Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Yup, that's the way the Judicial System has set things up in this country.
Boca Raton, Florida, passed a voter-initiative to set a population cap decades ago. The Supreme Court shot it down; you can't do population caps, period.
As to the low-income housing, Student Urban Planners study what is known as the "The Mount Laurel Doctrine," which comes from a NJ Supreme Court Case. The Court decided that every locality had to provide its "Fair Share" of low-income housing. All the other states followed suit. To enforce this, the government may require that a certain portion of any big new developments be set aside for low-income residents, and can use tax dollars to compensate the developers.
Social Engineering by a government that thinks it has complete and ultimate power. Who are you to complain?
Yup, that's the way the Judicial System has set things up in this country.
Boca Raton, Florida, passed a voter-initiative to set a population cap decades ago. The Supreme Court shot it down; you can't do population caps, period.
The limitation of sprawl and development surrounding Portland set up by the state of Oregon was never shot down by the Supreme Court. That resulted in smaller lot sizes in Portland but made it a very nice city.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,564,711 times
Reputation: 16689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude
Just because you do not compare the valley to the peninsula does not mean that developers dont.
And to take your hypothetical question lets examine:
Lets say you want to build low income housing apartments to capable of housing about 2000 people. You have about 10 acres of land used for this development.
You can go to san leadro, hayward, and fremont, where there is no room to build, you can pay top market value for the land, pay people to tear down existing sites, pay people to tear up existing infastructure such as pipes, side walks, etc,. Than you pay some one to design your apartments to fit each block that you have raised. Than you pay some one to build these aparments.
Compare that to say going to pleasanton or livermore, buying an empty plot of land, paying some one to design 1 aparment building. You pay some one to build 10 apartments of the same model with supporting infastructure, than you are done.
Its way cheaper to build in plesanton, even if you have to say pay 50k or what ever more for the acre. The ends justify the means.
And there is plenty of open land in pleasanton, there is a whole empty plot by bernal on 680, a whole empty plot of land south of 580 and west of el charro, and open land out by stanely blvd. Plenty of cheap land (relative) for developers..
I am curious where you get your figures for the cost of land. The areas for land that you mentioned aren't going to be cheap. I live in pleasanton and nothing is cheap here. I grew up in Hayward and San Leandro ( 40 years ) and still have property there. In my neighborhood you can still buy large lots with old homes that can be knocked down and have more unit built on there.
The land by El Charro has already been planned for back in 1989 . Do you have specific numbers for building the land out like for sewage, traffic, etc? All those would be different for hi density housing. cost per square foot to build etc in Pleasanton versus Hayward? What about all the land along Mission Blvd in south Hayward. Why would that land be more expensive than land in Pleasanton?
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,564,711 times
Reputation: 16689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude
Than why are there 9 pages of debate on it.
Oh yea I'm sure race has nothing to do with it....(sarcasm)
I love how pleasanton types always try to deny this, its such a good laugh.
Most of the apartments being built are not for very low income or section 8. Though some are. most of it is for low income. Or a family of four living on 75k. Thats two fresh out of college 2nd grade teachers with a pair of twins. Or a mechanic and a secretary.
This is the thing that makes me laugh, people think because pleasanton has to have affordable housing that its not going to be local employees moving there, but all of east oakland.
So dont buy a house near a low income complex or near a large vacant lot that is slated for development. I've also seen affordable housng that had no negative effect what so ever. In San Ramon or dougherty in the "WINDAMERE" section of town they put a low income aparment complex. Theres no graffitti no gangs, and it sure as hell has not effected the luxury properties accross the street. Its very well contained.
The theme I keep hearing from you and others like you is this nazi, jackboot, throw back 1950's attitude where you seem to think that people have the right to live in places to "get away from these people". But here is a news flash, You do not. This is america, a homeless person has just as much right to be on public space as anyone else in pleasanton. A black or mexican from deep east oakland has a right to get off bart, walk around the streets of pleasanton all night until sunrise if they want. As long as they are not breaking any laws, they have a right to take themselves where ever their legs land them.
This is america, we have that right, my dad fought for that right in vietnam. This is something pleasanton types and a lot of self proclaimed 'republicans' seem to forget in their search for their pseudo 1950s fantasy.
That is what I have been saying, had pleasanton done this in the first place they very easily could have incorporated working class apartments into their city, like Folsom.
But unfortunately they banked on filling the city out with tract homes before the court could make up its mind. They were hoping they could be like " Oh gee sorry we don't have any land left", but that has not worked out.
Now the city will simply have to reap what they sew.
"Pleasanton Types" I love how you like to stereotype and generalize all the people of Pleasanton into one category yourself. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black ( BTW please don't take that as a racist remark)
While you claim to see areas where forced manditory low income housing did not affect a neighborhood-did you actually live in an area like that yourself and experience no change- or are you making observations about areas you've never lived in?
Why don't you check out the ashland area of San Leandro? Back in the late 80's early 90's apartments were built there but the builders had to set aside a certain number of " low income" units. The area went totally downhill. I know because I lived close to it and also owned a rental there. After a while I couldn't get renters because no one wanted to move into the high crime area.
While selling it and in escrow, someone got shot around the corner. One night someone kicked in a front door trying to break in. None of these things happened prior to the low income units coming in. At that point you could drive down the street and see the drug dealers and hookers.
Your Dad doesn't own exclusivity to fighting in the Vietnam war. There are war vets in Pleasanton too- the same ones you call "Pleasanton types". They fought in a war-what did you do?
Maybe you should check out the Vietnam War before you use that as a war your dad fought in for rights in America. It was not fought for rights in America to move about anywhere you want in the country, it was fought to try to stop the spread of communism.
"Pleasanton Types" I love how you like to stereotype and generalize all the people of Pleasanton into one category yourself. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black ( BTW please don't take that as a racist remark)
LoL, I would not take what you are saying as a racial remark, relax, just because i am black does not mean your simple use of the word is going to make me think you are being racist.
Quote:
While you claim to see areas where forced manditory low income housing did not affect a neighborhood-did you actually live in an area like that yourself and experience no change- or are you making observations about areas you've never lived in?
I have, when I lived in glen ellyn, il there was a low income apartment complex near by. I lived on park blvd and coolidge and a few blocks down there were some apartments. The people there were working class folk, but it did not negatively effect the area at all. It still has some of the best schools in the country, is safe, has low crime, etc.
Quote:
Why don't you check out the ashland area of San Leandro? Back in the late 80's early 90's apartments were built there but the builders had to set aside a certain number of " low income" units. The area went totally downhill. I know because I lived close to it and also owned a rental there. After a while I couldn't get renters because no one wanted to move into the high crime area.
While selling it and in escrow, someone got shot around the corner. One night someone kicked in a front door trying to break in. None of these things happened prior to the low income units coming in. At that point you could drive down the street and see the drug dealers and hookers.
Yea but you are comparing two things out of context.First San Leandro and the east bay went down hill like everywhere else where the manufacturing industry was robust. Cities went from having lots of salary union jobs, to having a fraction, and mainly in low wage service industry types of jobs. Pleasanton by contrast is suburban bedroom community with little industry, so its not subject to the same economic pitt-falls. The people there have high paying jobs.
Second back in the 80's and early 1990s, the time you are speaking of, "low income" actually meant low income. It meant broke people on aid. Times have changed. Post dot com and real estate boom, low income is just a code name for "working/lower middle class". Its an entirely different class of people, the people you are referring to are now classified as "very low income".
Quote:
Your Dad doesn't own exclusivity to fighting in the Vietnam war. There are war vets in Pleasanton too- the same ones you call "Pleasanton types". They fought in a war-what did you do?
Maybe you should check out the Vietnam War before you use that as a war your dad fought in for rights in America. It was not fought for rights in America to move about anywhere you want in the country, it was fought to try to stop the spread of communism.
Oh spare me, my grandfather was the first black general to command a unit in combat, in vietnam Frederic Ellis Davison, Major General, United States Army, and my dad was a 19 year old draftee. In addition to having a plethora of personal accounts and documents, videos and photos, i have hundreds of books. I don't need a lecture on vietnam, from someone who was not there. We were fighting for the rights of people to have the american way of life thousands of miles away. And I have enough understanding to know that every person who puts on a uniform, is prepared to fight for our rights and our way of life. Part of that way of life, involves being able to build homes for people at any income level you choose.
And while I have not served, I will tell you that I have been to to WALTER REED medical center. My aunt is handicapped and since she was a dependent of my grandfather so she gets all her medical stuff done there. And the thing about Walter reed from what I saw was that it was about 10% old time vets getting their medicine, and about 90% iraq and afghanistan wounded.
And the things I saw would haunt you in your dreams. The men and woman (that was something that shocked me all the young girls in there) with limbs missing. Im not talking one limb, im talking two, three, even "basket cases". People with mangled bodies and faces, no ears, missing noses, discontorted eyes, jaw structures missing. I remember an elevator opening and a nurse taking a women soilder in a wheel chair for a walk, she had no right arm, and no legs. I did not know whether to stare, pretend i did not see it, or look away. I was raised not to stare, I looked a way, and I felt awful.
Walter reed was the most god awful depressing place i have ever been to in my life, and the most humbling. Just typing about it now makes me need to smoke a cig. Many of these veterans will not be able to work. And many do not come from wealthy families. And many may even be from the east bay suburbs. These are the type of people who also are on section 8. These people are also "low income". Do they not deserve a roof over their head? I think they deserve first pick, personally.
I'd like to see you look a disabled Nam vet or an Iraq vet in the eye and tell them they have no place in your community. That they dont "deserve to live there". Something tells me you would not do it, nor would you say that to your childs teacher who makes less than 40k a year after taxes, nor to the guy who changes your oil when you take your car to the shop.
Thats what I mean by "pleasanton types" its this type of mentality where people are perfectly fine and dandy steam rolling whom-ever, a homeless vet, a real estate developer, heck it could be the pope himself. No matter, all that matters to some is that yearly visit from the local assessor assuring them their real estate values are still increasing...
Last edited by NorCal Dude; 08-07-2010 at 11:39 PM..
Oh spare me, my grandfather was the first black general to command a unit in combat, in vietnam Frederic Ellis Davison, Major General, United States Army, and my dad was a 19 year old draftee. In addition to having a plethora of personal accounts and documents, videos and photos, i have hundreds of books. I don't need a lecture on vietnam, from someone who was not there. We were fighting for the rights of people to have the american way of life thousands of miles away. And I have enough understanding to know that every person who puts on a uniform, is prepared to fight for our rights and our way of life. Part of that way of life, involves being able to build homes for people at any income level you choose.
And while I have not served, I will tell you that I have been to to WALTER REED medical center. My aunt is handicapped and since she was a dependent of my grandfather so she gets all her medical stuff done there. And the thing about Walter reed from what I saw was that it was about 10% old time vets getting their medicine, and about 90% iraq and afghanistan wounded.
And the things I saw would haunt you in your dreams. The men and woman (that was something that shocked me all the young girls in there) with limbs missing. Im not talking one limb, im talking two, three, even "basket cases". People with mangled bodies and faces, no ears, missing noses, discontorted eyes, jaw structures missing. I remember an elevator opening and a nurse taking a women soilder in a wheel chair for a walk, she had no right arm, and no legs. I did not know whether to stare, pretend i did not see it, or look away. I was raised not to stare, I looked a way, and I felt awful.
Walter reed was the most god awful depressing place i have ever been to in my life, and the most humbling. Just typing about it now makes me need to smoke a cig. Many of these veterans will not be able to work. And many do not come from wealthy families. And many may even be from the east bay suburbs. These are the type of people who also are on section 8. These people are also "low income". Do they not deserve a roof over their head? I think they deserve first pick, personally.
I'd like to see you look a disabled Nam vet or an Iraq vet in the eye and tell them they have no place in your community. That they dont "deserve to live there". Something tells me you would not do it, nor would you say that to your childs teacher who makes less than 40k a year after taxes, nor to the guy who changes your oil when you take your car to the shop.
Thats what I mean by "pleasanton types" its this type of mentality where people are perfectly fine and dandy steam rolling whom-ever, a homeless vet, a real estate developer, heck it could be the pope himself. No matter, all that matters to some is that yearly visit from the local assessor assuring them their real estate values are still increasing...
Well said and very interesting. This old, separated, Major, Infantry salutes the General, and you as well regarding the Walter Reed experience!
I think you need a new phrase there buddy. Those "types" are everywhere and have nothing to do with Pleasanton. I realize it's just your way of venting but seriously, it's stupid.
Unfortunately, when section 8 housing comes to town nobody get's to pick and choose and select only "deserving" people to live there.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,564,711 times
Reputation: 16689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude
LoL, I would not take what you are saying as a racial remark, relax, just because i am black does not mean your simple use of the word is going to make me think you are being racist.
I have, when I lived in glen ellyn, il there was a low income apartment complex near by. I lived on park blvd and coolidge and a few blocks down there were some apartments. The people there were working class folk, but it did not negatively effect the area at all. It still has some of the best schools in the country, is safe, has low crime, etc.
Yea but you are comparing two things out of context.First San Leandro and the east bay went down hill like everywhere else where the manufacturing industry was robust. Cities went from having lots of salary union jobs, to having a fraction, and mainly in low wage service industry types of jobs. Pleasanton by contrast is suburban bedroom community with little industry, so its not subject to the same economic pitt-falls. The people there have high paying jobs.
Second back in the 80's and early 1990s, the time you are speaking of, "low income" actually meant low income. It meant broke people on aid. Times have changed. Post dot com and real estate boom, low income is just a code name for "working/lower middle class". Its an entirely different class of people, the people you are referring to are now classified as "very low income".
Oh spare me, my grandfather was the first black general to command a unit in combat, in vietnam Frederic Ellis Davison, Major General, United States Army, and my dad was a 19 year old draftee. In addition to having a plethora of personal accounts and documents, videos and photos, i have hundreds of books. I don't need a lecture on vietnam, from someone who was not there. We were fighting for the rights of people to have the american way of life thousands of miles away. And I have enough understanding to know that every person who puts on a uniform, is prepared to fight for our rights and our way of life. Part of that way of life, involves being able to build homes for people at any income level you choose.
And while I have not served, I will tell you that I have been to to WALTER REED medical center. My aunt is handicapped and since she was a dependent of my grandfather so she gets all her medical stuff done there. And the thing about Walter reed from what I saw was that it was about 10% old time vets getting their medicine, and about 90% iraq and afghanistan wounded.
And the things I saw would haunt you in your dreams. The men and woman (that was something that shocked me all the young girls in there) with limbs missing. Im not talking one limb, im talking two, three, even "basket cases". People with mangled bodies and faces, no ears, missing noses, discontorted eyes, jaw structures missing. I remember an elevator opening and a nurse taking a women soilder in a wheel chair for a walk, she had no right arm, and no legs. I did not know whether to stare, pretend i did not see it, or look away. I was raised not to stare, I looked a way, and I felt awful.
Walter reed was the most god awful depressing place i have ever been to in my life, and the most humbling. Just typing about it now makes me need to smoke a cig. Many of these veterans will not be able to work. And many do not come from wealthy families. And many may even be from the east bay suburbs. These are the type of people who also are on section 8. These people are also "low income". Do they not deserve a roof over their head? I think they deserve first pick, personally.
I'd like to see you look a disabled Nam vet or an Iraq vet in the eye and tell them they have no place in your community. That they dont "deserve to live there". Something tells me you would not do it, nor would you say that to your childs teacher who makes less than 40k a year after taxes, nor to the guy who changes your oil when you take your car to the shop.
Thats what I mean by "pleasanton types" its this type of mentality where people are perfectly fine and dandy steam rolling whom-ever, a homeless vet, a real estate developer, heck it could be the pope himself. No matter, all that matters to some is that yearly visit from the local assessor assuring them their real estate values are still increasing...
You need to back up and reread the thread. Listen to what has been said in previous posts. The general concern over section 8 is that it encompasses people who deserve it as well as people who don't. If that housing goes to a vet who doesn't have a lot of money but is a good citizen, no problem. School teacher who makes $40K, sure. I already said that people who do things right but still can't quite afford it should have the opportunity to do so. These type of people are good people and the only difference is how much money they make. But because sec 8 takes in all types, you can easily get people who don't try to do the right thing, don't work, don't care about themselves and others
It's pretty interesting when I have a place for rent and a prospective tenant comes in and is supported by sec 8 and they are driving a much nicer more expensive car than me. It's even more interesting when you see the handicap placard on the car mirror and the hop out of the car and walk around just fine.
But I think the point is we can agree that certain types of lower income people will not pull an area down and certain types will. Once again the problem with sec 8 is that they can't sort those people out. So the bottom line is how Pleasanton screens and accepts the lower income people.
Your term of definition of low income is different than mine. Your definition of the 'New lower income" probably encompasses the the school teacher example. My definition of low income, and probably others here on this thread is totally different. So you can see where disagreements would arise. I will agree that the low income segment is growing and the definition may well be changing.
San Leandro may have gone down hill due to conditions you mentioned, but you could see some areas going downhill much more than others. The Ashland area may have suffered somewhat due to some blue collar job loss, but the hookers and drug dealers did not show up because of that. It was the new rentals that were forced upon in the area that allowed some less desirable people and their friends and associates to move in. Once that happened the momentum had started. Other parts of San Leandro did not start having drug dealer, hookers, and crime increases as Ashland did.
Personally I think our vets are treated very badly in this country and it should not be so. That being said, you telling me to look a vet in the eye or a teacher of my child and telling them they don't deserve to live in Pleasanton is a way of gaining sympathy for your argument and a pretty flimsy way to argue. Why don't you just say I like to drown puppies. You don't know me so don't try to predict what i would say or not say. Circumstances as such I would not say that to those types of people. The types of undesirable sec 8 who try to milk the system I would say that to.
"Part of that way of life, involves being able to build homes for people at any income level you choose." So answer me this: does this mean you have the right to build them anywhere you want too? It's a builder's choice to build that type of lower income housing if he wishes, but if it's not financially feasable where he gets a profit from the project, who is to say that everyone else must pay to do so?
I'm sure you have examples of builders who went up to the Pleasanton city council with low income housing projects that needed no financial help from anyone because they would be profitable on their own and were denied. Could you cite some of these cases since you made an earlier statement that builders could build cheap housing in Pleasanton and make more money than expensive homes.
BTW you never did reveal how you knew for sure that building an apartment on cheap Pleasanton land would be cheaper than building in Hayward or San Leandro.
Rather than go on you rant about the bourgoius people of Pleasanton, maybe you energy might be better directed to finding a way to make sure deserving people like vets or school teachers get help and into low income housing and not get aced out by those who cheat the system. Maybe then the bourgoius people of Pleasanton would be more open to them. Many of my friends that grew up in Hayward moved to the valley because it was nicer. They didn't get the automatic " I deserve to live here" They had to work harder, sacrifice more to afford to move here. Most others that settled here were the same. You can't blame them for wanting to protect what they worked for from people who may destroy that because it doesn't mean as much to them because it was handed to them.
Last edited by aslowdodge; 08-12-2010 at 02:34 AM..
It's pretty interesting when I have a place for rent and a prospective tenant comes in and is supported by sec 8 and they are driving a much nicer more expensive car than me. It's even more interesting when you see the handicap placard on the car mirror and the hop out of the car and walk around just fine.
But I think the point is we can agree that certain types of lower income people will not pull an area down and certain types will. Once again the problem with sec 8 is that they can't sort those people out. So the bottom line is how Pleasanton screens and accepts the lower income people.
I understand what you are saying and all, but really you have no control over this. I haveno control over what the next white family that moves down the street from me is like. They could be gays from SF who like to have public sex, they could be child predators like on that nbc show, or a child porn dealer. Or they could be people from my church who are kind and nice. This is how life works, its a big bad world out there.
Quote:
Your term of definition of low income is different than mine. Your definition of the 'New lower income" probably encompasses the the school teacher example. My definition of low income, and probably others here on this thread is totally different. So you can see where disagreements would arise. I will agree that the low income segment is growing and the definition may well be changing.
This is a link for all the different incomes and what is considered low and moderate and what not.
It clearly states that low income for alameda county is 64k for a family of four. Thats a couple of grammar school teachers with a couple kids.
Quote:
San Leandro may have gone down hill due to conditions you mentioned, but you could see some areas going downhill much more than others. The Ashland area may have suffered somewhat due to some blue collar job loss, but the hookers and drug dealers did not show up because of that. It was the new rentals that were forced upon in the area that allowed some less desirable people and their friends and associates to move in. Once that happened the momentum had started. Other parts of San Leandro did not start having drug dealer, hookers, and crime increases as Ashland did.
I understand this, but again look at the historical context. People lost jobs in the east bay (so there was an increased demand for welfare homes) and the area got worse. But pleasanton is not like that. Pleasanton has not had a decrease in local jobs, but an increase over the past 20 years. The tri valley has been on the upswing since the 80's, its the total opposite of the east bay.
Quote:
Personally I think our vets are treated very badly in this country and it should not be so. That being said, you telling me to look a vet in the eye or a teacher of my child and telling them they don't deserve to live in Pleasanton is a way of gaining sympathy for your argument and a pretty flimsy way to argue. Why don't you just say I like to drown puppies. You don't know me so don't try to predict what i would say or not say. Circumstances as such I would not say that to those types of people. The types of undesirable sec 8 who try to milk the system I would say that to.
I never told you to look some one in the eye to make a point for my arguement. You asked what I meant by pleasanton types and I told you. And i NEVER said I know you, but dont tell me what i can and can not predict. Because obviously I was right and made a correct assumption. And thats what I mean by Pleasanton Types.
Its perfectly okay for you to stereotype the MILLIONS of people on section 8, but if I stereotype the 60k of pleasanton its "not fair". You can make assumptions about section 8 people you have never met, but if I make an assumption about what you would and would not say, I have no right to do that (even if I am right). Its the classic suburban white double standard that is prevelant in places like pleasanton.
Stereotypes exist for a reason, and whether you like it or not pleasanton types have a stereotype of being either racist, classist, or simply just down right intolerant of others.
Just look at the whole mantra of the pleasanton types who post here. They all have this logic where since you cant use big brother to see who might move into the community, that some how gives you the right to keep an ENTIRE class of people out. And mind you a family of four making 60 something K is wealtheir than over 50% (a majority) of families in this country. Thats a pretty throwback 1950's attitude. Pleasanton types are essentially using the same justification that their fore- fathers used for Racial, religious, and economic housing covenants of the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. And quite frankly I am not surprised in the least.
Quote:
"Part of that way of life, involves being able to build homes for people at any income level you choose." So answer me this: does this mean you have the right to build them anywhere you want too? It's a builder's choice to build that type of lower income housing if he wishes, but if it's not financially feasable where he gets a profit from the project, who is to say that everyone else must pay to do so?
I'm sure you have examples of builders who went up to the Pleasanton city council with low income housing projects that needed no financial help from anyone because they would be profitable on their own and were denied. Could you cite some of these cases since you made an earlier statement that builders could build cheap housing in Pleasanton and make more money than expensive homes.
BTW you never did reveal how you knew for sure that building an apartment on cheap Pleasanton land would be cheaper than building in Hayward or San Leandro.
Rather than go on you rant about the bourgoius people of Pleasanton, maybe you energy might be better directed to finding a way to make sure deserving people like vets or school teachers get help and into low income housing and not get aced out by those who cheat the system. Maybe then the bourgoius people of Pleasanton would be more open to them. Many of my friends that grew up in Hayward moved to the valley because it was nicer. They didn't get the automatic " I deserve to live here" They had to work harder, sacrifice more to afford to move here. Most others that settled here were the same. You can't blame them for wanting to protect what they worked for from people who may destroy that because it doesn't mean as much to them because it was handed to them.
Yes a developer has a right to build what they want, so long as they are not violating any laws and do not infringe on the civil rights of others and pay the fees. Its a simple concept.
And I am not talking about building one fricken apartment. Stop being silly. I am talking about building an apartment complex with thousands of units on atleast a dozen acres.
Where are you even going to find a dozen acres for sale in the east bay that have not been built on, that are not on hillsides that need to be graded? Do you really think it would be cheaper to buy the acreage in the east bay, tear down existing infastructure, tear down existing structures, and than build a massive apartment complex on existing infastructure as opposed to slapping a place up on open land? Its really a simple concept.
Do you not undestand how business works? Pleasanton land is not expensive to real estate developers who have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. Were not talking about some slum lord looking to buy a second property via resale market. We are talking real esate and development here.
And if developers can afford to build in San Fransisco, where the cost of land is twice as much as it is in pleasanton if not more, they can afford to build in pleasanton. And thats why pleasanton looks the way it does, its a bunch of cheap tract homes on cheap land. Outside of ruby hill and the hillside to the west, thats what the whole town looks like. Cheap tract homes from the 80's 90's and 2000's. I see the same homes literally made by the same developers in Elk Grove going for a fraction of the price .
Pleasanton is not Atherton or Bev Hills (though alot of the locals there would have you believe otherwise). There is no demand for mansions and estates there, otherwise the place would look like alamo and not roseville.
And I dont need to place my engery anywhere to champion any cause. Thats what lawyers and laws are for.
more intersint facts: Since 1999 Pleasanton has had a grand total of 20 low income units built in the city. Talk about disingenious.
http://www.publicadvocates.org/news/presshousing.html (broken link)
Another site noted that in one study they found 79 percent of people who work in pleasanton commuted else where. Thats like detriot. Except people are fleeing detroit for a reason, people flee pleasanton because the people there are hostile to people who are not high income earners.
So really I have no sympathy for pleasanton types. The funniest thing about this is all they have been orderd to do is zone for this stuff. No one is forcing anyone to build or buy anything. But we all know how fast all that middle class condo and town house housing in dublin filled up! LoL thats why pleasanton folks have their panties in a bunch, because they know IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
And when a city has nearly 8 out of every 10 works commuting to another city, you know its gonna fill up fast.
Im not a fan of Jerry Brown at all, he is a terrible politician, but he is ONE HELL OF A LAWYER!!!!!!!
Last edited by NorCal Dude; 08-13-2010 at 08:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
