Supporters of affordable housing weigh in on controversial issue Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Mar 11, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Affordable housing is not only a good idea for Danville but it's also the law. Despite "legitimate concerns" about an increase in crime, traffic and lower property values, the executive director of a housing association said the opposite tends to happen when affordable housing comes into a community.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, March 11, 2013, 12:53 PM
Posted by Howietom, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2013 at 9:50 pm
WT.? There is no law that says Danville needs to have low income housing. Why is the Patch even reporting this. And for the kids that are 26 years old. I couldn't afford a house in Danville at that age either. Work hard and Let your career grow. Thats when you make the Money to live any place you want.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 6:48 am
While I don't totally disagree with Dianne Spaulding of Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, I do know that this organization and the MTC and ABAG need to substantiate their reason for existence by constantly coming up with areas that need their "Help". You see they have a vision for our community and when we dare to express our own vision we are wrong and they are right. I for one am no member of the "Tea Party" and see this outside attempt at control as part of the "One Bay Area" concept put forth by ABAG. If this sounds un-democratic then we need to fight back against this controlling monstrosity. If Corte Madera could shed the ties that bind then so can Danville.
Posted by Debbie, a resident of another community, on Mar 12, 2013 at 6:51 am
You have got to be kidding me with this ridiculous article. Clearly driven by the Town and Summerhill developer. And the "unhappy children of our town" comment from a 26 year old? Hilarious. Oh, and would you please report on the # of low income residents residing on Lucille Weber's property (Matadera development by Davidon)?
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 7:35 am
I am absolutely supportive of adding a modest allocation of affordable housing in Danville! I am confident it will be high quality, just like most such modern housing is now. No question we need to be judicious about where, who develops it and like considerations. Having worked on such housing for many years, it has evolved to be a real plus for most communities.
Posted by DG, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 7:38 am
The path forward is clear, our community must make itself heard and leave no uncertainty that if our town officials move in a direction other than the majority of our citizens’ desire, they will cease to be our officials. Dianne Spaulding, Executive Director of Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California is simply doing her job as she sees it and if Danville falls, she’ll have yet another notch on her belt. She has no basis to speak to Danville’s leadership; she is a self-appointed “sheriff” attempting to impose her ideals upon towns in which she doesn’t live nor should have any influence. If affordable housing is forced upon Danville, Ms. Spaulding will set her sights on her next victim and exhort another town into accepting affordable housing and further ensure funding for her association and her pay check – as my father says, “follow the money.”
Cynthia Ruzzi conversely has every right to address Danville’s Town Council – she is just wrong.
I urge every interested party – both those opposed and in-favor of affordable housing - to attend the March 19th meeting and demonstrate to Danville’s leadership what is at stake… not only affordable housing in Danville, but also the individual political career of each council person. Danville’s leadership body has a duty to represent the will of THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE, not tell us what is right for us. Let our assemblage demonstrate our commitment to having the community we want, not what outsiders want to impose on us.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 7:49 am
Pleasanton fought the housing allocation laws for more than 10 years (ending in 2012) and it cost them over $5 million in legal fees and staff salary AND they LOST. A judge put an injunction on all building permits in Pleasanton until they had a state compliant housing plan. Hate it, fight it but it is the law in California.
Posted by Local Control for Danville, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 8:27 am
The article is an editorial, not news. Here's the deal: Danville should get out of ABAG, then work directly with the State Housing Department on satisfying the state's affordable housing mandates. ABAG wildly inflates the numbers it gives cities, based on flawed growth assumptions that bear no relationship to the reality of this state.
And speaking of reality, did you notice the 2 supposed reasons mentioned above for requiring Danville to build "affordable" (i.e. subsidized) housing? Greenhouse gases----sorry, I don't buy that theory as a basis for remodeling the world---and encouraging housing near "transit hubs"----Danville is NOT one. Note also the use of the word "transit hubs". Under the ONE BAY AREA PLAN , cities evaporate and are replaced by "transit hubs". When did you hear of a transit hub scheduling a Fourth of July parade, or a tree-lighting ceremony? If One Bay Area gets its way, cities and the sense of belonging that they foster will be a thing of the past.
Finally, please note the effort to marginalize opponents of the so-called "affordable housing" as being Tea Party members. Nothing wrong with that, but we know who is behind it, starting with Danville's politically ambitious Mayor, Newell Arnerich. Shame on you, Newell, and shame on the persons interviewed for the editorial above. This is a non-partisan, grassroots opposition. Start discussing the issues and stop labeling the opposition and deriding them.
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 8:35 am
Let's see, Danville contains 11,000 acres within it's city limits and we're talking about 9.6 acres of housing which may end up being placed in a tired walnut orchard next to the freeway & occupied mainly by seniors and young families.
Posted by Carolyn, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 9:42 am
Section 8 housing equals socialism. We moved to Danville to have a nice community to raise our children in and have a higher degree of safety. We used to be a capitalistic society where the dollar dictated what you were able to do. Now, people can’t have their hands out fast enough for “free” money from us taxpayers. I have no problem with seniors who probably have contributed to society over the years and earned some help, but for young families and minorities, they need to EARN it like the rest of us! We already have Section 8 housing over here in unincorporated Danville and I truly believe that has created some of the problems we have over here. Someday, if not today, all this liberal philosophy is going to come back and bite us all in the a**!
Posted by Danville resident, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 10:28 am
There has been one word left out of the debate....."money". This has been portrayed as a a selfish vs. decency issue. And as in all things today, it is a money issue. Developers want the dollars and the more units of housing they can construct on a piece of property the more money they can make. At the last meeting, someone wanted their parcel back on the list. Another owner had noticed all of his tenants, thinking that this was his the big opportunity. Look at who contributes the the campaigns of our politicians. Zoning has been the only means of maintaining Danville's charm and fighting the money motive. We are starting to lose the battle..( Elworthy, Matadera, etc. We cannot continue down this path.
Posted by Brian Cameron, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 10:34 am
This article is the most biasd to date.Theresidents who spoke at the meetings represent a cross section of Danville. We are all concerned about the direction and development of our town. Danville residents (voters) should determine the future of Danville.Our elected councile members should listen to and respect the views of their constituents.
Posted by Rick Pshaw, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 11:11 am
The US Constitution states that "All men are created equal. (Men means everyone).
The issue we must not forget is that all people DO NOT die equal. Some die wealthy, many die with average wealth and many die being poor.
However, the commie libs want everyone to DIE EQUAL, too. They are patient and try to slip the camel's nose under the tent whenever and wherever they can. Make no mistake, they are dangerous and want their great leveling experiment to succeed. What they don't realize is that it will never succeed.
Posted by disgusted, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Sadly, the two incumbents and their lackey were elected last November. The Council didn't release the draft General Plan until it was too late to make it an election issue.
Don't vote for the incumbents again! And don't vote for Big Brother Newell Arnerich for State Assembly in 2014! Now that he has announced he is running and probably has an election committee formed, he is probably already pulling in campaign contributions. Hmmm, wonder who is on the list??-- KB Homes, SummerHill Homes, the owners of the redesignated-for-high density housing properties??? Someone please check that out and get back to us. Contributors have to be made public.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 3:46 pm
This article is not particularly well written. This greatly diminishes it's overall credibility. However, it was surely written to generate the kind of response it is getting from a well characterized target demographic. If one can take a moment from the full-froth ranting that appears to come from reading the thoughts of 'commie libs' (really - communist banter in this day and age?), I believe that you'll realize that something is not right about the way it is presented. I greatly suspect that the writer is getting all the sound-bite material they wanted and then some.
Posted by Chris, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Very clever writing. Bu misleading and loose with the facts. This is according to a VERY LIBERAL Democrat, not the tea party wacko you implied. I live in Danville. Have for many years. I want my children to live and work here too - IF they can afford it. The State didn't mandate a house for them here. The town council and its mouthpieces should refrain from hiding behind the State for their self-serving actions.
Posted by jdv, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 8:16 pm
If you want to know how this kind of housing effects communities, take a drive 2 miles SE to Dougherty Valley in San Ramon. Ask any of the administrators, or parents who bought in Windemere and Gale Ranch what they think of the effect on the schools.
The low income housing families may have left Oakland, but they didn't take the Oakland out of their kids - and most of parents are working and not watching their kids here, either. I don't blame the parents for wanting something better for their kids, but you have to be realistic about the consequences of low income housing on schools.
Posted by for the people, not politicians, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm
@Resident: If you google the Pleasanton case, it revolved around Pleasanton approving lots of new office space while it was simultaneously capping housing. Danville, by contrast, has very few jobs and is certainly not scheduled to approve new office buildings. In fact, the redesignations that are occuring in the new General Plan will TAKE AWAY office space (i.e. jobs), and REPLACE it with housing. Danville has nothing to fear from withdrawing from voluntary membership in ABAG and working directly with the state housing office regarding the housing issue. Corte Madera withdrew and its housing allocations decreased.
Stop trying to please ABAG, Danville Town Council members!!
Posted by Woody Allen, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 8:31 am
My advice to everyone that wants Danville to stay in the control of DANVILLE-- follow Woody Allen's advice. He once said that 90% of success is SHOWING UP! YOU MUST SHOW UP TO THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19TH, 7:30 AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER IN FRONT OF THE LIBRARY. Don't rely on everyone else to do your job, folks.YOU must come.
Don't let Newell Arnerich continue his McCarthy tactics; we know that most of the opponents of the draft 2030 General Plan are not Tea Party members (nothing wrong if they are, of course). Yet Arnerich--- in true McCarthy fashion--- seeks to discredit the message against the General Plan by claiming that only Tea Party members (indeed, Tea Party members from San Jose?!) are challenging it.
You are wrong, Mr. Arnerich. And we will show you on Tuesday night.
And by the way, I suggest you withdraw your Assembly candidacy. You are not going to get any support from Danville residents. Just imagine what havoc you could wreak on us from Sacramento!!
Posted by LOUISE, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:59 am
There is only one explanation and it is very simple: redistribution of wealth. Take from those who make it and give to those who don't. Now it is a bad thing to be considered rich (whatever that really is)and successful. Say it like it is, "we want you rich sob's to give more of your money to those who don't." Many of the economically disadvantaged have had opportunities but may not have taken them through various life choices, i.e., having more children then they can afford, spending instead of saving, or not seeking further training and education. Now they are "at or below the poverty level" as determined by the government and are now given government subsidies to bring them to a certain parity of comfort. (see Section 8 housing and a percentage of mandatory low income housing in each new housing development). What happens when the "rich" stop producing or they are so taxed there isn't enough money to spread around? It's called Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and we become like all the countries that are bankrupt.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 1:36 pm
@David - I suspect that you, my friend, don't quite understand or grasp the fine art of euphemism.
As far as 'atmosphere' may be characterized as opposed to discernible academic measures, why be so sheepish in your choice of words. Why not more fully explain your thoughts on what you are trying to state?
Posted by PSMacintosh, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm
How do we find out for sure:
1. whether Newell Arnerich is/was on the board of ABAG (or in any way connected to ABAG)?
2. whether ______ _____, in her former position as Danville Planning Comm., worked on any matter that involved a piece of real estate that is now subject to a change under the currently proposed General Plan?
If so, I think these people are in a position of CONFLICT OF INTEREST and should not vote on the proposed General Plan.
Posted by Debbie Chapman, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 10:32 am
Newell was on the ABAG board. Now Storer is on the ABAG board.
Dianne Spaulding is not a Danville resident. She is from SF and clearly is advocating for the destruction of our town. This is exactly why we need local control. These bills are NOT manadatory! Sorry, but Ms. Spaulding is lying! Read the bills. SB375 and AB32 do NOT state that local compliance is mandatory. The item that is mandatory is the housing allocation and that can be challenged. So you see everything is negotiable. Even ABAG admits they have no authority to force local compliance. The only real mechanism they have is to threaten to withhold transportation funds. So coersion and extortion are the only real complaince methods! Ms. Spaulding conveniently forgets to mention all of those things.
Name calling is a show of weakness. When they name call it's because they have no facts and they are losing. Being called a Tea Party member and playing the race card are so typical they are laughable. This is a non-partisan fight. Close to 400 people were at the March 5th meeting. And the town could only get a handful of people (probably paid) to show up and pretend the love this plan.
It was ironic to hear the Chamber of Commerce get up and proclaim that all of the hundreds of businesses in this town love the plan then shortly after a dentist got up and stated he was forced to spend $200,000 to move his business because of the rezoning. And this doctor's business was mysteriously vandalized the very next night.
Ms. Ruzzi was having a Tizzy at the meeting. She went on and on about how she wants clean air and to preserve the town for her kids futures and how low income housing would help all this? What a joke!!! Danville is already Sustainable Dummie! We have clean air, clean water, safe schools, safe streets and no pollution. Adding high density housing in our town would do the exact opposite of what she wants. It would destroy the town, increase traffic and pollution and as far as I know "income level" does not have anything to do with lowering GHGs. Also, no coincidence Sustainable Danville is promoted by the Town of Danville (No conflict there). Ms. Ruzzi had her tizzy and then stomped out!!! Boo Hoo
The whole point of here is that Danville doesn't want to be controlled by regionalists.
Posted by Barbara, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 11:51 am
"'No local community likes to be handed a mandate from anyone. We all believe in local control,' she said."
The citizens of Danville are showing up to these meetings in an attempt to maintain local control of their community. Just because the system "isn't perfect...it is all that we have..." implies that the residents of Danville should just put up and shut up. Is that what our democracy has come to?
Posted by Dave, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Does anyone else find objectionable Louise's view of the world, in which everyone who is wealthy must have earned it and everyone who is not wealthy must be guilty of some moral failing?
It seems to me that her moralistic view of who is entitled to live in Danville leaves no room for the possibility that there are wealthy people who inherited their money, rather than earned it, and that there are poorer people whose only "sin" was to become disabled, to be laid off, to have become widowed, to have dedicated their life to the church, etc.
Posted by Jonathan, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 12:19 pm
If a quarterback crosses the line of scrummage and then passes, it's a penalty. If Danville doesn't comply with state law it's a penalty too in the form of lost dollars for critical infrastructure and possibly fines. Reading these emails makes it clear that many don't understand the rules of the game. If you don't play the game rules you are sure to lose. The laws such as AB32, SB375 and CEQA are made in Sacramento not Danville! Many of the comments have nothing to do with General Plan review or come from people in other Cities and likely will be ignored. As for 10 acres of charming new housing out of 17,000 acres, like the other person wrote: "Give me a break"! Or as Shakespeare said: "Much ado about nothing".
Posted by BellaSF, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm
This article is a joke -- well not a joke maybe -- but it definitely is NOT an unbiased article. I am a local Danville resident and attended this meeting as well as many of the previous ones. The people who are showing up in record numbers to these hearings are also LOCAL residents and most have nothing to do with the Tea Party. What we do all share in common is the desire for LOCAL control. There may be nothing wrong with ABAG, and there certainly is nothing wrong with living in communities like San Francisco, Oakland, Fremont, San Ramon, etc. that have embraced high density housing and the other tenants of One Bay Area. HOWEVER, not all communities have to follow that model. Diversity is good -- there is no need to blindly follow ABAG -- we're smart enough to make our own decisions. Danville should maintain local control, get out of ABAG, and follow our own path. Seems to me that we're doing better than a lot of other towns -- maybe they should start following our lead.
Posted by John, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2013 at 2:34 am
Dear Dave, You sir are a complete moron. Entitlement is clearly something YOU believe in, entitlement to live in an area at other peoples expense, expense provided to them through the distribution of wealth. That sir is hogwash. Anyone can live in Danville IF they pay for the privilege. If they can afford to purchase a home at market value or rent a home/apartment at market value. Forcing towns like Danville to lower their market value is Communism which seems to in high regard these days in California.
Posted by Matt, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2013 at 7:18 am
So I guess I'll be the first to say it
Before the section 8 housing in San Ramon popped up, our crime rate was much much lower. There was never a robbery or a helicopter in the air looking for someone. Now those are happening far to often.
Ask any San Ramon police officer and they will tell you, the affordable housing brought in a bad group of people. Crime follows poverty. No one on here will say it but its true. Do some of your own digging on line and see what it says.
I won't stand for this. I'm sick of these free handouts. Just because us Danville residents worked hard, went to college and started a successful career using the opportunities we had, does NOT mean we have to share them with someone who "never got an opportunity because they are poor". Bs. My dad didn't have shoes growing up and he is very well off. Our close family friends grew up in a single wide trailer in grass valley and now he owns his own business. None of them got free handouts and moved to Danville under some entitlement law, they worked for it because they wanted to send their children to the best schools, and live in a very very safe area.
If affordable housing comes to Danville there WILL be higher crime rates. There WILL be people that rob from you and feel entitled to because "you have more to give". I guarantee it all.
Fact: The 4th of July fireworks that we all used to love in San Ramon were cancelled last year and will be cancelled this year. If you clearly read the reasonings it's because of the very high crime rates that went up in the San Ramon area.
Our Danville parade and tree lighting will go the same way as the San Ramon fireworks. They will attract crime and opportunities for people to come and steal from you while you're away, and to gang up in Central Park.
I'm against all this because I worked way too hard to live in this area and have the quality of living brought down.
I won't even begin to talk about how bad the traffic, over crowded the schools are, how we are running out of land in our once small Danville.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2013 at 8:52 am
@Matt, I'll take you up on that gaaa-ron-tee...although I'm sure it's an out-of-sight one. That is once you're out of sight, it's surely guaranteed.
Clearly, what yourself and those of like mind need is a more powerful legislative tool then just Measure S or the town counsel, etc. Take a look at the following (Web Link). Without comparison, at least in my opinion, it is by far the most effective tool that any group of individuals have devised to ensure that the people they call neighbors, think, act and even spend like they do. If you've never lived in an urban area where these entities are the norm, you'll likely dismiss it as some weird form of socialism or even worse communism. Rather, it is the most pure and brutally transparent exhibition of capitalism one could devise. Don't look at it as East Coast or anything to that nature. Look at it as what happens when the popular kids on the playground get to set the rules. More so, ask yourself if you could pass one of these 'entrance exams' just to get a place to call home because others might be standing to prevent it. Makes one think doesn't it?
Posted by Dave, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2013 at 10:06 pm
So, Matt, by your reasoning, all wealthy people are law-abiding and many (most? all?) poor people (or maybe, even just less-wealthy people) are criminals (or criminals in waiting)? Then how do you explain some of the statistics of our fair town already? Would it surprise you that Danville has more than 80 reports of domestic abuse each year? Couldn't be!!!! Our wealthy fellow townspeople couldn't commit crimes like that, could they?
Elitism, by itself, is offensive. But, when it is based on prejudiced assumptions it is intolerable.
Posted by Tom, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2013 at 11:36 pm
"If you want to know how this kind of housing effects communities, take a drive 2 miles SE to Dougherty Valley in San Ramon. Ask any of the administrators, or parents who bought in Windemere and Gale Ranch what they think of the effect on the schools.
The low income housing families may have left Oakland, but they didn't take the Oakland out of their kids - and most of parents are working and not watching their kids here, either. I don't blame the parents for wanting something better for their kids, but you have to be realistic about the consequences of low income housing on schools."
For those who are for the section 8 housing, please, kindly pack your things, and move to oakland or richmond. And sell your house. I know plenty of hard working people who will pay the cost to live here.... Not accept some free hand out to ruin our town
Posted by Rod, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2013 at 1:06 pm
If the Wizard of Oz was looking for a community to play a role, Danville would be the first in line to play the Tin Man based on this recent movement of hate & fear. Have a heart people, there is no reason to be scared of your teachers, fire fighters, Trader Joe's clerks- "those people" that you fear will attempt to own a home in our community.
Posted by Cathy, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Hate to break it to you, Rod, but union employees don't usually qualify for Section 8 housing. Oakland and Richmond are some of the places they come from, and I don't believe we Danville residents want our quaint town to be turned into a ghetto!
Posted by Derek, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Is there any rule against "affordable housing" being designated 100% for seniors? I mean, any ABAG rule? If not, that might be something of a good compromise, but I am still completely against anything further impacting the slopes of Mt. Diablo or any more hideous rear-side additions to the Danville Hotel or the two adjacent blocks.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Your repetition of Oakland and Richmond being the source of the poor, unwashed masses flooding into your neighborhood is such a retread on a boorish topic. Could one at least get you to cite a fear of those in single-wides coming out of Tracy and the outlying regions of Livermore as just as problematic for you? Or are you just letting your inner Archie Bunker show itself proud?
In terms of solutions, I believe that @Derek has proposed a rational solution to the issue of additional higher density housing by suggesting they be primarily for senior housing.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Please forgive my initial oversight and forget about Archie reference for a moment, you are clearly as witty as Edith. Given your sense of where the undesirable element emerges, I suspect that your sensibilities and perspectives truly do only run to the depth of one's pigment.
So let me ask, instead of highlighting the town or location, why don't you just state your mind as to who you do not want living in and around your neighborhood? I have to believe that a straight-shooter like yourself must surely be straining to force even the most modest shred of political correctness on this pressing issue of current to future socioeconomic-demographics for this valley in which we live. I'm sorry, that earlier word is just a big conjoined word for people-race-money, etc. (again forgive me, that last acronym is Latin (old language, only used by lawyers and the Church) for 'and so on...').
Posted by Cathy, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2013 at 11:10 am
Obviously, you think you know who others are and probably would be surprised to find many of us (including myself) being better educated that you, and also not nearly as ancient with the references to “All in the Family.”
That being said, I really don't want gang members in my community, but if you would like to have them - be my guest!
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2013 at 12:36 pm
You might very well be right that you are more academically privileged then I. The great part of this medium is we'll never really quite know. In terms of being ancient, I admit. However, the objective facts on the vast majority of those within our 'shared' demographic are pretty-clear for the 94506 and 94526 zip-codes (Web Link). We are 'old', successful at mastering the fine art of capitalism and generally pretty-well educated.
My consternation with your incredibly poor statement is when you choose to isolate your belief in where the criminal element arises is directly correlated to the color of one's outward person. Not only is it wrong. It cheapens you modest points to start. I for one do not question George and Weezy's criminal intent any more then I might Jethro or Cousin Eddie when they move in next-door. Perhaps that later euphemistic reference is more to your hey-day?
Posted by Cathy, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Maybe you need to look at crime statistics rather than demographics. I base my beliefs in facts easily researched and proven time and time again.
By the way, if you actually did some research, you would find more than 50% of Danville residents being 44 and under and I would venture to guess that the 60's range is a very small percentage in this area. It is also so sad that you had to be subjected to such horrible shows in your day.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2013 at 1:38 pm
I'm very impressed with those witty points. You are clearly quite skilled in the art of discourse. So, I'll offer you some aspects of my 'research' (Web Link). They're from the US Census Bureau relevant to 2011. We are nearly 200 basis points (BPS) lean on persons under the age of five (5) while being 300 BPS 'fat' on those over 65 in comparison to the normalized state age distribution. For those under 18, we trend 160 BPS (inclusive of the under 5 crowd) we trend just over. Given that the vast majority of our residents are of caucasian decent, factoring in the overwhelming disfavor to birth-rates within this demographic as compared to other emerging ethnicities, I believe it is rational to consider 'us' as old and likely on average older then you suggest. That first link I offered you highlighted our median age as 44.5 years and that...well, for your consideration just take median and average as kind of the same thing. Anytime you want to offer yours, I'm appreciative to learn something new.
While I remove a few grains of sand from my person, you remind me of a former colleague who would continually remind me of Asimov's famous quote "my ignorance is just as good your knowledge"...
Posted by ta, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 6:37 am
We are raising a generation of "entitled" children that are becoming adults that think because they want it they are entitled to it. The only group that I feel we should assist is the senior group and that is only if their family can not help. What happened to personal responsibility? I teach my students that if they work hard for something they will benefit. That may not mean that they will get an A but it means that they will have a sense of accomplishment and a feeling that they did their best. Not everyone "deserves" an A. You earn your accomplishments in life by the time you put into things. If you want something bad enough, see if there is another way of earning it...but try. Don't wait for someone to give it to you.
Posted by Nicole B., a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:37 am
Once again, they are shoving something down our throats against the will of the people and trying to make it sound like it is some political protest. Myself and my friends are young Danville residents and are not part of the Tea Party. We are educated about this issue and we are against this plan. A "one size fits all" approach doesn't make sense for every city. When developers want to put in high density housing in other cities, the city required them to build schools, fire stations etc. to support the development. Our downtown area can not support the extra traffic/congestion and our schools are on the verge of being over-crowded already. To insinuate this is some kind of political issue, is beyond irritating... this is about what makes sense for our city and listening to the people.
Posted by allergictocorn, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Didn't go to the meeting. Wanted to go but decided 6 months ago to move. House next door sold as a foreclosure 4 years ago. People who don't "belong" here bought it to "flip" it. Guess they got stuck because they are still here. The house is a mess because the flippers have awful taste. The yard looks like crap and they have terrible social habits. Fire guns at midnight, not to mention those illegal fireworks. Drunk men and screaming children outside at 11:30PM with their open fire in the backyard sending smoke over the fence and into my house, winter and summer. Could continue to call the police and actually file a nuisance suit (which I would win), but why bother? Danville is no longer Danville. The Camino no longer has horses quietly clopping along but instead has car after car speeding by to go to their homes in San Ramon and Dublin. The Camino is now a shortcut to all points East of Danville. Danville police no longer "do" traffic stops 'cause nobody seems to care that the road is now a freeway. Low income housing? I AM a senior and I no longer want to live here. The demographics have changed so much already and I don't want to be here for the low income housing neighbors. The foreclosure neighbors are bad enough. And the rental neighors are living three families (6 cars and 6 kids to a house) and those are already here in 2 of the houses on my cul-de-sac. Luckily, my house will sell within a short period of time (probably to 3 families with 6 children and 6 cars). Too bad I can't continue to live in Danville. It was a great place to live for 23 years and I had planned to live here forever. However, I'm taking my old, educated self and getting out of Dodge.
Posted by deb, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Wow! I've read slanted articles but this one is sooo over the top. Is it really a small minority of the Danville residence opposed to more affordable housing money gab being shoved down our throats once again? Look around what's being built in Danville. All I see are apartments and more apartments. Are the owners and developers who own the Danville Hotel property hoping to build tiny apartments on that property as they have built all over the town of Danville? It sounds like one big money grab to me. Follow the money. Who ownes the Danville express newsletter anyway? Kind of makes me wonder when they print an article like this. By the way who are these vocal people that would drive all the way from San Jose to fight Low income housing in Danville? What a joke. Are we really suppose to believe they are the people upset with this plan? Not the people who live here
Posted by allergictocorn, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 4:41 am
Thanks for your condolences, Derek. We're sad too...lots of happy memories here since we weren't speculating but living in our dream home. Decided on beautiful Las Sendas in Mesa, AZ (looks like a Gene Autry movie set). Happen to love very hot weather (it is very seldom hot enough for me in Danville) but I'm sure most people would not want to trade Danville for any place in AZ. Looking forward to getting some sun on these pale limbs!
Posted by Former resident of Magee Ranch, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 7:01 am
I am a former longtime Danville resident. I hate the racism and prejudice I read in these comments. Can Danville only be a nice place to live if it is made up of one demographic? I was also saddened that the SRVHS students were not given respect when they spoke at the meeting.
From the beginning of this project, when the argument focused on "Saving the Creek", I believed it to be a case of I've got mine (dream home built in a beautiful setting), but I don't want anyone else to have theirs (don't build next door to me). Now the argument has shifted to opposing the "low income housing" as a way to stop the development and the arguments have reached a new low.
Posted by Douglas, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 7:47 am
Distinction or not, it still means residents who really can't afford to live here are getting a "subsidy" of a sort. I EARN the right to live here and that should be the case for everyone whatever the age, race, gender or sexual orientation!
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 8:22 am
@Douglas, Modestly off the mainline here but I presume you'll humor me.
How's the Fed's Quantitative Easing monetary policy since late 2008 been for your portfolio? For me it's been outstanding. I presume for you and yours it's worked out pretty well also. On a similar path, have any adult children get a fixed LT mortgage at a rate that our parents and even grandparents before the war could never imaging? I wonder what 'subsidy' holds those rates so low.
While it is likely that an individual of your economic accomplishment is able to procure real estate on a full cash basis at a mere whim, I'm wondering if on the way up you ever utilized that modest, wildly popular tool to reduce one's effective Federal tax-rate called 'a mortgage deduction'. I do wonder what 'subsidy' provides for that reduction.
...All individuals are afforded assistance of some sort at some point in there life, it is simply whether or not we are so willing to recognize it as a 'real' subsidy and how much we are willing to pass along, as well.
Posted by Douglas, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 10:59 am
I don't equate a mortgage deduction with a subsidy. The Government takes almost 1/2 my paycheck to pay for the subsidies for citizens who think it is OK to sit on their A** and do nothing! When they start contributing to society, then talk to me.
Posted by Conservator, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Why thank-you. I am having a nice day. I suppose that your definition and mine of what defines a subsidy will perhaps never reconcile. Regardless, it's immaterial at the end of the day.
When you get a chance to reread your written 'thought', I suspect that you will find yourself smiling as much as I am because it is surely an impressive use of likely a fine education. As you may recall, the topic of affordable housing was directed at individuals such educators, police or that middle-management associate from your office or mine. Let us leave it to the rhetorical if those types of pay-grades contribute to society or not.
In terms of talking, hasn't the current QE-round been good for your portfolio as it has been for mine? For a host of reasons, I would greatly suspect that you'll have a hard-time dancing around Federal monetary policy that has generally helped all of us but passed over all of 'them' (i.e. non-societal contributors).
Posted by spcwt, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 9:11 am
Affordable housing is another form of wealth distribution. I call it theft.
Here’s how it works: The state requires home builders to sell some of their units at “affordable” prices. In order to make a profit, the builders must raise the price of the rest of the units. So, if you don’t qualify for one of the affordable units, you must buy one of the higher priced units. In effect, those who don’t qualify for affordable housing must pay extra for their homes so that those who do qualify can enjoy a cheaper home.
Notice how the affordable housing advocates try to justify their theft by using terms like “equity.” They say: "We believe everyone deserves a home. Don't people want to live in a diverse, equitable community.”
Taking money from some people and giving it to others isn’t “equity.” It’s called stealing. It’s not much different than a group of muggers who steal a guy’s wallet and divide it up so that everyone has a fair share.
The affordable housing advocates also justify their theft by appealing to class and envy, using terms like “status.” They say, “In any community, no one, regardless of their status should have to pay more than 30% of their income for rent or for a mortgage."
They aren’t stealing from the rich people in Danville with “status.” They’re stealing from those on the margins, the people who are trying to buy one of the new, small units that will be built at the same time as the “affordable” subsidized units. Those poor saps who don’t qualify for a subsidized unit might be priced out of buying in Danville because they’ll have to pay a higher price for their unit so that others can enjoy a lower priced unit.
The affordable housing advocates try to mask their theft by using noble proclamations, like saying that no one should have to pay more than 30% of their income for rent or mortgage.
Who could possibly be against that? That’s like being against cute puppies. But of course the housing subsidy doesn’t come from Santa Claus. It comes from your neighbors. You’re stealing from them.
Posted by Huh?, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 9:56 am
It's always amusing to see the ignorant, gullible, paranoid, undeservedly self-righteous right wing loonies on parade here.
It's not like you can't see the low income housing that's already been built in Danville under the iron-fisted rule of the jack-booted, Agenda 21 communist lackies at ABAG - it's right there on Laurel and Hartz.
Of course, there haven't been any police helicopters flying over that crime infested slum full of seniors and disabled folks - the helicopter was flying over Blackhawk when they arrested the good capitalist pot store owner last year...
Posted by Joe Combs, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Aren't we truly lucky to live in a time, where the citizens of a community like Danville have a vehicle like the Danville Express to air their concerns and ideas to a broad swath of the community. If this were a paper based newspaper, only a couple of well screened comments (probably a strong supporting voice and a weak opposing voice) would have ever received ink. Now every one in town can be heard. I've learned a lot about this debate from what I have read in this publication. I really like it. Hat's of to The Danville Express for weighing in on this debate. I hope they continue to bring controversial news and information to the residents of Danville. Now when I don't agree, there's a place where my little voice can be heard. I read every issue. Everyone in Danville should too. It would be nice if every one who reads it would forward the link to their friends.
Posted by Jake, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 25, 2013 at 9:05 am
Note that people that don't live in your community but have a government position, want to prescribe what should happen in your town. We are increasingly pressed to live our lives based on "Central Planning" concepts of the "smart" people deciding what is good for us. I have a fundamental disagreement with this approach no matter how euphemism and anecdotal examples are used to sell it. Using the teachers, police, and firefighters housing needs is a baseless emotional appeal that does not convince me since I know people in these professions that live in our communities and obviously did not need subsidies to do so!
Posted by TR, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 25, 2013 at 11:29 am
My husband grew up in the Oakland in the 60's when it was a decent community. It was much like the community of San Ramon was. It was not perfect, but your kids could go out all day and you did not have to worry.There were no break-ins or drive-bys, neigbors knew each other. Then came a Secion 8 apartment house where two houses once stood. Within two years my in-laws home was robbed and later their car was firebombed because they called the police when a police officer was being cornered by the residents of the section 8 housing. All of the other neighbors had to move finally. The secion 8 tenants had to move out after only 1 year because they had literally stole and destroyed everything within the complex. Is Oakland a better community with all of the programs and affordable housing the government implimented there to help the people? To the best of my knowledge no.The city had to bring in a very expensive consultant to help the police department to maintain some type of law and order, or the Federal government was going to take over the police department. We know police officers in Oakland and they tell us of the dayly shootings that take place there. I did not want my children to live in that kind of community.
So we moved to Danville. Our kids grew up here and can not afford to live here...yet. When we moved to Danville it was relatively small (38 years ago). We moved because of the security and safety of the community. We knew what was happening in Oakland and did not want to bring our children up in that type of enviornment. Is that what we want for Danville or ajointing comm ? If we contenuel down this road we will have the same proplems just like San Ramon is starting to have. With in 10 yrs.,they to will be just like Oakland. How much do you think is costs San Ramon each year to maintain the housing up in Windermire? The low cost and section 8 houses are amongst relatively expensive homes which some are having a more difficult time reselling because of the of what is going on there.
They say that the placement of this type of housing should be near freeway on and off ramps, but San Ramon housing in Windermire is a long disance from such areas like that. Don't forget that this ABAG allocation happens every 8 years. This is not a one time allocation. So it misses your neighborhood this time but there will be other times until it closes in all around you.
I am not saying that Danville should only made up of one type of people or one economic group. But a common thread many of us share is that we worked hard to live here and no one gave us a handout! There is nothing elitest about that. It is called work ethics.
Posted by PSMacintosh, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 25, 2013 at 11:35 am
I thought the operating "mechanism" for how and why Building Developers/Contractors are able to be profitable and happy to build such High-Density, Low-Income housing was more like the following description:
Start with a piece of land that ordinarily is zoned to NOT allow high-density housing, where a variety of other regulations would NOT allow this building to be built, and where ordinary Market Forces of supply and demand would NOT make this type building a desirably salable or a profitable idea.
Then you use political forces to BEND all the ordinary rules and logic of property development:
1. You alter the Zoning laws (or General Plan).
2. You allow exceptions to the Building Regulations and other agency laws: allow removal of a protected tree, speed up and make exceptions to environmental regs, re-interepret parking requirements, make negotiations for density, height, look, wild space, hilltops, carbon emissions, building materials, etc. and make supposed trade-offs (donate to a park elsewhere, leave a hillside of wild weeds).
3. You interfere with Free Enterprise and normal market forces.
Let's say (hypothetically) that, under older property laws, the Developer could build one small 10,000 sq ft Office Building (or a Custom House) on this lot with sufficient parking and would be required to build around an existing old Oak tree. (Or maybe this lot really isn't ever going to be a build-able lot with the Oak tree on it......and has to become a dog park or open space.)
The lot cost $300,000 (and the land owner is "happy" to get rid of it for the money.)
The Office Building cost $400,000 to build (with all the building issues resolved).
The Office Building now has a Fair Market Value (FMV) and Sales Price of $1 Million dollars (and is a reasonably desirable building for the area and therefore has enough interested Buyers).
So the Developer has a profit of $300,000 after a year of efforts.
Now let's say that the Developer, in conjunction with a Housing Non-Profit's political efforts and ways around the old building regulations, can build an 8,000 sq ft office space with eight 1,000 sq ft residential units above it (residential units that are out-of-character with the neighborhood....like eight Studio Apartments in Blackhawk).
The total building square footage is 16,000 sq ft.
The Oak Tree is allowed to be removed. The parking requirements, using "compact" spots, are altered and squeezed in (and insufficient in reality, but will rely on nearby public or street parking). The EPA Reports are stream-lined and speeded up. Neighborhood opposition is ignored.
The eight residential units have a FMV of $200,000 each. The Developer receives the full $200,000 each, but the units HAVE to be sold to low-income persons for $100,000 each (with the remainder of $100,000 coming from private or public grants or city-backed mortgages or ??).
The eight residential units, although very unusual for the area, have enough interested "ordinary income" Buyers that they would have sold--in a free and open market--for the full $200,00 each to some highly financially-qualified persons.
Instead, in compensation for bending the property rules and free market forces, the residential units HAVE to be sold to low income, financially risky persons (probably with low down payments and city-backed loans to them as well). (Or maybe the units are required to be rental units to Section 8 candidates.)
The Office Building "portion" sells for $800,000, so the Developer receives a total of $1.6 million.
The Land cost is $300,000. The Developer's building costs were $500,000.
So the Developer's profit is $800,000, instead of $300,000 as in the former example. This is why the Developer is interested in building such units--more profit.
The Town Council likes the fact that they accomplished their mandatory State goals (which were dictated to them by outside forces).
The end result is that FREE ENTERPRISE MARKET FORCES are majorly interfered with and overridden as a part of SOCIAL RE-ENGINEERING by certain special interest groups with their own POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND AGENDA.
The Housing Non-Profit Agency fulfills its mission and justifies its existence and continued private fund-raising efforts or receipt of public government grants (at taxpayer's cost regardless of taxpayer's opinions).
Instead of ordinary Free Enterprise, Open Market, and Capitalism forces at work, you have the New American Socialism becoming more entrenched.
Maybe I don't have it exactly, but isn't this more like the "mechanism" that is going on?
(I'm willing to be corrected and taught, if necessary.)