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.
If the voters of the city approved to not allow more housing in 1996 why should a judge be allowed to change that? I can understand if the voting people of the city decided to change it but I am sure they haven't.
The city is now forced to build 3,277 housing units. It also forces them to build 2524 low to very low income housing where section 8 vouchers are accepted! The low income housing will be by Hacienda / Bart area.
Why do people of low income and very low income deserve to live in Pleasanton? Most people who live there have worked very hard to leave places with problems associated to the poor. It's an exclusive and nice area for a reason. If you can't afford a place you can't afford a place. How is that not logical to people? I know I can't buy a house there so I don't live there. Now would I want to live there if I could, of course. Am I going to throw a fit and sue them for having a nice city that I can't afford, of course not.
This shows you the problem with our state, most people and our society. The fact there is a Urban Habitat who sues cities for not allowing enough low income residences. The fact we have a state law that mandates we always include the poor in developments.
How is it that Urban Habitat is allowed to run around and sue cities and then charge them for the laywers fees? Pleasanton is going to pay these nuts 1.9 million dollars for their lawyers. How is this possible? This is insanity!
Can't people have anything nice in California these days?
That sounds pretty ridiculous. You don't have a "right" to live in any city unless you can afford to live there. If you can't, move somewhere else cheaper until you can. What I found particularly outrageous about was that the city of Pleasanton had to pay the lawyer fees of this "Urban Habitat" organization after they brought this ridiculous suit against them (and won). WTF? What am I missing here?
If the voters of the city approved to not allow more housing in 1996 why should a judge be allowed to change that? I can understand if the voting people of the city decided to change it but I am sure they haven't.
The city is now forced to build 3,277 housing units. It also forces them to build 2524 low to very low income housing where section 8 vouchers are accepted! The low income housing will be by Hacienda / Bart area.
Why do people of low income and very low income deserve to live in Pleasanton? Most people who live there have worked very hard to leave places with problems associated to the poor. It's an exclusive and nice area for a reason. If you can't afford a place you can't afford a place. How is that not logical to people? I know I can't buy a house there so I don't live there. Now would I want to live there if I could, of course. Am I going to throw a fit and sue them for having a nice city that I can't afford, of course not.
This shows you the problem with our state, most people and our society. The fact there is a Urban Habitat who sues cities for not allowing enough low income residences. The fact we have a state law that mandates we always include the poor in developments.
How is it that Urban Habitat is allowed to run around and sue cities and then charge them for the laywers fees? Pleasanton is going to pay these nuts 1.9 million dollars for their lawyers. How is this possible? This is insanity!
Can't people have anything nice in California these days?
I sympathize with these people and if I lived in Pleasanton I'd feel uncomfortable about it. But I also see that creating pockets of wealthy enclaves and poor enclaves is not good for society. Communities need to be diverse, not just catering to only one income level. All communities need to share the burden of having low income dwellings in their town. No community, wealthy or not, should have special exclusion from that responsibility. But it should be done in the right way. I think the number of low income housing in comparison to the total is kind of alarming. I hope when they are built, they are slowly incorporated in, at the very least, so as to mitigate any possible negative impacts on the character of the community.
I sympathize with these people and if I lived in Pleasanton I'd feel uncomfortable about it. But I also see that creating pockets of wealthy enclaves and poor enclaves is not good for society. Communities need to be diverse, not just catering to only one income level. All communities need to share the burden of having low income dwellings in their town. No community, wealthy or not, should have special exclusion from that responsibility. But it should be done in the right way. I think the number of low income housing in comparison to the total is kind of alarming. I hope when they are built, they are slowly incorporated in, at the very least, so as to mitigate any possible negative impacts on the character of the community.
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with it. Why do communities need to be diverse? Stockton is diverse how is that working out? Why can't there be cities that are known to be wealthy? Why do the poor need to be spread out and ruin a wealthy area? I don't think every community needs to share the burden. If one can offord a city that doesn't have poor, well more power to them. That's part of the allure of Pleasanton and surrounding areas. There's not a huge population of the lower class. You can go to Oakland, San Francisco, Hayward, Richmond, Sacramento, Stockton etc etc for that. Why does Pleasanton need it?
You seem to think life should be fair. Life will never be fair and never has. If life was fair I'd be 6'1" 205 lbs olive tan skin and muscular. Unfortunately I was delt a different hand of cards.
If you put poor people into a wealthy area of course it's going to bring down the area. It's only common sense.
I hope there is a way Pleasanton can work this and make it so it's for the elderly only.
Boy...it sucks to be the people who paid $1MM for a house in Pleasanton expecting to live in a quiet, safe community with good schools, low crime, and clean, well kept neighborhoods.
I think this is great, they did the same thing in Irvine, CA who fought against it tooth and nail.
You want to live like a high roller i.e., too lazy to do your own lawn, wash your own car, and take care of your own kids. Then expect those in the working class and poor to be bused in from blighted areas? It doesn't work like that, how's that for fairness?
I think this is great, they did the same thing in Irvine, CA who fought against it tooth and nail.
You want to live like a high roller i.e., too lazy to do your own lawn, wash your own car, and take care of your own kids. Then expect those in the working class and poor to be bused in from blighted areas? It doesn't work like that.
You obviously have never lived around wealthy people and have no clue how they got that way. Most people who have a lot of money spent years in college and worked long hard hours to get where they are. If you worked 60+ hours every week, you'd probably be too "lazy" to mow your own lawn too! Many wealthy people have also made major contributions to society that many poor people have benefited from.
Personally, I love the Pleasanton area and when I read an article about this in the SF Chronicle when the ruling was made a few months back, I was pretty irritated. Why the hell should people who've made a choice to live in such a "pleasant" place (no pun intended) and work hard to afford it be forced to live around people who haven't earned it? Who are these "social engineers" who are deciding who should live where? Are we going to start forcing gated country club communities to also offer 4,000+ sq. ft. BMR homes with income restrictions?
I personally have had friends and family living in BMR apartments and also who've owned condos in BMR properties, so I'm not talking out of my ass. I actually have first-hand experience. One of my best friends and his wife were living in a BMR apartment complex that was brand new when they moved in. Within a year, it started looking like a third world country. I always had to worry about my car getting vandalized or broken into in the gated garage (since it happend to many other cars)...and not by outsiders. People living there were actually breaking into cars and vandalizing cars in their own complex!
My brother and his wife owned a condo in a BMR complex that was also built brand new. Once he started making more money, he took his family and walked away from it...not because he couldn't afford it, but because after numerous issues with crime, he had to do what was best for his family.
Another one of my best friends has a wife who worked in yet another brand new BMR apartment complex in Morgan Hill as a rental associate. She had to constantly break up fights and call police on the kids that lived there who's parents were to busy partying and drinking to discipline them.
So my whole point is that you can take a person out of the ghetto, but you can't always take the ghetto out of a person. Obviously there are many variables involved that create poverty and not all poor people are low-class members of society. Many are though! People who've worked hard all their lives to achieve financial success deserve to enjoy it and should'nt have to be forced to live next door to low-life people! Many people are poor and ghetto because they've made that choice in life and have no desire to be anything better...and now there getting a free pass to move to an upscale suburb where they can trash that place as well?
The idiot do-gooders who brought on the lawsuit should be forced to live in BMR housing for a year and see how they feel afterward.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not wealthy and I grew up in an old very blue collar entry-level neighborhood in Milpitas where my parents actually still live to this day. My wife and I are working to live in an area like Pleasanton though and when we do, we don't want to be around retard wanna-be gangster low-lifes who don't deserve to be there!
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with it. Why do communities need to be diverse? Stockton is diverse how is that working out? Why can't there be cities that are known to be wealthy? Why do the poor need to be spread out and ruin a wealthy area? I don't think every community needs to share the burden. If one can offord a city that doesn't have poor, well more power to them. That's part of the allure of Pleasanton and surrounding areas. There's not a huge population of the lower class. You can go to Oakland, San Francisco, Hayward, Richmond, Sacramento, Stockton etc etc for that. Why does Pleasanton need it?
You seem to think life should be fair. Life will never be fair and never has. If life was fair I'd be 6'1" 205 lbs olive tan skin and muscular. Unfortunately I was delt a different hand of cards.
If you put poor people into a wealthy area of course it's going to bring down the area. It's only common sense.
I hope there is a way Pleasanton can work this and make it so it's for the elderly only.
Who doesn't want things to be fair? Hahaha Why those on top of course!
Of course life isn't fair, but even the existence of our very nation would not be so without the concept of fairness. What do you think a democracy is? Everyone having a vote instead of one dictator calling all the shots.
The existence of lower income people (which like an earlier poster mentioned could mean $85,000 in Pleasanton) is a fact of life. They aren't going anywhere. Why don't we all gather them up and dump them on Angel Island with no ferry in or out. Yeah, wouldn't that be a dream come true for bigots like you!
Btw, your description about what you'd wish for if life was fair, of all things, shows a lot about you as a person.
Last edited by mini_cute; 07-26-2010 at 05:00 PM..
I sympathize with these people and if I lived in Pleasanton I'd feel uncomfortable about it. But I also see that creating pockets of wealthy enclaves and poor enclaves is not good for society. Communities need to be diverse, not just catering to only one income level. All communities need to share the burden of having low income dwellings in their town. No community, wealthy or not, should have special exclusion from that responsibility. But it should be done in the right way. I think the number of low income housing in comparison to the total is kind of alarming. I hope when they are built, they are slowly incorporated in, at the very least, so as to mitigate any possible negative impacts on the character of the community.
Could not disagree with you more, the idea that a community has to accept the burden brought on by the poor, is absurd. Why do we need to "force" communities to do anything?
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.
