U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 11-29-2012, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,075 posts, read 32,487,487 times
Reputation: 10650

Advertisements

Interesting.

Quote:
Specifically, the Times reported, residents were concerned about increases in the number of low-income housing units in town. Danville's updated general plan proposes at least 9.6 acres around town for higher density, low-income housing.

All cities have to have a certain amount of low-income housing to comply with state law. But that didn't stop residents from passionately objecting...
Residents Challenge Danville's 2030 General Plan; What Do You Think? - Danville, CA Patch

 
Old 11-29-2012, 03:45 PM
 
1,751 posts, read 1,215,047 times
Reputation: 1365
It makes no sense to built low-income housing in Danville. Built it near public transportation. Danville is a rural sleepy town far from job centers, BART doesnt' go there, train doesn't go there, heck, there's barely any bus services. Danville is for people who like big houses, owns three cars, and don't mind driving to everywhere. For low-income residents, many could barely afford one car, not to mention seniors or disabled who don't want to or cannot drive anymore, convenience is the key. I suppose it's close to many amenities, which is good; but getting to and from work is going to be a huge issues for people who can't afford a car or can't afford the gas.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 03:57 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,329 posts, read 13,718,024 times
Reputation: 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Danville is a rural sleepy town far from job centers.
Walnut Creek, Concord, San Ramon, and Pleasanton aren't really that far and are job centers in the region.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 04:41 PM
 
1,751 posts, read 1,215,047 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Walnut Creek, Concord, San Ramon, and Pleasanton aren't really that far and are job centers in the region.

If you work in Walnut Creek or Concord, it makes a lot more sense to live in Concord, which is already a very affordable place to live plus have several low-income apartments. It'd make sense to built the low-income housing in Concord as opposed to Danville.

San Ramon and Pleasanton have many white collar jobs. From my experience, most low-income residents are blue collar/service sector workers. They are far more likey to commute to Oakland/SF/SJ than to San Ramon or Pleasanton.

Last edited by beb0p; 11-29-2012 at 04:50 PM..
 
Old 11-29-2012, 04:53 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,329 posts, read 13,718,024 times
Reputation: 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
If you work in Walnut Creek or Concord, it makes a lot more sense to live in Concord, which is already a very affordable place to live plus have several low-income apartments. It'd make sense to built the low-income housing in Concord as opposed to Danville.

San Ramon and Pleasanton have many white collar jobs. From my experience, most low-income residents are blue collar/service sector workers. They are far more likey to commute to Oakland/SF/SJ than to San Ramon or Pleasanton.
Low-income housing usually has wait lists and people really can't pick and choose as nearly as much as those in the regular, free market. Plus I think a single parent would rather send their kids to Danville schools than Concord one's if they can.

A lot of office and administrative jobs in the area don't exactly pay that well. $15/hr isn't going to get you much in the area whether you're single or have a kid. There are plenty of service jobs in the area as well.

I don't think concentrating low income housing in what are already low income cities is a great idea but I do understand why some Danville residents don't want it in their town. But they're only devoting 9.6 acres to it so I don't see the big deal when the town is already 40K+.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Studio City, CA 91604
1,078 posts, read 841,777 times
Reputation: 1160
Let me play devil's advocate:

"Low-income housing" doesn't necessarily mean a bunch of single mothers on Section 8 with three crying babies in tow and two hoodlum teenagers wreaking havoc on a neighborhood.

In a place like the Bay Area and especially Danville, it could also mean a sole income earner like a teacher who makes under $45,000.00 per year, or a Senior Citizen with a fixed income or a disabled Veteran.

I know a woman in Walnut Creek who was once homeless and slept on the Iron Horse trail when it was warm. She now lives in a Section 8 rental unit in downtown Walnut Creek not too far from the library. The woman I am speaking of is in her 60s now and creates art to pay the rest of her rent.

She is the ideal "low income" resident for a place like Walnut Creek in that she is creative, single and a Senior Citizen.

At the DVC-San Ramon Valley branch in Dublin, there are professors who make between $35,000 and $40,000 a year who are "low income" by Bay Area standards.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 05:56 PM
 
1,751 posts, read 1,215,047 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Low-income housing usually has wait lists and people really can't pick and choose as nearly as much as those in the regular, free market. Plus I think a single parent would rather send their kids to Danville schools than Concord one's if they can.
First of all, this is not about schools. Most of the residents in low-income housing don't have school-age kids. About 20% of low-income families have kids according to a 2011 study. You're trying to benefit the minority in favor of the majority with this school thing. The other 80% have no use for being in a good school district.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
A lot of office and administrative jobs in the area don't exactly pay that well. $15/hr isn't going to get you much in the area whether you're single or have a kid. There are plenty of service jobs in the area as well.

I don't think concentrating low income housing in what are already low income cities is a great idea but I do understand why some Danville residents don't want it in their town. But they're only devoting 9.6 acres to it so I don't see the big deal when the town is already 40K+.

Most of the office administrative jobs go to people who are relatively young and educated. They are not the demographic for low-income housing. They may not make a lot of money but they often have good support systems and don't need public assistance. Furthermore, you mentioned the waitlist - yes there is a waitlist and it effectively weeds out anyone with any kind of support system. To get into a low-income housing unit requires a very long wait, basically anyone who has help or can figure out a solution to their problems are long gone by the time a unit is made available. What's left on the wait list are the people who are out of options, have no way out, and often in dire strait. These are not your office administrative assistants. These are people who are often have no college degrees, no marketable skill, and are doing labor intensive work (or not working at all). Many are in and out of work - seasonal work, part time work, etc. So even if they do work in San Ramon, that job will run out and they'll need to find work elsewhere. He could be working in Concord for three months, then on to San Leandro for four months, then to SF for the rest of the year. So being close to public transportation is a must. Trapping them in Danville is not constructive to their lives.

Last edited by beb0p; 11-29-2012 at 06:10 PM..
 
Old 11-29-2012, 06:17 PM
 
1,751 posts, read 1,215,047 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattk92681 View Post
Let me play devil's advocate:

"Low-income housing" doesn't necessarily mean a bunch of single mothers on Section 8 with three crying babies in tow and two hoodlum teenagers wreaking havoc on a neighborhood.

In a place like the Bay Area and especially Danville, it could also mean a sole income earner like a teacher who makes under $45,000.00 per year, or a Senior Citizen with a fixed income or a disabled Veteran.

I know a woman in Walnut Creek who was once homeless and slept on the Iron Horse trail when it was warm. She now lives in a Section 8 rental unit in downtown Walnut Creek not too far from the library. The woman I am speaking of is in her 60s now and creates art to pay the rest of her rent.

She is the ideal "low income" resident for a place like Walnut Creek in that she is creative, single and a Senior Citizen.

At the DVC-San Ramon Valley branch in Dublin, there are professors who make between $35,000 and $40,000 a year who are "low income" by Bay Area standards.

There is a subtle but not insignificant difference between section 8 and public housing. Section 8 tenants typically are still marketable renters, they need to be in order to convince a landlord to rent to them. Meaning they have no criminal records and can show some form of stable income. I can believe that a professor is on section 8 but it is highly unlikely that professor is living in a public housing project.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 06:28 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,329 posts, read 13,718,024 times
Reputation: 5472
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
First of all, this is not about schools. Most of the residents in low-income housing don't have school-age kids. About 20% of low-income families have kids according to a 2011 study. You're trying to benefit the minority in favor of the majority with this school thing. The other 80% have no use for being in a good school district.
I never said it was about schools and was just using that as an example. I also mentioned SINGLE people and never said the housing should just be used for families with kids.
Quote:
Most of the office administrative jobs go to people who are relatively young and educated. They are not the demographic for low-income housing. They may not make a lot of money but they often have good support systems and don't need public assistance. Furthermore, you mentioned the waitlist - yes there is a waitlist and it effectively weeds out anyone with any kind of support system. To get into a low-income housing unit requires a very long wait, basically anyone who has help or can figure out a solution to their problems are long gone by the time a unit is made available. What's left on the wait list are the people who are out of options, have no way out, and often in dire strait. These are not your office administrative assistants. These are people who are often have no college degrees, no marketable skill, and are doing labor intensive work (or not working at all). Many are in and out of work - seasonal work, part time work, etc. So even if they do work in San Ramon, that job will run out and they'll need to find work elsewhere. So being close to public transportation is a must.
No they don't. I used to work for a employment agency that specialized in administrative positions and the majority of Administrative Assistants did not have college degrees nor were the majority young. The one thing they all wanted was a short commute, all preferred to work in the area and not commute out to SF and Oakland. Might as well just go out there for low-income housing then. It's not just admin jobs either but I also mentioned SERVICE jobs like retail.

A lot of people who qualify as low income have cars too so I don't know why you act as if they are all dependent on transit. And land near transit like BART stations is at a premium and there is only so much of it. I know for a fact there is already plenty of low-income units around PH BART and new developments require some sort of low-income element. ABAG requires ALL cities in the Bay Area to have low-income housing and clearly ALL cities don't have rail stations. You simply can't concentrate all the region's low-income housing needs around rail stations, especially when you're competing with people willing to pay a premium to live next to a BART station.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 06:56 PM
 
1,751 posts, read 1,215,047 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I never said it was about schools and was just using that as an example. I also mentioned SINGLE people and never said the housing should just be used for families with kids.
In that case, being in a good school district should be a "nice to have", not "must have." Which means it doesn't necessary have to be in Danville.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
No they don't. I used to work for a employment agency that specialized in administrative positions and the majority of Administrative Assistants did not have college degrees nor were the majority young. The one thing they all wanted was a short commute, all preferred to work in the area and not commute out to SF and Oakland. Might as well just go out there for low-income housing then. It's not just admin jobs either but I also mentioned SERVICE jobs like retail.
And how many of those administrative assistants live in public housing? Of all the administrative assistants that I worked with, none of them live in public housing, all of them have college degrees (in fact one has an MBA), and by young I mean none of them are over 50.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
A lot of people who qualify as low income have cars too so I don't know why you act as if they are all dependent on transit. And land near transit like BART stations is at a premium and there is only so much of it. I know for a fact there is already plenty of low-income units around PH BART and new developments require some sort of low-income element. ABAG requires ALL cities in the Bay Area to have low-income housing and clearly ALL cities don't have rail stations. You simply can't concentrate all the region's low-income housing needs around rail stations, especially when you're competing with people willing to pay a premium to live next to a BART station.
That's the point, a lot of people qualifies for low-income housing, but only a very small subset end up living in them. Those small subset are not the demographic that you have in mind.

A lot of people living in pubic housing don't have a car or would rather not own one. Yes, there are some who do drive and can afford it but you have to cater to the lowest common denominator. Not to mention many are seniors or have some form of disability and cannot drive. You can't just say, "Hey everyone drive!" when some in the group cannot do that. You have to consider the group as a whole and not just focus on those who validates your point.
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.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top