Is the Housing-Cap Ruling a Death Knell for Suburban Enclaves?

View Comments ()
|
Email
|
Print

    NEWSLETTERS

    Pleasanton and other suburbs are going to be forced to absorb their fair share of housing. Via Flickr/Donnaphoto

    A state formula called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation was the basis for a court striking down Pleasanton's housing cap.

    Cities have to take on their fair share of housing growth as determined by the formula, which has been doling out housing needs numbers to cities since 1980, based on where jobs are.

    Pleasanton voters, however, instituted a ceiling on its housing units at 29,000 — the city's current numbers are already above 27,000, and the city's planning for an additional 45,000 jobs in the next 15 years, meaning essentially that new workers in the city could work there, but they probably aren't welcome to live there.

    According to the San Francisco Chronicle, if the court decision sticks, suburbs and small cities (or other cities who may feel like housing caps are a good idea) could be forced to reconsider density. Says the lawyer for the plaintiffs: "The law doesn't say everything has to be urban, but we're going beyond a point where communities can be enclaves."

    Alameda land-use ruling could reshape state [SFGate]