Pleasanton forced to have 2524 low income housing units (San Francisco, Sacramento: affordable apartments, attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
State statutes and local ordinances requiring "affordable hopusing" to be a part of new developments are nothing more nor less than social engineering at the expense of those who have worked hard for their earnings.
How many of us with reasonable means would choose to live next to or in close proximity of low-income housing? Not many I can think of yet in parts of California it is becoming unavoidable if you want a new or late model home.
From what I've seen over the years, low-income housing brings surrounding property values down while crime rates go up yet people's ability and freedom to choose safe neighborhoods in which to live and raise their families becomes more and more compromised. Yet another grand CA social experiment gone awry!
Well ol' crum would you care to cite which state laws require this, because I cant find any and I am using lexus, so perhaps you could give me a hand.
I did find this law: the fair housing law
To put it bluntly [SIZE=3][SIZE=3]
[LEFT]"The housing element statute requires that local planners address and
reduce governmental constraints on the development of housing for all
income levels. Such constraints may include local growth controls, strict[/LEFT]
building codes, developer fees, and permit procedures."
Looks like pleasanton violated every aspect of this.
You can move all over california and find new housing not next to low income people. Maybe you are just getting old and out of touch, but you can go to Morgan Hill, pleasanton, livermore, dublin, san ramon, rosevilee, granite bay, folsom irvine, and you can find new housing not near located near by. Its called doing your research.
Its so funny that you are against low income housing when you live in Bumble stick mizzou, the place you are always trying to remind us is so much better than here, where a low income car mechanic, or infantry soilder can afford to OWN A HOUSE. All these people are asking is that pleasanton allow developers to have free market conditions so they can live in 800 square foot apartments with a parking space. Talk about being transparent. You are a sad riot crum.
People of pleasanton are just scared, plain and simple. They know that they live in a flat arid valley with many pasture land still available for development. Infact it is much cheaper for developers to come in in build on flat ag land than it is to build on a hillside or to tear down and build in dense areas. They know that if the market were left to its own devices, their homes would not be worth what they are today. So they have to play games like limiting supply of homes and illegally turning away developers to ensure pleasanton stays pleasant.
Im sorry, but that is bonified socialism. Its the class example of kooky californians. They are all libretarian and anti big government until big government comes to the rescue. Thats the social expirement gone wrong in california. Housing for working class folks is every where in the US and not unique to California, and many places are actualy doing quite fine with it.
Where I grew up in Glen Ellyn, IL there are appartments for working class or what you people call "low income" folks. The town is just as well heeled as walnut creek, with more affordable housing, and great schools and low crime.
I'm sorry but this melodrama is really not impressing me, its just a bunch of california socialists acting like babies.
Heres a clue, when you use big government to insert its hand into an economic issue, the results are going to be counter-intuitive. Thats why pleasanton is in this mess now. Thats why things like minimum wage, have driven out employers, its why cities like Manhattan, Berkeley, SF, and Santa Cruz, with rent control have the highest costs of living in the country.
As the saying in the 80's went, "Its the economy stupid"
Thats fine and dandy that you 'usually agree with my posts', but I'm not here to make friends.
The article did not specify section 8 as the type of housing being built, its just low income housing. Housing for working class people, I really dont see a problem with it.
I'm not jealous of pleasanton at all, I live in granite bay which is just as affluent and twice as affordable.
It is funny you bring up folsom, folsom does have low income housing. There are plenty of trailer parks where low income folks, a middle class stiff can buy a nice home for 300k, and upper end apartments go for 1200 a month for 2 bed rooms and they are nice. When people need to build folsom gives the okay.
Its k-12 are some of the best schools in the state, there is low crime, and affordable housing. Folsom is a prime example of a community standing on its own merits, rather than trying to use big government like pleasanton people do.
Though I will admitt this, I laughed from Downtown sac all the way to roseville when I was thinking of this. It was one of those evil sinister ones
Where is the section 8 and low income housing in Granite Bay? I am pretty sure that is a sterile and predominantly white area, am I wrong? How do you have any input on the effects of low income housing when you live there?
Folsom is my favorite city in northern California. I would live there if I could make it work but unfortunately it's unrealistic. It's an affordable version of Pleasanton in my eyes.
You say "it's just low income housing. Housing for working class people." Why do you live in Granite Bay versus Citrus Heights? Versus North Highlands? Versus Foothill Farms? etc etc. I mean those are just working class neighborhoods. I assume you live where you do for the same reason I would live there. Good schools, neighbors, houses and you are away from most of the social issues plaguing most of the Sacramento region.
I'd want to live in Folsom/EDH or Pleasanton to get away from the low income housing. That's the point in having cities like that.
I think $77K per year is the income level that stands for "low income" housing in that area. That means condos. So there will be land set aside for high density housing near BART, probably similar to what Dublin did but knowing Pleasanton it will look better. There will be some "very low income" housing mixed into that, which is something Pleasanton already does, and a handful of subsidized (section 8 or otherwise) may be in the mix, or may not be. I'm unclear about that. But nothing will change the fact that not everyone will be able to live here, at least not the way they want to live.
The thing is, with the housing bubble popped there is already more "affordable" housing in Pleasanton than there has been in years. Who knows, buy the time anyone actually makes plans to build something it may all be moot anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens but I'm not going to hold my breath for anything.
I think $77K per year is the income level that stands for "low income" housing in that area. That means condos. So there will be land set aside for high density housing near BART, probably similar to what Dublin did but knowing Pleasanton it will look better. There will be some "very low income" housing mixed into that, which is something Pleasanton already does, and a handful of subsidized (section 8 or otherwise) may be in the mix, or may not be. I'm unclear about that. But nothing will change the fact that not everyone will be able to live here, at least not the way they want to live.
The thing is, with the housing bubble popped there is already more "affordable" housing in Pleasanton than there has been in years. Who knows, buy the time anyone actually makes plans to build something it may all be moot anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens but I'm not going to hold my breath for anything.
I hope you are right. The article didn't say $77k as the low income. It was down around $40k.
At least 130 units in that area would be restricted for very-low income households, which is about $44,650 for a family of four. Those units would be a mix of bedroom sizes and dispersed throughout the development. Section 8 vouchers would be accepted.
So the majority of the new constructs will not be very low income. And I'm guessing those that are will be rentals and perhaps even subsidized somehow by the developer or someone else.
The fact that you can not cite a state law mandating affordable housing is proof in the pudding. After looking through these documents there is really nothing you provided to state your case. Which I consider to be rude, considering how much reading that wase. But I would challenge you to look at the last section of your first link,
the part that says something to the effect "nothing in this section is a mandate to contract or expand a local governments authority over affordable housing nor is this a mandate to instructing localities to build a certian amount of affordable housing. "
Not the exact words but that was the jist of what they seem to be saying.
These laws are not mandates forcing affordable housing, they are simply mandates forcing cities not to discriminate against people who want to build affordable housing.
This is not a people rights issue, its a business rights issue.
Where is the section 8 and low income housing in Granite Bay? I am pretty sure that is a sterile and predominantly white area, am I wrong? How do you have any input on the effects of low income housing when you live there?
Folsom is my favorite city in northern California. I would live there if I could make it work but unfortunately it's unrealistic. It's an affordable version of Pleasanton in my eyes.
You say "it's just low income housing. Housing for working class people." Why do you live in Granite Bay versus Citrus Heights? Versus North Highlands? Versus Foothill Farms? etc etc. I mean those are just working class neighborhoods. I assume you live where you do for the same reason I would live there. Good schools, neighbors, houses and you are away from most of the social issues plaguing most of the Sacramento region.
I'd want to live in Folsom/EDH or Pleasanton to get away from the low income housing. That's the point in having cities like that.
The lower income housing in granite bay is in the local trailer parks, of course. It is perdominatly white, but I would say its more rustic than steril, personally. I don't have any input on the effects of lower income housing, but I have seen the effects of upper income housing in my once rural community. Lots of my old bike jumps and trails are now gated communities. Nothing I can do, change happens.
The problem here is you are trying to compare granite bay, folsom, and el dorado hills, to pleasanton. Folsom, edh, and GB, are the most expenisve areas of the sac metro, so from an economic stand point it does not make sense to build low income housing from a business perspective. You can get the land for half the price of granite bay if you buy in elk grove, natomas, rancho, or even better convert the old airforce housing at the air force base by north highlands. Thats why they build low incomehousing there.
Pleasanton by contrast is not like that. It is actually one of the cheaper places in the bay to build, when compared to sf, san mateo, santa clara, and the east bay hills. Thats why they had to use government intervention to keep the developers at bay, because the community alone can not stand on its own merits, theres just too much open land out there that is cheaper than the rest of the bay.
The fact that you can not cite a state law mandating affordable housing is proof in the pudding. After looking through these documents there is really nothing you provided to state your case. Which I consider to be rude, considering how much reading that wase. But I would challenge you to look at the last section of your first link,
the part that says something to the effect "nothing in this section is a mandate to contract or expand a local governments authority over affordable housing nor is this a mandate to instructing localities to build a certian amount of affordable housing. "
Not the exact words but that was the jist of what they seem to be saying.
These laws are not mandates forcing affordable housing, they are simply mandates forcing cities not to discriminate against people who want to build affordable housing.
This is not a people rights issue, its a business rights issue.
Again, look at legislative intent and most of all, the end result. It's called finess and it's how a lot of legislation gets passed.
Rude, huh? Darn!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
