Town Council Votes to Allow Consideration of Some Properties to be Rezoned for Low Inome, High Density, Housing
Original post made by danville neighbor on Dec 16, 2009
Our representatives in Sacramento have determined, by law, that all communities in California must be composed of citizens from all income ranges and they have empowered the California Department of Housing and Community Development (CDHCD) to enforce their social engineering aims. Using coercive tactics such as withholding funds remitted from local sales taxes and possible direct intervention to rezone property directly (without input from the town) the current legislators in Sacramento have caused our town planners to determine that Danville has a shortfall in its "Regional Housing Needs Allocation" (RHNA) in the low income, extremely low income, and very low income housing.
Using guidance from the CDHCD the town planner determined that Danville must formally admit to the state that we are deficient in our low income housing opportunity that we should increase the number of extremely low and very low income housing units by 187 and the number of low income housing units by 34.
The town planner presented a plan to the town council to allow studies to proceed to consider rezoning several properties, most within blocks of downtown Danville, to be rezoned for high-density, low income, housing (25-35 units per acre). 25 parcels, comprising approximately 35 acres, were considered with an eventual goal of targeting 9.5 acres for redevelopment.
Testimony during 2hrs of public hearings was overwhelmingly, and often emotionally, pleading, demanding, begging, etc. the town to reconsider several of the individual parcels. One individual, and owner of one of the parcels, wanted to develop his property and spoke out in favor of the resolution and in favor of inclusion of his property in the consideration of rezoning.
The Town Council pledged to maintain the character of Danville throughout this process but the City Planner was clear that the only way to stay in compliance with state mandates was to, eventually, develop 9.5 acres of property into very high density housing (25-35 units per acre).
Although many of the testimonies were pleas were requests to remove this particular lot, or that particular lot, the bigger question is the compliance with state mandates. The state is using intrusive and coercive tactics and their goal is to specifically change the character of towns like Danville. The state collects all of the local sales taxes and only returns "our share" if we comply with their various social engineering goals. The law allows individual community organizers (groups like ACORN) to sue towns like Danville if they believe that we do not have enough low income residents to suit their vision of the world.
Whether a particular parcel near our homes are removed from the list, the general consensus of the attendees of this meeting was that no parcels should be on the list and that the state should keep out of the business of socially re-engineering our town.
This goal of retaining community independence will only be achieved if we replace the current representatives in Sacramento. Those who have raised our taxes (most sales taxes are now at 10%), coercively borrowed an additional 10% of our income, use those funds to staff departments such as the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and use threat of withholding the return of some of the confiscated tax funds. The Town Council is a victim of state intrusion and is trying to do the best they can with a bad situation. We all know which of the political factions in Sacramento back these sort of programs and we have that chance to replace them in November. If we do not, and we are forced to put in 187 to 221 apartment units in downtown Danville to comply with this state intrusion then we have only ourselves to blame.
on Dec 16, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Ralph N. Shirlet is a registered user.
For all Danville neighbors,
There is a simply opportunity for the town of Danville to be in compliance. Annex Alamo and build all high-density housing in the expanded business district. With official notification by Contra Costa District 3 staff this morning *1 that Alamo is only the seven members of the Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Council in Alamo, it cannot be that hard to annex seven residents, now can it?
Note *1 - CCC District 3 has requested removal of 94507 neighborhoods information distribution to staff.
on Dec 16, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I just received documentation that illustrates Residence-over-retail/commercial in downtown areas of cities from a contact at California's league of cities. This proposal would target redevelopment areas in a downtown such as Danville's for high density residential construction and second to fifth floor development above retail/commercial redevelopment. Certainly, the area north of Diablo Road and south of Hartz Avenue is a logical target for such low-to-high rise high density redevelopment. Since these corridors are slated for redevelopment, they should be logical locations for high-density housing.
The same logic would have applied to the Town of Alamo if we had incorporated or if Alamo is now annexed. Already there is high-density housing in the Alamo Business District and rejuvenation and expansion could provide needed tax base increases and meet state mandates.
This is an exceptionally difficult topic that needs your readers' review and commentary.