Donald Trump may want a wall along the border, but the city of Brisbane is already putting one up when it comes to housing. City leaders in the tiny town are ruling out condos and apartments in a mega-development smack in the center of the Bay Area’s costly real estate marketplace.

The hamlet, population 4,282, favors up to 8.3 million square feet of shops and offices alongside the 101 freeway. What it doesn’t want is Part Two of the plan: some 4,434 residential units.

That’s not how sensible planning, balanced growth or regional thinking work. Brisbane wants to skim off the lucrative parts and dodge one of the Bay Area’s most serious needs. In a memorable NIMBY utterance, Mayor Clifford Lentz said “We’ll provide the commercial. ... San Francisco will provide the housing.”

Brisbane is leaning on benign arguments about losing its small- town feel to a project that could double its population. But the Baylands project wouldn’t flatten Brisbane’s hillside neighborhoods or invade its small streets.

The plan aims at empty land adjacent to the freeway and the San Francisco county line. It incorporates a barely used Caltrain station for Silicon Valley-bound passengers. It’s a short walk to Muni’s light-rail line, which whisks riders downtown. Just north of the proposed spot, the same developer is building 1,679 housing units on the 20-acre former Schlage Lock manufacturing plant on San Francisco’s turf. The Baylands tract is pretty much empty dirt where a dump and rail yard were the last notable activities.

Brisbane, for now, has every advantage in the final decision. It controls future uses on the 684 acres. Local decision-making takes precedence over regional needs. If the town leaders get their way, then it could be retail cash registers and office parks over more homes.

This hidebound resistance isn’t true for just Brisbane. For years, San Francisco blocked new housing in deference to locals who resisted change. Other cities around the bay have acted similarly, adding to a problem exacerbated by a booming economy and surge in population. One telling statistic: San Mateo County has created 54,000 new jobs since 2010 and only 3,000 new homes. Despite studies and reports documenting this trend and pinpointing spots where building makes sense, the next steps remain a tough sell.

Brisbane may budge as the pressure builds on its City Council, due to meet Thursday. These leaders could moderate the no-housing stance by negotiating an acceptable number with the developer, Universal Paragon Corp. That would be a positive direction that would benefit the town and the entire Peninsula, which is so short of residential options.

The combination of open land, prime transit location and willing developer shouldn’t be passed up. If Brisbane moves in a productive direction, it could spread the message: one Bay Area community isn’t afraid to accept its role in a wider region. Growth can be accommodated and planned. That would be a timely statement other cities should hear.