Pleasanton forced to have 2524 low income housing units (Sacramento, Berkeley: rent, condos)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by captaincatfish

You have always been on my list of 'CD posters whose posts I stop and read no matter what the subject'...secondly, I love your screen name---my Dad always called my Mom's dad a curmudgeon---when I pressed him for an answer, he said 'that's means "tough, crusty old guy who takes no s**t, but has a heart of gold"...that's you, I hope LOL

Now to the issue at hand...I'll agree with you on one huge point, because it happened where I was born (Cleveland) and still occurs where I live now (Middletown)---that is the point that low-income housing does tend to brand an area with a stigma, and yes, those idiots who try to make life hell for everyone else by living there and flaunting their disrespect for the law and other folks' property, doesn't make it any easier for those who want better for themselves and are trying to get out

But do you think that 'affordable housing', in Pleasanton's case, is a bad thing, as in building said housing will attract both those who are trying to move up and out, and have respect for themselves, the law, and others, and also, unfortunately, those who are trying, yet again, to 'game the system'?

Would you be more in favor of said affordable housing if a system were in place to weed out the 'numb-nuts', and make sure that it wasn't easy to become a resident, thereby insuring the 'affordable' community would be a good place to live, with good neighbors? Or am I reaching there?

You're probably reaching but I think you have the right idea. Yes, there should be housing available for almost everyone that should be matched to the area's job availability and wage scales. There will always be some on the lower end of the scale and the ideal is to live where you work, or at least within a reasonable proximity.

Now for the unfortunate reality. Far too many Section 8 and low-income housing residents don't work and live off the public dole. It's these who drag areas down. I think there should be more and better screening and enforcement to ensure that the riff-raff are not permitted in or are ejected when they act out. Not everyone who is poor is a low-life but most low-lives, not all, are on the bottom of the earninmg curve.

[captaincatfish]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You're probably reaching but I think you have the right idea. Yes, there should be housing available for almost everyone that should be matched to the area's job availability and wage scales. There will always be some on the lower end of the scale and the ideal is to live where you work, or at least within a reasonable proximity.

Now for the unfortunate reality. Far too many Section 8 and low-income housing residents don't work and live off the public dole. It's these who drag areas down. I think there should be more and better screening and enforcement to ensure that the riff-raff are not permitted in or are ejected when they act out. Not everyone who is poor is a low-life but most low-lives, not all, are on the bottom of the earninmg curve.

And as a short answer to your last paragraph, I had read or seen a story about some housing projects, in St Louis I believe, that tried something (for public housing) radical...that is, the housing authority put in place very stringent guidelines for incoming residents, as far as income and residential conduct went...

If you moved into said project, and engaged in ANY kind of wrong conduct, be it by your own hand, or those of relatives, or visitors, you were OUT, period, end of story, with no hope of re-entry...needless to say, the crime and squalor decreased almost overnight, as the residents realized the authority was not playing, and began policing themselves from within...just an isolated story, but a little proof that things like that can work

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by captaincatfish

And as a short answer to your last paragraph, I had read or seen a story about some housing projects, in St Louis I believe, that tried something (for public housing) radical...that is, the housing authority put in place very stringent guidelines for incoming residents, as far as income and residential conduct went...

If you moved into said project, and engaged in ANY kind of wrong conduct, be it by your own hand, or those of relatives, or visitors, you were OUT, period, end of story, with no hope of re-entry...needless to say, the crime and squalor decreased almost overnight, as the residents realized the authority was not playing, and began policing themselves from within...just an isolated story, but a little proof that things like that can work

That's an interesting story, and I actually agree with the enforcement idea.

What was the name of the housing project?

[captaincatfish]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

That's an interesting story, and I actually agree with the enforcement idea.

What was the name of the housing project?

It's the Cochran Gardens Project in St Louis...the name of the lady who got that program started was Bertha Gilkey, who became a pioneer of sorts in teaching tenants how to form their own management councils and thus turn around their projects...

LOL---almost 600 posts, and I can't post a link to save my life...but I CAN tell you where I got the info that cemented my post...it's on the LA Times website, and I found it by using a search thread of 'strict public housing requirements st louis bertha gilkey' in google...the article title is 'Turnabout For The Tenant', to make it easier to search

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Phil306

If a community doesn't want Section 8 housing, etc they should not be forced to accept it. Once again liberals, take a bow.

This is still the USA and in this country individual have rights, communities don't! A bunch of rich, class conscious, tea partiers don't have the right to exclude anyone from their neighborhood. What part of this simple logic do you not understand???

The developers are building low income housing because they still make a profit out it. The people of Pleasanton have no right to interfere with the free market and force developers to build only upscale housing. I guess the Republicans love government interference as long as it suits their core agenda, which is, making the rich richer and screwing everyone else!

Keep whining! You lost the battle..So suck it up and live like everybody else.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

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!

Government is worried about more pressing issues of society than protecting someones property value. Property is just like any other investment and value can go up and down and you accept this risk when you invest. Do you want govt to keep buying stocks to protect stock value? Or do you not understand the fundamentals of investing?

The problem here is a group of people who do not want to live around anyone that isn't rich and white! So its their problem and they should solve it by moving their miserable as**es out of CA pronto just like you seemed to have done !

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Think About It!

It honestly just sounds like your jealous you don't live in Pleasanton and you want them to suffer with crime too.

Jealous of people living a boring bedroom community out in the boonies? Living there will be more like torture and a gradual dumbing and loss of senses!

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

Jealous of people living a boring bedroom community out in the boonies? Living there will be more like torture and a gradual dumbing and loss of senses!

Pleasanton was on the recent list of "Best 100 places to live". Number 63 I think. It's not a bedroom community out in the boonies so you've just proved that you don't know what you are talking about. Although I had already picked that up from your previous posts.

Section 8 will never be a big issue there. If there are requirements to take them they will be few and far between. It's an expensive place to live and poor people will not be able to live there. It's just simple math.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by captaincatfish

It's the Cochran Gardens Project in St Louis...the name of the lady who got that program started was Bertha Gilkey, who became a pioneer of sorts in teaching tenants how to form their own management councils and thus turn around their projects...

LOL---almost 600 posts, and I can't post a link to save my life...but I CAN tell you where I got the info that cemented my post...it's on the LA Times website, and I found it by using a search thread of 'strict public housing requirements st louis bertha gilkey' in google...the article title is 'Turnabout For The Tenant', to make it easier to search

You know, after reading that article, I think that's the only way I could see Section 8 housing working in a way that doesn't destabilize the surrounding community.

If poor people want handouts, fine, rich people get them all the time. But if they get handouts, they better behave, or move.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Think About It!

Usually I agree with most of your posts but I think you ran off the tracks with your recent ones in this thread.

If a town wants to only allow "upscale tracts" as you called it so be it. Why can't they? If they don't want to add more section 8 housing to their city, why should they? How is Pleasanton forcing a developer to build anything? I am pretty sure the developer wanted their money and was never forced into building anything. The developer was probably more than happy to do whatever the city allowed them to do.

If your idea is that everyone in Pleasanton who likes the fact their houses are usually found intact after a vacation is socialism then I guess I'm a socialist too. I have plenty of other examples I can use to elaborate how Pleasanton is safer in many regards to crime than Sacramento (where I live). I'd rather not deal with the problems associated with the section 8 housing and people who don't respect anything because everything is handed to them. There are a lot of problems in Sacramento associated to the poor and I am sure you are aware of this.

It honestly just sounds like your jealous you don't live in Pleasanton and you want them to suffer with crime too. That's pretty childish. If that is not what you are trying to imply I'd suggest that you should clarify what you meant. It sounds similar to you wishing they had to build section 8 projects in Folsom because the test scores were too high there and the crime was too low.

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