Comments on: Jerry Brown to Pleasanton: Housing and Climate Change Are Connected

By: SB 375 and fair share « Transbay Blog

SB 375 and fair share « Transbay Blog — Tue, 31 May 2011 09:14:59 +0000

[...] accommodate its assigned number of units. This process was sometimes implemented by cities and other times was ignored, although Pleasanton’s defeat in a lawsuit challenging the city’s housing cap served as [...]

By: Air Resources Board works to meet June deadline for SB 375 draft GHG targets « Transbay Blog

Wed, 26 May 2010 15:07:37 +0000

[...] different region from the home region, and they often reflect the long commutes made necessary by a regional housing/jobs imbalance — one of the problems that SB 375 seeks to mitigate. A particular instance of this problem [...]

By: Court Invalidates the Pleasanton Housing Cap « Transbay Blog

Court Invalidates the Pleasanton Housing Cap « Transbay Blog — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:51:05 +0000

[...] because Measure GG, if allowed to continue into perpetuity, would ultimately result in a gross housing-jobs imbalance. Although Pleasanton was projected to nearly double its workforce by 2025, its capacity to [...]

By: Ralph E Shaffer

Ralph E Shaffer — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:51:07 +0000

Sorry to be so late in posting this.

If the issue is that some cities are shirking a responsibility regarding housing, why doesn’t Brown pick on two L A county cities whose record is truly sorry.

City of Industry has vast amounts of vacant land but does not allow new housing. In 2000 the population was 777 but each day 80,000 workers from suburban bedgoom comminities descend on Industry to work. The city deliberatrely keeps out residents. It will not annex adjacent housing tracts because the cabal that runs the city is afraid of losing control. Talk about the impct on the environement, climte change, time wsted in transit to work, etc.

Thenthere is Vernon, with about 200 residents and a work force of 44,000, all of whom must commute. Vernon’s history marks it as one of the most corrupt cities in the state. Like Industry, Vernon too has a cap – the city simply doesn’t approve plans for construction of housing.

So why doesn’t Jerry Brown take on Industry and Vernon? First, this is all aout the race for governor in 2010/ The guy who 25 years ago told us smalll is better now doesn’t believe that anymore. We’ve got to make room for 60 million people. Second, there is a lot more wealth and political clout in Industry and Vernon than in Pleasanton, which ws a soft target for a future governor. Case in point: While the legislture was in a dither over massive budget cuts, they wrote into the budget bill a proision whereby Industry can use Redevelopment Funds to build an NFL stadium. Did Brown object, saying that lnd should be used to house some of the 80,000 commuters? He made not a peep.

But Pleasanton. Now, that’s a real violation of the housing plan.
Please pardon the typos. I’ve lost most of my eyesight, but not my vision for California.

By: Jame

Jame — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:59:29 +0000

I agree the P-town is especially ridiculous. Why shouldn’t there be a few mixed use developments on the adjacent BART blocks. Maybe a few more near Stoneridge Mall. The number of people driving to work in Pleasanton from Tracy, Stockton, even Sacramento is ridiculous. A few more housing units would solve a lot of problems. And take advantage of a limited resource: land adjacent to BART stations.

By: Janet

Janet — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:23:51 +0000

If the people of Pleasanton could make an agreement with Dublin and Livermore to take up their slack on housing, perhaps their outrageous position could be defended. This is what Napa County did to avoid growth and being out of compliance with HUD on housing allocation. They made the case that an agricultural county such as Napa should be able to retain it’s rural character and that all housing growth should be allocated to cities like American Canyon and the City of Napa. Those cities agreed to take up the slack in an MOU, but this is not the same thing at all. These are all communities/cities that wanted the revenue that business has provided, then they want those workers to go home at night to somewhere else so the city can stay small. Piffle…

By: Downtown Berkeley’s Growing Pains « Transbay Blog

Downtown Berkeley’s Growing Pains « Transbay Blog — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:15:52 +0000

[...] existing neighborhoods as they are and have been, but which nonetheless must find a way to absorb its fair share of the regional housing [...]

By: aslevin

aslevin — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:57:03 +0000

True, absolute control over land use by state government would be a bad thing. However, that isn’t on or near the table. The question is which regulations are reasonable for the government to take in favor of common interests like protecting the environment and avoiding sprawl.

It’s possible to make an argument that any government regulation is an undue attack on liberty. Since the focus of this blog is public transit, transit oriented development, and city planning, based on premises that these are valid activities, it seems unlikely that this argument will gain much traction here.

By: John Z.

John Z. — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:22:03 +0000

Putting control over land use in the hands of the state government is a giant step towards communism.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:06:54 +0000

How childish of people to believe they have a say in the community they live in.
As I indicated in another comment, cities retain a vast amount of power in determining how land is used in their city limits. The RHNA is a qualification, but the city still has the power to determine what the housing looks like, where it’s located, etc. People still very much have a say, but they do not have complete and unchecked say. We do, after all, have both both a state and federal government, and sometimes, local governments must conform their activities to comply with state and federal laws. That’s just a fact of life in this democracy of ours.