Pleasanton forced to have 2524 low income housing units (Oakland, Livermore: middle-class, crime)

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by fam1st

New here and all I can say about this posting is ... wow. I've been searching different communities in the area and had considered Pleasanton (among others) as a possible fit for my family. Now I'm a little scared. We are in that working middle class category - mom, dad, 2 kids - looking to relocate to the area this summer. Income is going to be @ $80 k. If we had made different life choices, this might have been more. But since I chose to leave college to raise our kids (felt this was a higher calling than the call of money and material things), we are content to live the rest of our lives in the middle class (maybe this is lower class in Pleasanton).

What bothers me is the underlying tone of snobbery and elitism I find in these posts. We don't care about the latest gadgets or luxuries. We care about family. We've encountered prejudices like this before and do not wish to subject our children to this type of cruelty (and I'm not talking about race, we are white; but the prejudice of money and possessions. That type of prejudice knows no color).

I don't really know what kind of housing we would be in. We are considering renting first to get our bearings, and when we buy, spending between 350 - 400 k. We really are just looking for a nice area with low crime, good schools, and friendly people. We will know no one when we move, and I had hoped my children, 6th and 10th grade, would be welcomed and not feel like outsiders. However, after reading these posts, I keep getting images in my mind of that movie "Mean Girls".

There are very nice communities all over this country with a variety of housing costs and the lower priced housing in these areas are not necessarily drug-ridden slums. If we move into this area and buy a house in this price range, will we be looked down on for it? My husband works, but if I choose not to work 60 hours a week but only part time so I can be home for my kids, will I be seen as a lazy person? Seems like my priorities are not the same as some who post here.

So, where can I find a safe, family friendly area with good schools. Btw, my husband will be working in Fremont (he's leaving for there next week - the kids and I will follow after school lets out). I've looked at Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin. Where can a midwestern family fit in out there?

Unfortunately the Bay area is not as "open minded" and "laid back" as the natives let on. In the bay area many people feel they have the right to say who lives where, and if you upset the status quo people will get upset and very well may attempt to use local government to strong arm.

Don't get me wrong it's not as bad as it used to be. Now that homes can be had in the 500's in pleasanton a lot of inflated egos have had to come back down to earth right behind their home values.

But Pleasanton is very snooty and many local residents are quite *unpleasant*. Much more friendly laid back towns are Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Unfortunately the Bay area is not as "open minded" and "laid back" as the natives let on. In the bay area many people feel they have the right to say who lives where, and if you upset the status quo people will get upset and very well may attempt to use local government to strong arm.

Don't get me wrong it's not as bad as it used to be. Now that homes can be had in the 500's in pleasanton a lot of inflated egos have had to come back down to earth right behind their home values.

But Pleasanton is very snooty and many local residents are quite *unpleasant*. Much more friendly laid back towns are Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon.

You mean the "new money" transplants are unpleasant. You think the locals were like that back when it was all vineyards? Don't make me laugh.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

But Pleasanton is very snooty and many local residents are quite *unpleasant*. Much more friendly laid back towns are Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon.

San Ramon = Pleasanton

Sorry. They are the same, but they are both very nice from what I found.

People were not mean, neighbors were nice, shop owners were helpful!

I Liked living in there. BUT I don't know what the school soccer mom stuff is like.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

You mean the "new money" transplants are unpleasant. You think the locals were like that back when it was all vineyards? Don't make me laugh.

No I don't mean that. If I mean something I will say it. And considering there is no quantifiable data available for how much money each person has, much less how old it is, or where they are from I would not make such an assertion.

Nevermind the fact that well, I was brought up in the midwest, so I don't really care how much money some one has or how old it is. Nor do I care much where some one is born. That's just not how I pre-judge people. That might be how things are done where you are from, but that's not the case or me.

Besides, you can go to a city council meeting and you can see that the most active nimbys are always long time residents when it comes to growth and development. It's always some one saying "I've lived here for 40 years and I don't want the character to change". Because of course, the people who have lived there the longest paid the the lowest prices for their homes and pay the lowest property taxes. And they benefit from the inflation in prices.

That's why Morgan Hill which is only a fraction of the size of Pleasanton( with many long time residents), has dramatically high home costs as well. Because they are just as hostile, if not more, to growth.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

San Ramon = Pleasanton

Sorry. They are the same, but they are both very nice from what I found.

People were not mean, neighbors were nice, shop owners were helpful!

I Liked living in there. BUT I don't know what the school soccer mom stuff is like.

LoL San Ramon is a little different than Pleasanton. Drive down Bollinger and tell me if you can figure out which one of the sea of condo and apartment complexes is low income. It's pretty hard. San Ramon has done an excellent job providing housing for its working and lower middle class when compared to Pleasanton.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

That's why Morgan Hill which is only a fraction of the size of Pleasanton( with many long time residents), has dramatically high home costs as well. Because they are just as hostile, if not more, to growth.

Morgan Hill has seen a tremendous amount of development in the past 10 years. Drive down Cochrane from Monterey Road towards the boat launch and you'll see nothing but new homes and commercial properties for miles and miles. They even have a new Wal-Mart as of last year, where they didn't have one before.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Morgan Hill has seen a tremendous amount of development in the past 10 years. Drive down Cochrane from Monterey Road towards the boat launch and you'll see nothing but new homes and commercial properties for miles and miles. They even have a new Wal-Mart as of last year, where they didn't have one before.

Morgan hill has like 35 thousand people and is surrounded by farms. In 1990 they had over 20 thousand people. Thats not that much growth. There are cities in California that were that size in 1990 that have grown 5 or 6 fold (100-120k people). My guess is Morgan hill would be more affordable if all the people forced to commute from gilroy and hollister had homes available in morgan hill.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

No I don't mean that. If I mean something I will say it. And considering there is no quantifiable data available for how much money each person has, much less how old it is, or where they are from I would not make such an assertion.

Nevermind the fact that well, I was brought up in the midwest, so I don't really care how much money some one has or how old it is. Nor do I care much where some one is born. That's just not how I pre-judge people. That might be how things are done where you are from, but that's not the case or me.

Besides, you can go to a city council meeting and you can see that the most active nimbys are always long time residents when it comes to growth and development. It's always some one saying "I've lived here for 40 years and I don't want the character to change". Because of course, the people who have lived there the longest paid the the lowest prices for their homes and pay the lowest property taxes. And they benefit from the inflation in prices.

That's why Morgan Hill which is only a fraction of the size of Pleasanton( with many long time residents), has dramatically high home costs as well. Because they are just as hostile, if not more, to growth.

I'm still trying to figure out why preventing too much growth is a bad thing. Almost all of CA's problems can be traced to too many people moving here. Beside weather, CA's natural scenery is the main reason why this state is so great. As more and more development swallows up all the open land, CA becomes less desirable.

Also, do you have personal experience dealing with all these supposedly unpleasant Pleasanton residents? I have a co-worker who lives in Pleasanton and he was just telling me recently about the block parties that his street has. He actually knows almost all of his neighbors personally and they are friendly, outgoing people. A block party would be completely unheard of in any of the middle-lower class neighborhoods I've lived in throughout my life in the Bay Area.

From my experience there is no correlation between wealth and unpleasant behavior. The only reason nasty wealthy people tend to get more notice is because they often have the means and ability to act out on their nastiness. There are nice wealthy people just like there are nice poor people. There are plenty of nasty poor people too who just don't have the resources to fully act out on their nastiness.

I don't get why so many people on this board generalize so much about other people just based on where they live or their income level. It really shows ignorance.

[jade408]

The problem with Pleasanton in this case is that every city in the state has a responsibility to accept XXX growth and provide XXX affordable housing. P-town refused to build/approve its share of the mandate. They had no choice whether to accept this mandate, it was law that they agreed to.

Block parties are pretty common. I've experienced them every where. It isn't income specific by any means. IT just requires people who are interested in interacting with neighbors. It is not a Pleasanton exclusive. It requires friendly people on your block.

[Ceece]

I've never met an unpleasant person in Pleasanton. No more so than anyplace else that is. I can't even imagine how anyone could generalize like that. It's stupid.

Too much growth IS a bad thing, but Pleasanton is going to do what has been mandated so there isn't anything to complain about but it's still going to be too expensive for most. Not the MOST expensive mind you, but some lame folks still get riled up that they can't live wherever they want whether they can afford to or not. Deal with it people, nobody can do that. Talk about an entitlement mentality.

Pleasanton does = San Ramon. Just the layout is different. Livermore isn't that far behind but had tons more older, less expensive homes and some not so well planned growth. Same with Dublin. All nice places, some planned better than others. I think San Ramon is owned by developers though, and Dublin sold it's soul.