Town Square

Post a New Topic

General Plan opponents hold meeting in advance of Planning Commission decision

Original post made on Jan 21, 2013

A collaborative effort of local groups upset about Danville's 2030 General Plan update, the Citizens Town Hall meeting informed curious residents about the draft 2030 plan, environmental impact report and sustainability action plan, which have been the subject of several well-attended Planning Commission hearings over the last two months.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, January 21, 2013, 3:46 PM

Comments (37)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get out of ABAG
a resident of Danville
on Jan 21, 2013 at 6:15 pm

It's about time we stand up to these regional unelected bodies. They plan to turn Danville into a stack and pack slum. The actual amount of property that the town is considering rezoning is 35 acres. The town will lose it's small town feel and charm.

Go to www.CitizensTownHall.org to learn more or www.SOS-Danville.com


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Andy
a resident of Danville
on Jan 21, 2013 at 7:07 pm

The town council is clearly trying to usurp 'Measure S' and rezone Danville a PDA (Priority Development Area). The reason they want this? Money. The local elected officials need to represent the people of Danville and the best interests of this town, not the best interests of ABAG and MTC which are unelected organizations. Get out of ABAG and keep control locally!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arlene
a resident of Diablo
on Jan 22, 2013 at 6:45 am

So important that the Jan. 22 and 29th meetings are well attended and that citizens voice there opposition to the Town of Danville plans. (Meetings at the Community Center next to the library at 7:30 P.M.) Also essential that Measure S be honored as determined by Danville voters' overwhelming approval in 2000. Measure S requires a public vote to change agricultural land to residential development. We insist that it is honored regarding the Magee/Summerhill project. We want the public to get its Measure S vote regarding residential development on Agricultural land and we don't want the Town to upzone all the 400 remaining Agricultural acres in Danville to quadruple the number of allowable homes. Such a change in zoning would permanently change Danville and the quality of life here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 7:50 am

It's important to remember that groups like ABAG and the MTC need to continue to look into the cities and towns in their catchment area to find reasons to validate the need for their existence. Danville has every right to determine it's own destiny and not be forced by some outside group to decide it's future. Our leaders become co-opted by their membership in these outside groups and lose sight of their primary obligation and that is to the citizens of Danville. They work for us and not for ABAG or the MTC and those that don't grasp this most elementary concept are not fit to represent the people of Danville.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by True Resident of Danville
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 7:59 am

Interesting, Heather Gass is the Founder of the East Bay Tea Party and doesn't identify her or her followers. The bogus Citizens Town Hall meeting was populated by people from OUTSIDE of Danville, not our residents. This is the same strategy they are using at legitimate town hall meetings in cities like Lafayette. They bring in people from the their party to fill the seats and then say these are representatives of the community. How dare they say they represent Danville or residents from our community!!! And those few Danville residents are the right-wing fraction of the community that opposed solar panels on the high schools that have saved our public schools $$$.

Check out their brochure and decide for yourself. Heather Gass and her East Bay Tea Party (hidden in groups like SOS Danville, Save our Creek) think everything they oppose is a government conspiracy. Go back to Pleasanton and stop saying you represent our city!

Please DANVILLE EXPRESS - stop printing misinformation from this group.


Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SFBella
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 8:21 am

Where to start!?! Danville is attempting to bypass Measure S (restricting cluster housing developments on agricultural land) by doing an end-run around it and reclassifying ALL land that would trigger a vote. Sure, the planning commission and town "remains committed to upholding Measure S" because it doesn't mean anything under the updated plan. As for ABAG, Danville is NOT required to be a part of it and towns like Corte Madera have opted out for good reason. We need local control and the threat of losing "transportation funds" from a state that is always on the brink of bankruptcy isn't a good enough reason to allow an unelected, unaccountable agency dictate local issues. The town has lost its mind. Hopefully, the townspeople have not. Show up at the next town hall meeting and let your elected officials know that you like living in Danville and you're not interested in being a resident of the new mega-metropolis "One Bay Area".
p.s. ABAG/One Bay Area has produced an awesome short film for your kids--dancing and singing about not driving cars, living in stacked housing, walking to school, etc. Can you say Orwellian?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Linda Mollins
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 8:21 am

I oppose abag and I want keep Danville in our hands and not the government who feels everyone is entitled except the hard working Americans who chose to work hard and choose where they wish to raise their famlies. Please get as many people as you can to come to the meetings and oppose abag and the one east bay plan.It is not about left or right or middle its about holding on to what we dreamt about before we moved here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rick Pshaw
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 8:35 am

As I said before in another thread:

One little step, then another little step, all with frightening patience...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dan from Danville
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 8:44 am

True Resident is a pinko fraud obviously in the pocket of commissioner Combs who accidentally ON purpose tried to shut down Ms Gass by "misplacing" her speaker card at a planning mtg this month!! This move by Danville MUST be shut down hard and fast and NOW. Measure S is being circumvented and ghettotizing Danville (to bring us down a few pegs) is the long term plan. NO! I will be at tonight's meeting and hope Mr COMBS starts with a sincere APOLOGY.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SOS-Danville
a resident of Los Cerros Middle School
on Jan 22, 2013 at 8:59 am

@ "True Resident of Danville" -- You betray your true self by claiming that SOS-Danville is a disguise for the East Bay Tea Party. Do you by any chance work for SummerHill Homes, the developer proposing to put 64+ homes on Agricultural-designated Magee Ranch land in the Diablo Road corridor?

SOS-Danville is a non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of local residents that are trying to force Danville to UPHOLD THE EXISTING LAW AND NOT USE THE GENERAL PLAN AS A VEHICLE TO CIRCUMENT/VIOLATE IT! Our group has members from all spectrums of politics joined in the common belief as Americans that the rule of law needs to be followed.

Our opposition to the General Plan is based on the fact that it VIOLATES MEASURE S, a law passed by 75% of Danville voters in 2000 that gives voters the right to decide whether land designated in the 2010 General Plan for Agricultural and other Open Space uses can be changed to residential development use. In its draft 2030 General Plan, Danville explicitly opens all Agricultural Open Space lands to residential development. Measure S says the Town can't do that without a vote of the people and that is what we are demanding.

We also oppose the draft 2030 Plan because it violates state planning and zoning law in its attempt to upzone all Agricultural land in Danville (400 acres remain) from A-4, one home per twenty acres, to A-2, one home per five acres. A general plan cannot legally be used to change the zoning on property.

As for your comment that only Town of Danville residents should be involved in the General Plan debate: why should those of us severely affected by the General Plan refrain from exercising our legal right to be involved in the process? Indeed, Danville is continuously involving itself in the affairs of neighboring jurisdictions. Danville's lawsuits against the County regarding the Dougherty Valley development and the Alamo Creek development are great examples.

You are obviously looking for a way to reduce the number of opponents of the Plan. If you support it, show up at the General Plan hearing tonight and state your case. Be aware that you may be revealing just who you are. Only a handful of others have so far indicated any support for the Plan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob Nealis
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:23 am

Observations from a former candidate for Town Council;
As many of you know, I was not successful in my bid for town office in November, but the process taught me much about the attitude of arrogance which exists in our elected officials. It comes as no surprise to me that the proposed 2030 General Plan, the zealous defense of ABAG and the rezoning of agricultural land to precisely coincide with an in hand development application are being vigorously pursued by the present Town Council through the staff that reports to them. One example of this attitude occurred during our campaign. When asked directly during an editorial board interview by the Contra Costa Times if the Summerhill development would go the the voters pursuant to Measure S, each of the candidates who successfully won election (Arnerich, Doyle and Morgan) said "No". In hindsight, they had to have known of the contents of the 2030 General Plan draft which simply rezones the precise parcel in question to suit the development request. A convenient and simple method to circumvent the will of the voters and proceed as they wish.
It will be easy for anyone to criticize my opinion as simply sour grapes from one who lost the race, but unfortunately that would miss the larger point. I ran under the slogan " a new voice for you" because I truly believed that is what the Town Council needed. A fresh perspective on the issues facing our town. Unfortunately, the will of the voters placed two very long term incumbents and their hand picked third candidate into office, It is also worth noting that not only did they aggressively campaign together, but they too were heavily endorsed and supported by the remaining two other Council members, Storer and Stepper. As a result, the votes are stacked firmly together and in alliance whenever the Planning Commission forwards its recommendations on the 2030 Plan.

So, the remaining and relevant question is; Will the Planning Commission respond to the substantial and forceful feedback they have been receiving from the residents of our town or not? Only if they do, will it clearly put the Council on notice that it is time to listen and respond to the concerns of its citizens rather than manage as if those voices do not count.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Roger
a resident of John Baldwin Elementary School
on Jan 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm

My family and I have been residents of Danville for over 33 years. I am not an activist, but I did attend the Danville Town Meeting for a standing room only meeting along with other Danville residents. "True Resident of Danville" must have been totally asleep or so prejudiced as to not hear Heather Gass say in the beginning of her remarks that she was one of the Founders of the Tea Party here in Danville and that she is a resident of Danville. As I looked around the room I saw many of my friends and neighbors who are residents of Danville including Tony Stepper and Bill Baker.

Count me as being totally against "cap and trade," the 2030 General plan, the One Bay Area concept, ABAG, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority whose members are grossly overpaid by the taxpayers -- many of these make more than US Congressmen and Senators. I am totally in favor of measure S and that the citizens of Danville should be allowed to vote on whether projects like the Elsworthy Ranch and the planned development on Diablo Road should go forth and under what zoning rules.
My wife and I will be at the Planning Commission Meeting tonight, January 22 to voice our opinions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 1:22 pm

A good, vigorous, well-informed debate among Danville residents about the 2030 General Plan is what we all hope for.

Let's just hope that it's indeed well-informed and not skewed by folks like Heather Gass and her Tea Party crowd (whose Agenda 21 rantings strike me as little more than warmed-over 1960s John Birch Society fear-mongering).

Did anyone else find it odd that the two websites mentioned above are cloaked in anonymity about who registered them and who operates them?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RECALL NEEDED
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Mr. Nealis: Thank you for your insights. You have confirmed that I was correct in voting for you and NOT for the incumbents and Renee Morgan, their hand-picked lackey.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danville Citizen
a resident of San Ramon Valley High School
on Jan 22, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Resident Dave,

If a good and vigorous debate is what you are looking for then why are you only posting about a person who is trying to start a debate about the Danville 2030 Plan. When did it become dangerous to inform people? You keep classifying people by who you think they are or what you think they stand for... The "Tea Party Crowd", "John Birch Society Fear Mongers". Instead why don't you tell us what you think is so great about the Danville 2030 Plan, or what you like about the One Bay Area Plan? How do you think subsidized housing in Danville will make our schools better? How do you think subsidized housing will affect the traffic congestion around SRVHS? Maybe why you support the Summerhill project? Or why you think it makes sense that measure S has been ignored by the Danville Town Council?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol west side Danville resident & owner of a business on Hartz Ave.
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm

As tax payer, Danville resident & Danville business owner on Hartz Ave., we have the right to decide what our community should be like, we like the Small Town Atmosphere and others do too... the fact that Danville is a day-trip destination , is good for business and helps our tax base, Shop Local !!! I oppose abag & one bay area plan.... I worked in Danville in the 70's and I give the Danville Planning Dept. & Historical Review Board alot of credit for keeping our Old Town Historical ....lets not ruin our town, now. High density housing is not conforming to our community...Let's keep the charm of " Old Town Danville" and keep it a beautiful destination, to be enjoyed by all !!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Danville
on Jan 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm

It IS true about it being the Tea Party. Check with the site they rented for meeting. I attended meeting and live in the neoghborhood. I was invited by my friend who is part of the Tea Party movement in Danville. It is the Tea Party behind this, but so be it if they can help stop this development . However, keep your tea clear from me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Louise
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 11:20 am

Stop finger pointing and trying to obfuscate the real issues. Who cares if it is a Tea Party member voicing an opinion as long as the opionion is in favor of getting the town council and city planners on board with what the citizens and residents of Danville want? Theses elected officials have a moral and ethical duty (really?) to support the people of the community they serve. If they don't do it, then get rid of them next time around. Yes, the town and its employees want the money. What else is new? They work for the government and their salaries depend on revenue. Quality of life and small town atmosphere hav gone by the wayside in favor of spending and developing to serve the few who don't pay taxes, own property or businesses.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Danville Citizen -

You make an uninformed assumption about what my views are on development in Danville. I only suggested that the debate be based on facts, rather than fear-mongering, which seems to be the stock-in-trade of the Tea Party (whose political fortunes are now waning) and those associated with it.

I notice that you didn't deny that Ms. Gass is leader of the East Bay Tea Party group.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nan
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Why wait "until next time around?" Recall.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FED UP
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

Did you know that the Chair of the Planning Commission, Lynn Overcashier, works for the County Transportion Department? Another bureaucrat trying to mortgage Danville's future to the promise of more County/State/Federal money for doing things against Danville's interest. Also, Kerri Heusler, a Planning Commissioner used to work for a low-income housing advocacy group in San Francisco.Hmmm, wonder why she likes low-income housing. Also, one of the new Planning Commissioners, Randy Haberl, has a construction management firm. Hmmm, do you think he likes large construction projects? Anyone know anything about the others?? Is there anyone with only DANVILLE RESIDENTS' INTERESTS IN MIND ON THAT COMMISSION, OR ON THE TOWN COUNCIL???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ann Christianson
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm

Lynn Overcashier--planning commish chair--could NOT stifle her venomous glares at Ms. Gass and other citizens last night. I count it interesting as to how MANY council embers had to recuse themselves during the evening as they have CONFLICTS of interest---wake up ppl--it's NOT the T party u need to fear--it's the Danville Planning Commission who has their own agenda---and it isn't in Danville's best interest!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Leah Delmonico
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm

NOTE to KAREN- you would be wiser to guard against what will come into your town and schools with very low housing rather than the Americsn groups titled Tea Parties. Just wait until one of yours is JUMPED for wearing blue or red. And the four letter words your small kids will pick up won't be "play" "jump" "grin"....your ignorance of the Tea Party is appalling.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Leah Delmonico
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm

NOTE to KAREN- you would be wiser to guard against what will come into your town and schools with very low housing rather than the Americsn groups titled Tea Parties. Just wait until one of yours is JUMPED for wearing blue or red. And the four letter words your small kids will pick up won't be "play" "jump" "grin"....your ignorance of the Tea Party is appalling.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Danville
on Jan 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm

I agree Leah. And when Karen or other Danville parents complain about the low income thugs preying on their children, they will be roundly admonished for THEIR elitism and not understanding the thugs have had it "tough" and are being "insensitive"!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CK
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 6:55 am

I live in Danville, have for 20 years...and I don't work for SummerHill. :-)
You all should take a look at some aerial photos of Danville in the 70s/80s. See all that AG land? Well YOUR homes are there now and guess what, they are 3-5 homes per acre. Shocking? Keep fighting your 'not in my backyard' fight if you want but as long as the costly and burdensome CEQA system is still in place, you have plenty of opportunities to fight specific projects.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Huh?
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 7:18 am

It's kind of amusing reading all the tea party types going off on their socialist rants about how the owners of private property shouldn't be allowed to develope their own property as they like - because that's what this is all about. Nothing the city is doing requires anyone to build anything - it just lets them build it if they want to.

But the local Tea Party types apparently think that government should dictate that the only kind of development that should be allowed is the kind ***they*** want.

If it wasn't for double standards, some folks would have no standards at all...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Conservator
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:13 am

Huh? - I've found that I don't always agree with you but, this time, you are spot-on with your thoughts. Sad as I am to acknowledge it, I suggest that we advise the local markets to be prepared for a sure run on tin-foil in this once proud town.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Born and raised here
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:37 am

PEOPLE WAKE UP! This is not a Rep/Dem issue, not a Tea Party/liberal issue - this is a DANVILLE ISSUE!!

I have yet to talk with one person who wants stacks of "extremely low, very low, and moderately low income" housing in our downtown(see wording of General Plan 2030 on Danville Website and proposed sites) - it's not just the crime it will bring in (naive if you think it won't) it's a DENSITY ISSUE! We're talking crowded schools, drop in our home values, traffic, etc. We will lose the small town we love. (Where else can you leave chairs out for the 4th of July parade overnight knowing they'll still be there in the morning?) It's awesome to live in a small town where you feel like you know everyone. That all changes as ABAG forces us to become a bigger city.

Town Council needs to vote against membership in ABAG - So we lose money from ABAG - SO WHAT? I'd rather lose revenue than the small town feel of Danville. No one would object to a lane of single family homes reserved for low income residents: 10-15 homes or so? It's the HUNDREDS of units they're talking about and the flood of THOUSANDS in population our town can't handle. If you want a bigger city, Concord, Dublin, Walnut Creek are right there - Danville and Alamo are the only small towns around - Town council, keep it that way!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Born and raised here
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:55 am

CK: The 2030 General Plan is not for 3-5 homes per acre, it's for 25-30 units per acre.

Can you imagine how many people that will bring in if they're finding 9.7 acres for low income, high density housing in Danville? Our town is big enough as is and we need what little AG land we have left. Developers can make their millions elsewhere.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kittycat
a resident of another community
on Jan 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm

@Dave: I don't think it's strange when people keep their real names and home addresses off the Internet. I think it's sensible. Heather Gass's business contact information is easy to find online; her personal information isn't. That's as it should be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sue
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 12:40 pm

I've attended the meetings & heard all of this before. Let's see - 3-4 homes per acre makes this highly controversial project look like ...Greenbrook? God forbid! I was here before all of YOUR homes were built. Get a grip. Stop making this a political battle. It should be a planning discussion. Low income/stack & pack housing? In Danville? Let's see - we have a 2-3 foot height limit (depending on the design) ... so much for the stacks. "Low income" and "Affordable Housing" does not mean "Section 8." By the way, I happen to have some Section 8 tenants in other cities. Do you? Nice folks, teaching in the schools & working for the county. As a landlord, would I accept that rent in Danville? Heck, no! The Section 8 capped rents are too low! Same with any "affordable" condos that are built... do you know what that translates to in Danville purchase prices? It's definitely not Brentwood or Antioch prices. So, from all of the heated discussion, I'm assuming that the people opposed to this concept do not what their children being able to move back to Danville when they graduate from college, are gainfully employed, & want to buy an "affordable" home in the town they grew up in - or if parents want to downsize & live in the same town, guess they'll have to move elsewhere. Why not channel this energy into making THAT the reality, vs. being viewed as AGAINST everything? THAT'S the small town I know. Most of the 2030 Plan is fine, from a planning perspective. Do you have any constructive ways to address your concerns? For, after all, property owners have rights, too. I don't know if that's a Democratic or Republican belief ... I thought it was just an American one.
P.S. On second thought, if I ever owned "affordable" units in Danville, I may accept a "Section 8" tenant; my neighbor is 78 years old, her husband had a stroke & she needs to downsize. Nice neighbor. I'd like to keep her close by.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Heather Gass
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 2:35 pm

I think it is funny that Dave is so obsessed by me. He even accuses me of being from some other town and coming to Danville to stir up trouble. I am a Danville resident and care enough to speak out about what is happening in my own town. This has nothing to do with party affiliation. This is not about left and right. the tea party has nothing to do with this fight. If Don likes what is happening in Danville and is a Danville resident he should show up and speak out at the Planning Commission meetings. He would be one of maybe 4 people who actually like the plan that I can tell.

Instead of throwing insults at people you should tell everyone why you LOVE this plan?? We are all ears. Let's debate the issues not name call. I would be happy to talk with you about why this plan is wrong for Danville.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Heather Gass
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 2:35 pm

I think it is funny that Dave is so obsessed by me. He even accuses me of being from some other town and coming to Danville to stir up trouble. I am a Danville resident and care enough to speak out about what is happening in my own town. This has nothing to do with party affiliation. This is not about left and right. the tea party has nothing to do with this fight. If Don likes what is happening in Danville and is a Danville resident he should show up and speak out at the Planning Commission meetings. He would be one of maybe 4 people who actually like the plan that I can tell.

Instead of throwing insults at people you should tell everyone why you LOVE this plan?? We are all ears. Let's debate the issues not name call. I would be happy to talk with you about why this plan is wrong for Danville.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danville voter
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Steve:

It's not just the low income aspect, it's the HIGH DENSITY. No one would be opposed to a street of single family homes or townhomes reserved for low income people - as long as it were bringing in A FEW families - not the thousands of people proposed by the 2030 general plan.

I disagree that we can not be an island unto ourselves - we most certainly can.

People work hard to be able to live in Danville because there is something to be said for living in a small town where you see people you know as you run errands - where you can leave out your chair 4th of July eve and it's still there the next day - we are a small tight knit community, and if we grow too much we lose that. It's just where people choose to live: if you want a bigger city they are everywhere - Walnut Creek and Concord, Dublin and sadly San Ramon is becoming big too. If you want a small town, Danville and Alamo are the only ones close by, and those of us who chose to settle down here for that reason should be allowed to continue our lives in a small town without outside forces imposing their beliefs on us and forcing us to become a larger city.

There are a ton of existing options for young starting out and for seniors: apartments very close by in San Ramon, and a plethora of condos/townhouses in both San Ramon and Danville. Many of us were raised here, started out renting in San Ramon or Walnut Creek and made our way back to raise our own families in Danville because it's small and safe.

We ABSOLUTELY can refuse growth to keep our small town feel - that's why many of us chose to remain here since childhood and are fighting to keep Danville as it is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sylence Dugood
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:18 pm

I believe that Sue's rational and thoughtful perspectives capture the essence of an intelligently litigated argument that boldly sails into the prevailing wind of NIMBYism. Well done.

That stated, I am actually 100% for a Measure S vote of this issue. YES, I believe that an overwhelming majority of the eligible voting populace in the 94506 & 94526 ZCs would vote for 'no growth' perhaps as fast if the option of eliminating income tax was balloted. I believe that this is appropriate as a voting majority should be afforded the opportunity to tend to their community as they best see fit.

However, there is another side to this coin from my perspective. It is HOPE. There is a wealth of data and statistical inference on just about every nook and cranny of this once wide-open valley. One of many (Web Link) will confirm what we all know. We are a aging community. One where even the families with 'young' children are generally 'old' by societal norms - certainly in comparison to our parent's generation. What does this say, I believe? It says that the Baby Boomers and some of the younger Silent Generation contributors still hold court. To read the banter on this blog is like watching a rerun of All in Family. Archie griping about everything from Meathead to 'them people' who moved in next door (i.e. The Jeffersons) and brought the neighborhood down. Yes, sadly, fiction and art somehow find their way to reality in many instances.

So why Measure S? It gives hope to me that as the generations come and go, we who studying similar trends know two givens. One (1), Father Time cheats no one. Eventually, even the most strident and visceral amongst us will have to yield command and control to the next generation. Two (2), the Millennials and the Gen Y'rs are vast, complex - (yes, perhaps lazy in too many cases) - and VERY DIFFERENT in their approach to social issues, demographics, marriage and yes, higher density living then even the Gen X'rs (today's mid-40s or so and younger). It is my opinion that they will take a vastly different approach to the housing and community issues at hand for which their parents will rebuke but they are likely to embrace.

I could be very wrong in my prognostication. However, I believe I'm just echoing the sentiments of many who plan for the future. So, go Measure S.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Born and raised here
a resident of Danville
on Jan 24, 2013 at 11:23 pm

Sylence Dugood: Wise you are in pointing out that anger gets us nowhere - visceral, "you vs me" is a waste of time and only forces people to defensively dig in their heels on opposite sides of the fence. Politics should be kept out of this - its too important an issue to make enemies of neighbors - we all want what's best for our town, and as you say, Measure S is how we make our voices heard.

It is frightening to think, however, that our voices are being ignored by commissioners and council members who may have ulterior motives?

I also think there are legitimate logistical and safety issues with putting high density, "extremely low income housing" near schools, and the practical reality that with that we become more of a city than a town and lose community and (with the Summerhill proposal) beautiful hills and landscape. There is something special about a small town where we all know and look after one another, and that dilutes as we grow.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a small town vs a big city - it's preference. For many of us raising children here, the prospect of losing our small town is devastating. ...and infuriatingly unfair.

If we go along with these ABAG "requirements" this is only the beginning - what will they require in 10 or 20 years? Right now we have great schools and low crime and that's rare in bigger cities. That's often why people choose small suburbs to raise kids. We shouldn't be forced to become a city.

I think much of the frustration comes from the fact that 14 people or so (9 planning members and 5 town council members) are ignoring the town full of people who voted them in - people are angry that these "officials" are making decisions without our say. We should be voting on these issues and instead decisions are being made against our wishes as the Planning Commission ignores what we think. So I agree with you - we need a vote on this as we decided when we passed measure S.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Not Endorsements
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,139 views