible situation. It is sad that our government has come to this.

It's not over yet. Just because the state mandated that we have to zone for low income housing doesn't mean that we have to let developers develop ghettos. I'd be more than happy to support a low income retirement community, but let's make it clear to developers that we won't support a general purpose low income apartment complex that would become a suburban ghetto.

We can and will make the developer's lives miserable if they want to do something like that. We have enough say at the local level on what developers can and can't do that we can make them endlessly rewrite plans, just like what happened with the Lin's (However, in the case of the Lin's, I think they got shafted. I didn't see anything wrong with putting a few upscale houses in the hills).

So stop whining about what should have been done all along in Pleasanton! Or, would you all just prefer that these "affordable" places get built in other areas so you don't have to deal with that crowd? Oakland? Richmond? I think there's enough affordable housing concentrated in those areas already.

Yes, I'd prefer these affordable houses not be built in Pleasanton.

If people in other areas have such a strong desire to live in Pleasanton, I recommend they work hard, better themselves via education/training, spend less than they make and save money, the build up a down payment for a Pleasanton house.

That is what we all did. Why should it be any different than anyone else?

I guess I always think of "affordable housing" as a ghetto, that's usually what it ends up as.
Giving fish away instead of teaching how to fish...

I'd love to see this housing dedicated to our Seniors.

Well, I don't know why everyone is automatically equating "affordable housing" to "ghetto". Affordable housing will be going to people who have lower net worth, either because of lower income levels or because they are younger and haven't had time to build up their net worth. I used to rent in Pleasanton and bought a house last year and one thing that I noticed is that there are relatively few families of SFH in the area who have small children of the age of my young kids. Most owners seem to be considerably older than me and of the parents I knew while I was renting. When I do meet parents with younger kids at the nearby park, I find that they are usually from the townhomes which are also nearby, not the SFH neighborhood where I live. So my feelings are that perhaps having a community dominated by relatively expensive SFH results in demographic imbalance towards an older age group with few younger families.

Our community seems to work well. We have SFH which tend to be owned by older people, but we also have townhomes which tend to be owned by younger families. And everyone seems to take pride in keeping our area a good, pleasant place to live.

Know better claims that "If people in other areas have such a strong desire to live in Pleasanton, I recommend they work hard, better themselves via education/training, spend less than they make and save money, the build up a down payment for a Pleasanton house. That is what we all did. Why should it be any different than anyone else?"

Well, I really have to take exception to Know better's statement. I didn't have to do any of those things. I don't belong to that class of people who have to work for a living. I inherited my millions from my Daddy, and I pay people to work for me. If entitlement people are born in Oakland and have a little bit of bad luck -- alcoholic and/or abusive parents, impoverished household with bad nuitritional opportunities, bit off a little bit too much of the hi-lead paint cheapo landlord put in -- that's their tough luck.

I do agree we of Pleasanton -- even the few working saps who live here -- are the good people, and those Walmart workers who think they deserve to live alongside of us are the bad people.

Hey, Tom -- have you been paying attention the last five years, or have you just arrived on this planet? What we absolutely do NOT need are more government plans to help people get into homes that they simply cannot afford!!! And, we don't need MORE Fannie Mae or Freddit Mac!!! This whole housing "BUBBLE" that has bankrupted a good potion of this country was started becaus politicians like Bill Clinton and Barney Frank got Congress to MANDATE to the Fannies and Freddies,etc., to make loans to people that could never be paid back, and that type of thing cannot be allowed to happen again!!! And, yes,there is still pressure to do more of the same stupid things in the interest of "fairness" and "political equality" --- phrases that ought to be abolished from our society!!!
I believe strongly in home ownership,but NOT everyone can afford one, and that's life, Tom! Some people actually prefer to rent, and the private sector accommodates them. Some people make better renters than they would owners, and that's OK, too. ALL people should have the same "opportunity", and they truly DO, but it is NOT a right (to own a home) that we are somehow "given" by our so-called "Government"! That's called SOCIALISM, and we have an occupant of the White House that is SLOWLY learning that WE DO NOT WANT SOCIALISM IN THIS COUNTRY. In another 18 months or less, he will learn just how much we do not want what he offers!
In the meantime, I hope you, Tom, and your family can establish a PLAN for becoming homeowners, if that is what you desire, and with hard work, some good advice, and a little luck, I'll bet you will reach your goals. It's the AMERICAN WAY!

"If people in other areas have such a strong desire to live in Pleasanton, I recommend they work hard, better themselves via education/training, spend less than they make and save money, the build up a down payment for a Pleasanton house.

That is what we all did. Why should it be any different than anyone else?"

Those who believe they "earned" their single-family home solely through their own hard work might not realize that they and other homeowners actually receive a HUGE housing subsidy from taxpayers. It's called the mortgage interest and property tax deduction and it costs the state $6 BILLION annually in California alone. (This doesn't include the cost to the federal treasury, which is roughly $60 billion a year.) And, the homeowners who benefit are largely middle and upper income, because they are more likely to be able to save to buy a home. Also, lower income homeowners are much less likely to itemize their taxes.

The homeownership subsidy for the relatively-well-off is at least 10 times as much as renters receive from the state through various affordable rental home programs. Perhaps it's time to rethink what "subsidized housing" really means....

Where will your house cleaner, gardener, Stoneridge mall checkout staff live exactly?

I wonder... it's hard, but we do live in a society where we have to rely on folks for most of our needs whether we know it or not. They deserve to have a shot to live in the community.

Dublin, Livermore, Castro Valley, etc. are just a few minutes away. What percentage of people commute long distances to their jobs in the Bay Area? Oh yeah, most of them.

Great (sarcasm) - Don't we have enough slums over on Vinyard Ave?They're just trying to turn Pleasnton into another Livermore, Tracy or Dublin. Why drive out existing Pleasanton residents to places like Danville, Lafayeet, Orinda or Walnut Creek to be replaced by "low-income" residents?

PS - I know it's not the City's fault.

I know a few US Veterans would love to live in Plutonia. In my opiniopn, priority should be given to black, brown, yellow, red, and white vets, M&F.

What the heck, a few of you might find yourselves a wonderful mate!

Soon I will be performing weddings for a tidy sum as a way of contributing to the community. If you wanna get married under a tree to vet, that can arranged!

oops...I forgot to include lavender vets...

Why was "Angry's" comment removed for of Objectionable content?, "Angry" was right on the money if you ask me. That person used to live in Newark and moved out. I still live in Newark and wish I could move out - exactly for the reason that "Angry" mentioned.
Where is our freedom of expression? You Rock "Angry"

I worked and sacrificed to get out of Oakland, Now I get to move back without moving back!

It's rediculous that the government forces us to have "Crap" on our lawn.

I have worked hard and frankly barely get by living here. With that said, it was my family's choice to sacrafice other things to live here in Pleasanton. Most low income housing is, "Ghetto". Take a look at the rentals at Santa Rita and W. Las Positas. Filled with lots of punks. If you cannot see that, then you aren't looking.

When you earn something, you appreciate it. I earned living here, and I appreciate it. IHowever, don't appreciate what I earned being devalued by the government trying to, "Make everything fair" What a crock of dookie! Life isn't fair and we should stop trying to make believe it is! Whatever happened to saying, NO! I know, it went out the door with giving kids spankings and kicking smart allec brats out of school, and got replaced with, "Time-outs and teachers being blamed for not understanding little Johnny!

Real unemployment is 22.5% nationwide and we want to give more to those who cannot afford to keep what they have already. Holy Crap, my back is killing me...Carrying the sick, lame and lazy is hard work.....

Shame on Me for thinking all people who live in affordable housing are losers.

Shame on Me for thinking that all people of color are going to be in gangs and do drugs.

Shame on Me for thinking that the PROFESSIONAL Management Companies that are putting up FANCY BEAUTIFUL APARTMENT HOUSING can not seem to have control over the people of color and drug dealers.

Shame on Me for thinking that affordable DOES NOT include SENIOR CITIZENS AND HANDICAPP PEOPLE OR EVEN WHITE PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR JOBS IN THIS ROTTEN ECONOMY.

Shame on Me for thinking that buying an expensive home in a pretentious upper middle class town was a mistake and I just want to live with the rich white people. Or attend town meetings to insult others and tell them they can't live the American Dream and live here too because they are not good enough to benefit from this great city.

Shame on Me for thinking that I will always be wealthy and have a home with too many rooms and windows and enough money always to afford the home.

Shame on Me for thinking that the economy will never touch my life, my family, my children, my parents and we will always be okay and have a job.

Shame on Me for forgetting that by the time I reach old age I won't need affordable housing.

Shame on Me for thinking that I will never get so ill, like cancer, and not be able to make my house payments and need a break that government programs have to offer.

SHAME ON ME FOR NOT BEING HUMBLE ENOUGH TO LOVE MY NEIGHBORS AND LIVE AS AN EXAMPLE OF SURVIVAL IN A CRUEL WORLD.

I think that as a means of raising revenue Pleasanton should offer to be a relocation facility for inmates being released back into society. San Quentin, Folsom, and Deuel are currently in our region of corrections and we would receive state and federal funds for allowing them to live in our community for the first 6 months after their release.

Affordable housing (by Pleasanton standards) can have its pluses and minuses.

Here are some potential benefits:

1. Less traffic, as employees in the grocery stores, mall department stores, etc., no longer have to commute to Pleasanton, but can live in the same city where they work.

2. Teachers, firefighters, and police officers who are just starting in their professions can afford to live in the same community they serve.

3. Senior citizens on fixed incomes can afford to remain in Pleasanton, close to their families.

As for the arguments that low wage people of color are going to "invade" Pleasanton and "ruin it"...I won't dignify that with a response. Those remarks speak for themselves.

There are thousands! of Pleasanton residents who drive to San Jose or BART to SF for work everyday. Certainly there are neighborhoods in San Jose and SF that these Pleasanton residents could live in if they can live in Pleasanton but they rather choose to live in Pleasanton despite giving up 90-120 minutes of their day to the commute.

Living next door to your work sounds like a pretty weak argument to me.

I'm only in Pleasanton now but I'm hoping for a Danville Bailout (for the sarcasm-challenged on this board that was sarcasm, I earn my own bailouts).

To the doubters (from the excellent book by David Bach),

"IF YOU WANT TO BE RICH, DON’T RENT

I apologize up front if you’re a renter, because I know this
may be brutal to hear, but you have to hear it if you’re going
to change. So here goes.
You simply can’t get rich renting. We know this. It’s a timeless truth. According to a recent report by the Federal Reserve,
the average renter in America is basically broke.
Try this on for size:
• In 2003 (the most recent year for which this kind of
data is available), the average renter in America was
worth less than $5,000.
• The average homeowner was worth nearly $172,000.
The comparison is pretty stunning. The average homeowner
is more than 34 TIMES RICHER than the average renter.
Could it be any clearer?
The point is that if you’re renting, it’s time to stop. Not that
there’s anything wrong with people who rent. Renters aren’t
bad people. In fact, my goal for you is to someday own some
homes or condos that you can rent to other people. It’s just
that if you are a renter yourself, I don’t want you to continue
being one much longer."

As usual, there is no debate. Everyone has already made up their minds on this issue and contradictory facts or reasoned arguments will not persuade them.

So why bother? The only thing that will happen on this "discussion forum" is people shouting in anger because Pleasanton is changing.

"To the doubters (from the excellent book by David Bach).....The average homeowner was worth nearly $172,000. The comparison is pretty stunning. The average homeowner is more than 34 TIMES RICHER than the average renter."

This may be true, but you can't conclude from this fact that homeownership makes people richer than renting. The primary reason that the average homeowner has a larger net worth than the average renter is that the average homeowner is older than the average renter. So the average homeowner is at a point in life where he or she is making a larger income AND has had more years to accumulate a larger net worth than the average renter.

I'll also bet that the average homeowner has a greater chance of having arthritis than the average renter. Does it then follow that homeownership causes arthritis?

If people should be able to live exactly where they want to, will the state please make sure I can live on the beach at Malibu even though I can't afford it?

It is tiring to see the continued acusation of racisim when people try to defend the positive results of hard work, sacrifices and smart decisions.

I don't give a crap your color, your nationality, or your sexual persuasion. I do care about whether you are contributing to society or detracting from it or drafting the hard work of others (true disadvantaged cases excluded).

It seems our world has turned upside down and all the grasshoppers are accusing the ants of racisim because they won't provide all the handouts that grasshoppers believe they deserve or won't let the grasshoppers play be different rules.

If the idea is to have people live where they work, then a condition of renting these units must be that the renters show they legally work in Pleasanton.

I am amazed at how many people accuse others of, "RACISM"

Obviously those that do it so often must be ignorant –adjective 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

Racism - A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Pointing out the obvious; That many low income renters and buyers bring their ideology of, G"IVE ME GIVE ME" to our neighborhood, which ranks 13th most affluent in the U.S. should not be called racism.

Being cautious of a young man dressed in baggy jeans and tattooed with gang signs shouldn't be called racism, but rather WISDOM. If it walks like a duck; THEN ITS A DUCK! DOes that mean everyone that looks like a thug is a thug? NO, but being leary of them is not Racism either.

Stop hiding behind political correctness and put your big boy pants on and stand for something.....

YAT and GX,

I have a couple of comments. GX the whole race card thing has been used so much it is now just discounted as a talking point which is really sad because there are still pockets of racism but now it is like the little boy who cried wolf and no one pays any attention to it any longer.

YAT I do not think it is about debate but rather when I read your writings I just do not know how to respond. Don't take this the wrong way but in my opinion your views are just so socialistic, prounion, and firm in your mind that it just does not seem worth the time it would take to write you. I am sorry but it just does seem as if you have ever been in any world for a length of time other than a teaching union environment so you are limited in your views.

YAT,
I don't respond to you either. Your such a know it all. Instead of presenting facts and arguments, why don't you try screaming out a bias once in a while. A little venting of hatred is good for you once in a while. I must have missed something when I was in school, but I learned the socialism is bad. And just because I think some groups of people are inferior that doesn't make me a racist. What a rediculous claim.

Jimmy - Your pretending to be an ignorant racist to obfuscate the discussion is almost as being as bad as a true racist. You are fixated on a point that is not relevant to the discussion.

Again, I believe I am like most people these days who don't fixate on race. We live in a global, multi-cultural world if you haven't figured out yet.

And it doesn't make me a racist if I don't want to provide unlimited welfare to others or not let them play be different rules that I played by.

"What is Affordable Housing?

Affordable housing means different things to different people. In San Diego, the median price of a home is more than $500,000, a product of supply and demand and location. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines "affordable" as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a household's monthly income. That means rent and utilities in an apartment or the monthly mortgage payment and housing expenses for a homeowner should be less than 30 percent of a household's monthly income to be considered affordable.

Currently, the median income for a family of four in San Diego is $63,400. Utilizing HUD's definition, affordable housing for a low-income family (household earning up to 80 percent of San Diego area median income) (AMI), would be an apartment renting for about $1,500 per month or a home priced under $225,000. The cost would vary depending on family and unit size.

California Community Redevelopment Law requires that 15 percent of housing developed in a redevelopment project area must be affordable to low- to moderate-income households (persons earning up to 120 percent of area median income). Under this provision, affordable housing would be rental units costing up to $1,700 per month and for-sale housing priced up to about $240,000.

Public agencies define affordable housing as units with rent restrictions or price restrictions to maintain affordability as defined by HUD for the longest feasible time."

Web Link

Median income for Pleasanton is $113,345. Using the same formula applied to San Diego (the HUD formula), "affordable housing" in Pleasanton for a family of four earning $90,676 (80% of the median) would be rental units costing up to $3,000 a month (!) and for-sale housing priced at $429,000.

A $3,000 a month apartment or a $429,000 house constitutes "ghetto housing" in Pleasanton, I guess.

And yes, "affordable housing" is NOT only "for rent", it's also "for sale".

Old-time Pleasantonians recall with some amusement the hysteria that ensued when it was announced a BART station would be built here. The same OMG WE WILL BE INVADED BY GANG BANGERS FROM OAKLAND arguments were used...and it never happened.


The City of Pleasanton now has an opportunity to work with developers to provide a workable transit plan, perhaps "mixed use" housing that has shopping and residential buildings at the same location to further minimize the growth of traffic in Pleasanton and maintain the city's quality of life.

The people who will be using this affordable housing answer your 911 calls. The people who will be using this affordable housing teach your children. The people who will be using this affordable housing bag your groceries and staff your stores and checkout counters.

Aren't they good enough to be your neighbors?

YAT,

"The people who will be using this affordable housing bag your groceries and staff your stores and checkout counters."

It will affect the schools, API scores, and home values. People with less education tend to valued education less and don't stress academic achievement with their children. It can also impact the education environment when the schools have students who are less motivated.

YAT - It is a fact that the non-violent crime rate has increased substantially in Pleasanton these past couple of years (most likely due to the economy). I don't know if it is/isn't correlated with the opening of BART but if you look at the incident map from the Pleasanton Police department there are a lot of break-ins near the mall.

YAT represents the voice of reason in this thread. I support your analysis full heartedly.

There are many families who cannot afford to live here in Ptown who want to make a better life for their children by getting into better schools. These are working class families, those who are invested in making good. These are the best possible neighbors! And those are the ones who will take advantage of these affordable rentals and for sale homes. Calm down and welcome them, folks.

Yet another teacher,
The new B.A.R.T. extension just opened this spring. The shopping season has yet to come. When it does, the very Gang Bangers you mention will use it to get here. I have a tremendous amount experience in crime prevention (26 years) Have you been to Bay Fair? How about Eastmont Mall, or any other mall accross the nation attached to public transportation?

The idea is great, it really is. I like making our mall more accessible to everyone. The problem is, the Gang Bangers like it too. I know, because I have heard them chatting about it, but as usual, the powers to be, do not listen to the warnings of us lowly beat cops. If Pleasanton PD does not put a substaion at the mall, for visibilty, then oh well....

It wont change over night, but it will change, and not for the better.

Neighbor said "There are many families who cannot afford to live here in Ptown who want to make a better life for their children by getting into better schools. These are working class families, those who are invested in making good. These are the best possible neighbors!"

Very well stated.

To Sam & YAT:
I applaud your thinking and wished all Pleasanters thought like you, this way all the low income housing tenants in my town can go to your town and get out of mine. This would be ideal.

YAT,
They are good enough to be our neighbors...Thats not the argument. The argument is wheter the government should demand that we build affordable housing.

Why is it ok for the governemnt to force us to lower our standards, so people who cannot really afford to be here, get to be here for less? Where does it end?

What is wrong with waiting, saving money and living within your means? I did not get government help to get here. I am not rich and in fact took 37 years to save the money to live here. I wish everyone could live in a town like Pleasanton, but everyone can't, and its not right that the State, or the Feds are forcing it upon us. There is no descrimination going on. Prices of homes were not set by a group of racists, hell bent on keeping out anyone they did not want in!

When do we say, "WE CANNOT AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE EVERYONE"

No, David, there is no argument.

The argument ended when the City of Pleasanton fought the state law for years and lost in every single court in which the case was heard.

The judicial and legislative system have both decreed that the city join the rest of the state and implement affordable housing.

And David, perhaps it's not an issue for you, but read the comments above yours. All of them. Tell me what you think the reasons are for those people's objections. It's not a pretty sight.

Pleasanton can make affordable housing a good thing (more income and racial/ethnic diversity, less traffic, more young families and young professionals able to live in our community) or a bad thing (that's the part where we assume all these newcomers are going to be crack dealers from "out of town").

I'm hoping these comments are not representative of the Pleasanton community. If they are, this will be made into a "bad thing".

End of discussion.

I never worked at Walmart, so why should othr people have to? What's wrong with them? I've never experienced racism, but some people claim they have. What's wrong with them? Why aren't people just like me?

Why doesn't someone bring this up to Supervisor Scott Haggerty? Has anyone heard how he feels on the matter? I'm sure if he hears from his constituents he will surly bring about a change. Try it.

I've got a great job and can easily afford to live in Pleasanton, but I've seen that there are many unemployed who simply cannot. I think the state should force my company to give 6-figure jobs to all of the states unemployed (dis-advantaged) people. Then they too could afford to live here in regular priced houses. Doesn't matter if they are qualified or not all that is important is that disadvantaged folks enjoy all of the fruits of the advantaged folks, then all will be good with the world.

"They are good enough to be our neighbors...Thats not the argument. The argument is wheter the government should demand that we build affordable housing."

Doesn't this all low-income housing requirement stem from the fact that we have opened up the city to many businesses? (e.g., the Hacienda business park). I was under the impression that the basic argument of the courts was that if Pleasanton creates jobs then it also has an obligation to build housing for people holding those jobs rather than taking a NIMBY attitude and forcing those people to find housing in other communities. What about this seems unfair?

If this is the source of the problem, then perhaps we made a mistake in allowing the establishment of new businesses like those in the Hacienda business park.

Good point, Sam. There are many jobs in Pleasanton that require workers but not near enough housing to accommodate them. If Pleasanton had remained just a "bedroom community", then the affordable housing wouldn't be a requirement.

The future is here, and the future is that housing and jobs go together. That means housing for all workers.

However, I take issue with the statement that Pleasanton has made a "mistake" by permitting affordable housing. Affordable housing means different things in different communities. As I pointed out in my calculations in an earlier comment, an "affordable" house in Pleasanton is $420,000--hardly a shack! An "affordable" apartment can cost as much as $3,000--again, hardly a "ghetto crib".

I see this time and time again in Pleasanton: fear of the unknown, fear of the outsider world, fear of the Other (whether the Other is a lower-income person, a person of color, etc.). You can see there's a lot of fear-mongering in this discussion forum that does not represent the entire community but does represent the thinking of a significant portion of the community.

When I was growing up, we didn't have this wide income disparity that we do today. My parents owned a very successful business (which they sold for millions when they retired), and living on the same block as us was: a plumber, a teacher, a doctor, a car salesman, a police officer, a firefighter, a lawyer, an engineer...all people who are usually segregated into different neighborhoods (or even cities) in today's America.

Once again, I ask the question: are the people who bag your groceries, repair your cars, teach your children, and answer your 911 calls good enough to be your neighbors, or not?

If you welcome the newcomers, and embrace this change in a positive spirit, chances are it'll work out great.

If you greet the newcomers with hostility and suspicion, chances are Pleasanton will be facing more lawsuits.

I moved to Pleasanton many years ago specifically because there was a housing cap. I wanted a community that still had open space and didn't cookie cutter every last inch of land. Why does the government have the right to come in and change what the citizens voted on multiple times. I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't thousands of acres of land all along 580 - in Dublin - and Livermore to build housing units without filling up every square inch of open space. So what that people pay a premium to live here. What's wrong with that....it's no different than what happens in every other state in the US. You should live in a community that meets your financial means and there is nothing wrong with that. Not every town has to be affordable to every person. Jerry Brown is wrong, wrong, wrong to have done this. I wouldn't vote for him to walk my dog after the play he pulled on Pleasanton.

Poor Resident. Another of Pleasanton's victims. When will this persecution white suburbanites end, damn it???

Astronomers have found the center of the universe, and it's not Pleasanton. Jerry Brown didn't do anything to Pleasanton; as Attorney General, he brought a suit to enforce state law. Every single judge who heard the case agreed that Pleasanton was in flagrant violation of the affordable housing law, and finally, after millions of dollars in legal fees wasted, the City Council wisely decided to give in and bring Pleasanton with the law.

So Dublin and Livermore can have "those folks", eh? Low income, people of color, those people can wait your tables and collect your trash, but you don't want them as neighbors.

Ok, got it. You're a special person who can only live next to other special people. People who just happen to be rich. And white. Not that I'm accusing you of being a class snob or a racist. We don't have any in Pleasanton. I know because they tell me so.

30 years ago, we didn't have crappy Sacto lawmakers who told us what kind of town we can have. Nowadays, they are trying to create EVERY town be exactly alike.....all under the same quidelines. NO longer a free people. Marxist 'central planning'.
I think I read the 'low' income is $72,000.. I believe 'affordable' laws require those owners, don't really 'own' like the rest of us...they have to sell to others as "low" income, which means they don't really appreciate as much as they do for the rest of us. See, they'll still have to SAVE (heaven forbid) for a down payment for their next house ! You know, like we all had to do,....save our own down payments. Oooops, forgot, that's what just happened, a whole group who were allowed to buy houses without adequate down payments. Oh my, it makes my head swin. I like it so much better when we all played by the rules, saved before buying anything, etc etc. This 'central planning' from the rulers at the top, doesn't work very well. You use to save, maybe get a condo 30 miles away, THEN moved UP. "Movin' on UP" is how real estate has always worked, the down size, as elders. Our future now is, all be alike, and upon graduation get your government controlled housing, WHERE you CHOOSE to live..,.no more waiting, working, and saving, that's for fools.

I haven't saved up any money since shortly after 911 when George Bush told us all to go shopping as the most patriotic thing we should do in response to terrorism. Now some unpatriotic wacko is telling me I'm supposed to have saved all this time?

I like to look at things on the bright side. More affordable housing for those who can't afford housing should stimulate our local economy. More small business opportunities. More jobs. More laundramats, more check cashing stores, more liquor stores, and more bail bondsmen. What's not to like? And do not DARE call me a racist. I only look through the lens of a fiscal conservative.

We had a beautiful aparthied system in South Africa until a bunch of losers who were mired in poverty decided they should be able to live where they wanted to. That's why I moved to Pleasanton. The 1% demographic looked almost perfect to me. I think we should try with all our might to ensure the 1% solution remains firm in beautiful Pleasanton.

It is amazing to see all the misinformation and distortions out there in the attempt to bait racial divide. All those out there that purposely do this are nearly as bad as true racists.

See the actual facts below:

White alone - 41,917 (61.9%)
Asian alone - 14,564 (21.5%)
Hispanic - 6,884 (10.2%)
Two or more races - 2,010 (3.0%)
Black alone - 1,167 (1.7%)
American alone - 355 (0.5%)
Other race alone - 245 (0.4%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone - 21 (0.03%)


Web Link

Affordable housing in pleasanton? guess that would mean a home for $900,000.00 instead of a million?
and to those people that are wondering where the gardeners or Stoneridge Mall checkers will live? It's not just them-more then half the employees of the city of Pleasanton-police and fire included live in Livermore or over the altamont. or wait some live in Oakland. I dare you to go ask employees and see what they say. I did

There is plenty of affordable housing in Dublin. If Pleasanton workers decide to live farther away than that, it is their choice.

I think many of us at one time made the tradeoff of a longer commute for a nicer house. I know I did when I moved to Pleasanton. For years I lived in Pleasanton and commuted to either Palo Alto or San Francisco. I did not expect either city to build affordable housing for me. I had a choice. I could purchase a much smaller/older house or live further away and afford a larger house.

Since the Big Brother, government controlled housing, also come with 'control' requirements for 'resales', and that they are also to be REsold with income restrictions, .....will appraisers (not always the brightest) use the controlled reduced resale price as YOUR COMP, dragging down your numbers,....when you want to resell? I'm sure our brilliant legislators, so gifted with words and ways to control our lives, have fully and FAIRLY thought through the process into the future.

GX:

Many white racists consider Asians the "good minority". Blacks are 10% of California's population yet only 1.7% of Pleasanton's, for example. When Pleasantonian say they don't want a "ghetto", it's a code word for something else.

But I see a class divide as much, or more, than a racial divide on this issue. Pleasantonians who object to "affordable housing" don't want white people, Asian people, Hispanic people, or black people if they're not rich.

If a lot of rich black people wanted to move into Pleasanton, I cannot imagine there would be any open objections.

But once again: the firefighters, police, nurses, and teachers of this city are often forced to live outside its borders because there is insufficient affordable housing.

We are good enough to answer your 911 calls at 3 am, to receive you in the ER at midnight, to teach your children, but we are not good enough to be your neighbors?

That's an issue of class and not race, although I do think affordable housing will boost the minority population in Pleasanton a bit.

And once again, rail and rant all you want against affordable housing, but Pleasanton has wasted millions on lawsuits and lost. It's not an issue to debate, it's a fact of life. Game over.

YAT,

It really isn't any different than any exclusive club. Certainly not all of the employees at Castlewood can afford to be members. Some people move to Pleasanton for a degree of exclusivity. Some people go to Stanford rather than Cal for the same reason. I don't fault them for that. I don't think the state government is acting in our community's interest when it forces us to build low income housing.

Fred: You're seriously comparing Pleasanton to a private country club? If so, can you restrict Pleasanton's streets and parks to "residents only"?

No, you can't. It's unConstitutional and such a law would be struck down immediately by the courts.

Castlewood is a private country club and nobody can enter without the owners' permission.

I find it very revealing of your mindset that you consider Pleasanton the city to be the same as Castlewood the private country club. I also find it rather disheartening that I have to explain the difference to you.

Vent all you want. Pleasanton argued its side in court and lost. It's over.

Only debate now is how to best plan for this change.

YAT - If you look back at my posts, you won't see serious heart burn from me regarding affordable housing. Although, I do find your logic on this a bit lacking. To take it to an extreme, Beverly Hills employees need to make as much as movie stars so they can afford to live in the same town? I find nothing wrong with living in one city and working in another. I've done that the majority of my career.

What I was initially reacting to was the overuse of the term "racist". It seems these days that term is thrown around very loosely when someone says something that is disagreeable to another. Lowlifes come in all shapes, sizes and colors.

There is nothing racist about wanting an upscale neighborhood and all the benefits that come with that. It is what I worked hard for all these years. Let's turn this around. Why can't an upscale neighborhood be an incentive for someone to strive for, like it was for me and so many others?

Again, you are confusing "neighborhood" with "city".

There always have been, and always will be, upscale neighborhoods within cities. That's just how things are and I've no problem with that.

But that's very, very different from excluding people from an entire city. The affordable housing lawsuit didn't say that they wanted people such as firefighters, police, and teachers (all of whom would qualify for "affordable housing", by the way) to be able to live in any neighborhood they wanted, but to have a chance to live in any city they wanted.

What's wrong with choice? People should have the choice to live in Pleasanton, or not. You choose to live in Pleasanton and work elsewhere; some people would like to be able to choose to live here and work here. And when--not if--a big earthquake hits this area, you might be very glad indeed if affordable housing has made it possible for the city's first responders (firefighters and police officers and paramedical personnel) to live within the city's borders.

As far as "lowlifes" (your word, not mine), I've met quite a few in my life, and the word had nothing to do with income. You obviously think "lowlife" equals "poor", but there are plenty of people with high-paying jobs and education who I would not want as my neighbors.

If you want a really good example of these rich "lowlifes", look on Wall Street.

YAT - I completely agree with you on the term "lowlife". I understand where you are coming from with regards to housing and am not sure we are that far off.

Again, I got involved with this blog because I grew tired of the overused term "racist". I do believe this overuse will de-sensitize people to times when it is appropriate for the unforunate times when there is true racism.

The housing cap was illegal when it was instituted. The state did not come after us because we were not even close to the cap and could potentially accommodate the required balance through zoning. Pleasanton is the only city in California with a hard cap. I should day WAS the only city with a hrad cap. If it had been a soft cap then we probably would not have been sued.

BTW there is a difference between low income and affordable. Affordable is not subsidized housing.

However, just so you know, there is already section 8 housing in Pleasanton and in most cases you can't identify where that might be.
. .

I have a neighbor in Dublin who has a Section 8 voucher for $1700 for herself and her 12 year old daughter. I live in what I consider a nice, "middle class" neighborhood and was surprised at the size of the subsidy. But even if "affordable housing" means $1700 a month, I don't think that qualifies as a "ghetto".

Thanks to Hmm for adding some useful info to the discussion. As I pointed out upthread, "affordable" is a relative term and the housing that is likely to be built will not be distinguishable from the existing housing stock.

There's been quite a bit of talk about race in the comments regarding this subject. I thought it germain to post a link to the lovely "progressive" organization that has forced this issue upon Pleasanton, Urban Habitat.

Web Link

"Urban Habitat builds power in low-income communities and communities of color by combining education, advocacy, research and coalition building to advance environmental, economic and social justice in the Bay Area."

"We envision a society where all people live in economically and environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Clean air, land and water are recognized as fundamental human rights..."

Interesting how this organization's mission statement is fixated upon race. Very intersting indeed.

So if Pleasanton is neither "low-income" or largely not a community of "color," then why would Urban Habitat bring a lawsuit against our city? Also, with all of this added affordable housing, wouldn't traffic congestion, pollution and damage to our environment increase? Social justice indeed.

I saved up for over a decade to buy my family a house in a desireable community. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit idly by and let a racist organization morph this place into a clone of all of the other cities along 880.

This is the suburbs. Go back to Oakland, Urban Habitat.

-The Smooveness

Thanks Smoovy. After reading your post, I've decided to send $100 to Urban Habitat. They seem to be doing a yeoman's job against racism in both city and suburban neighborhoods where me-first attitude is encoded to disguise deep-seated racist sentiments and beliefs. If you truly loved Ptown, you'd be fighting to make it more racially diverse and economically just. But, not so. Tunnel-visioned, racist, selfish is as tunnel-visioned, racist, selfish does. Wish people like you would get their dead racist fear mongering off the roadway. Kudos to Urban Habitat for helping clear garbage out of the way of progress.

Blackie,

Your comments are beyond absurd and clearly expose your own racial bias/hatred that afflicts you.

"Physician, heal thyself!"

Tell me Commissar Blackie, what is the ideal racial mix of a city? What about the racial mix of a neighborhood? How many people of the same ethnicity can live within two households of each other? What % of city's population has to be "diverse" to not be racist? Let me know so I can assist in the redevelopment of Pleasanont to meet Central Planning's, Office of Ethnic Diversity's ultimate goals.

As you know, anyone can move to Pleasanton. All they need to do is work hard, save and buy a house at market rates like the rest of us. Nothing racist involved with that.

I have a hot tip for you. If you're looking for a little slice of heaven that is "racially diverse," look no further than Oakland. I hear they have what you're looking for (35% white, 28% black, 25% hispanic,...). I'm told Oakland has low crime, great shools, excellent recreational programs, superb public transportation and a sound balance sheet. Like I said, it's a slice a heaven just a hop, skip and a jump from here. It has your name written all over it. Check it out!

You would fit in well at Urban Habitat. Rather than give them $100 bucks you should consider going to work for them. You seem to be cut from the same cloth.

-Smooveness

" If so, can you restrict Pleasanton's streets and parks to "residents only"?"

Not "residents only", but restricting Pleasanton's streets and parks to people who appear that they should be here can and is being done. We have neighborhood watches in many of our communities and suspicious activities are reported to local law enforcement. People can be stopped and questioned repeatedly and that does act as a deterrent. People get the message.

Housing is restricted to those who can afford it, and that is the way it should be.

I have some experience with the disastrous effects of government interference in the people's rights of freedom of association. I lived in the South and experienced first hand the degradation of school systems as the result of forced busing.

"Pleasanton argued its side in court and lost. It's over."

It is only beginning. This was merely one skirmish in the larger war. It only says certain areas need to be zoned for low income housing. The next battle to win will be the one that will raise every roadblock possible to actually building these things. This could last decades. We will be working hard on the effort just as we worked hard to afford to live in Pleasanton.

It's not 'me-first' Blackie. Let's look at the facts. After years of working, saving, starting out in a converted garage, with baby's crib at foot of our bed, then duet apartment, waiting, then a repo because no down savings but both with excellent secure jobs for sseveral years making us good credit risks, then more waiting and into a step-up house, waiting, then relocatiing to several communities with large homes, and now as a senior I wind up in a duet smaller than that first apartment..but, now in a community I have earned. There is no reason Pleasanton needs to be a starter community like Tracy...........nor should it be a ner-do-well community for those those didn't try, nor haven't gone thru the move-up steps.. I looked at that site about social justice crap....that doesn't mean everybody gets the benefits of the top out of the gates, only those who have worked, saved, and sweat thru the steps.
People should not have the right to latch onto, or attach themselves to others..becoming parasites. yes, parasites are everywhere, but our government should not legalize it and in turn, punish me for my work.

Fred: "people who appear that they should be here"? What are the criteria for appearance, then? Manner of dress? Skin color? Something else?

Fred: "People can be stopped and questioned repeatedly and that does act as a deterrent. People get the message."

The law in California states that police cannot stop people just to ask for identification. The police must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to stop someone. This is not a police state.

And I find it interesting that Fred equates criminal activity with affordable housing. But he saved the best for last:

"It is only beginning. This was merely one skirmish in the larger war. It only says certain areas need to be zoned for low income housing. The next battle to win will be the one that will raise every roadblock possible to actually building these things. This could last decades."

It's a war, then, Pleasanton against the Outsiders? I thought it was a civil debate that got its fair hearing in the courts. Now it's a war? How do you declare war against your fellow Californians who want to be your neighbors?

No surprise that Fred is a Southerner. The Southerners openly obstructed federal civil rights laws for a decade, until the federal government finally intervened. But Fred's vow to fight on in the face of an overwhelming loss in the courts reminds me of George Wallace's vow of "segregation now, segregation forever!". Ah, the glory days, eh, Fred?

Guess what, Fred? Y'all ain't in the South. This is California and we do things a little bit different around here.

"No surprise that Fred is a Southerner."

Funny, I didn't say that I "was a Southerner". I said that I lived in the South. Such distinctions may not mean much to this "teacher" because he has already made up his mind that I am the wrong kind of person, just because I have lived in the South. I did notice, that you did not address the issue of busing. I wonder if you know anything about it? Have you ever lived in the South? Have any of your children had to deal with a school that was integrated by forced busing?

"The law in California states that police cannot stop people just to ask for identification."

They can and do stop people who are acting suspiciously, thank God. It is up to the officer to decide what constitutes suspicious activity. They have a pretty good idea who belongs where.

"Now it's a war? How do you declare war against your fellow Californians who want to be your neighbors?"

Yes it is a war, but not against people who "want to be your neighbors". It is a war against meddlesome bureaucrats who wish to impose their views on our community. People who "want to be your neighbors" always have the right to earn the privilege of living in Pleasanton, regardless of their race, color, or creed.

"They have a pretty good idea who belongs where."

Y'all don't look like y'all belong around heah?

Now just how do they have that "pretty good idea", Mr. Fred? Can you give us the criteria for Pleasanton PD marking "outsiders" from Pleasantonians? You keep dancing around that issue and won't say specifically how you know.

Forced school busing was about racial integration, Mr. Fred. Affordable housing is about providing space in every community for working people, the people who sweep your streets, collect your garbage, teach your kids, and answer your 911 calls. Interesting Freudian slip that you keep harping on about forced busing in the South and equating it with affordable housing.

I'm always highly suspicious of people who say they want a "war" against anybody. And those "meddlesome bureaucrats" were the state legislature and the governor! Our elected officials! It's called democracy--but judging from your enthusiasm for illegal police harassment of people who "don't look like they belong in Pleasanton", I'm guessing democracy isn't your favorite form of government, Mr. Fred.

So Mr. Fred is not a Southerner but he admires the way they fought valiantly against the oppression of having white kids go to school with black kids. It was a war that was begun a long time ago and the war goes on in many different forms, and Mr. Fred is on the front lines.

Why do I often feel, when commenting in the Pleasanton Weekly, that I've stumbled across The Onion instead?

Wake up people! Don't you see the reverse racism and discrimination against white males? We are the victims. We've always had difficulty being hired, and educational options for us have always been limited. Now, it's almost impossible for us to get hired or accepted into a good school. I'm not racist. I'm just against the bureaucrats who favor certain flavors of skin color over others. White males have been persecuted for centuries. That's why I wasn't able to get through high school or into college. The housing war in Ptown is just another battle; we must be courageous and work together to make sure 1% stays 1%, if ya know what I mean.

I had to work so hard while growing up. I had to go to school. And then I thought about getting a job. But instead I learned how to apply make-up in an alluring way, and then my parents had to scrimp and save for my enhancements. Then, you have no idea how difficult it is snatching an eligible bachelor who can afford living in Pleasanton. My husband inherited much of his fortune, but last summer he read two books, which is harder than you think. Two summers ago, I planted a rose alongside one of our patios. I cut my finger and even today you can see the scar if the sun hits it right.

So don't talk to me about work. And you know very well the intruders who will come in are not as decent people as me and my honeybunch. Yesterday I saw one of them standing outside of Safeway. Soliciting for some poor people's cause. Do we need this kind of thing around here? I ask you.

"So Mr. Fred is not a Southerner but he admires the way they fought valiantly against the oppression of having white kids go to school with black kids."

No, I admire the fight against forced busing. That policy was a disaster for all involved.

Web Link

"Our elected officials! It's called democracy"

When our elected officials turn away from the people or act against the interest of those who elected them, we have remedies for that too.

We will fight those who would force low income housing on the Pleasanton. We will be throwing every obstruction in the book at them. They can be held off for decades, probably long enough to get this ruling overturned.

Where are the 17 locations?

The Board has gotten off track a little.

YAT is on the attack something fierce. I think the State, who does very little right, should not force low income, or affordable housing on any city period. Its not allowed for in the Constitution, at least it is not covered. Everyone should have the right to live where they want. If I want to move to La Jolla, or Woodside, or Palo Alto, I can. I don't, because I cannot afford it. I am a first resonder who saved to live in a good, safe community. I sacraficed new cars, boats and vacations to be here. Why should the other Teachers, and first responders YAT talks about be any different?

Maybe I should allow my house to be forclosed on, then get in line for the more affordable stuff. The "BRAND NEW" affordable stuff. I mean, why not, I deserve it just as much as they (whomever they are)do...

Right now, the City, County, State and Federal governments have more days in the month, than they have money to cover! So since they get there money from us, who is paying for these affordable home? I know, we are, we are paying for ours, and theirs...Nice!

The top 1% ($338,000.00 per year or more) pay 38% of all income tax collected. The top 5% ($150,000.00 per year, or more) pay 55% of all income taxes, and the top 15% ($113,000.00 per year, or more) pay 70% of all income taxes collected.

I say we give a little more............After all, none of us earned what we have...Us pleasantonians were born with silver spoons right? Fact: 80% of all millionares in America are first generation. I wish I was one, but I'm not. The Government needs to get back to work on spending what they bring in, not what we and our great grand children have not earned....

Wake up, life isn't fair, and trying to force it just makes it worse.

One doesn't need to be a first-generation millionaire to be a member of the white trash rich. All you need is their values and aspirations. See above.

david,

I agree 100% with your post! Spot-on!

David,
I agree 100% too. I have nothing more to say because, well, beyond whining about the enslavement of the rich in this country (which is going downhill by the way) I have nothing to say.

I continue to read posts in which the authors talk about having bought a house "all on my own" or "by scrimping and saving." What they are missing is the FACT that we homeowners receive a huge tax subsidy to help us afford our homes. The mortgage interest deduction costs the state $6 billion a year in lost revenue. Contrast that with the situation faced by hard-working members of our community who earn too little to buy a home even with this deduction: they receive little or nothing to help them afford their rent.