Should High Density Housing be Mandated at All?

Everyone knows we need some housing in California near transportation, such as it is, to allow people to commute more easily, but in every city?  Oh that's right, our circumvented tax dollars are being held back if we don't comply.  Walnut Creek, on its own, is taking care of the housing.  It is growing by leap and bounds.  Remember, they have to revisit this every 7 years just like we do to add an even greater amount of housing per the mandates.  And they have the inclination and the flat land to do it.  Is it a good thing?  Well, it does supply temporary construction jobs.  But is a city able to say, "Hey, we've had enough?"  No.  Not for 25?27? years.  This is one of the many reasons I don't believe in mandates.  It smacks of socialism. 

SB1 says (yes, I'm reading it) Creating incentives for construction can help restore construction and permanent jobs, which are essential for a restoration of prosperity.  Permanent jobs?  That's what scares me...the build it and they will come mentality, like the housing bubble we had before.  Where are the constraints?  By the by, my impression is that the authors do think that suburbs are an inefficient use of land.  Also, they talk a good game about mass transportation, but this citizen wants her Bart line on the 680S corridor.  If you haven't already seen it, note the Sierra Club lawsuit on the lack of transportation this plan puts forward:

theyodeler.org/?p=8107

Any time you include incentives and waived fees, you are leaving the door open for unnecessary building, corruption and a disaster like the one that happened in Eastern Portland.

I just returned from Houston.  With all its building, proximity to the university and as a part of  Silicon Valley, San Jose is becoming a smaller Houston, again with more high density housing to come.  People like my older son will be able to live where he works.  That follows the intent of the plan.  The rest of it, hogwash!

Why they call it sustainable in one breath and then ABAG states that it will only help the environment 1.2% up until the year 2040 defies logic.  It is, of course, a bureaucracy with a one size fits all plan.  What did you expect?   The following is a link to the Bay Area Citizen's lawsuit through the PLF.  They are suing PBA for violations of the CEQUA   Please give generously to www.bayareacitizens.com

www.pacific.legal.org/case/plan-bay-areas-drafters-violated-common-sense--and-the-law

I am not a NIMBY, and I am not a racist, though we've certainly had our share of haters show up in the paper and at meetings. Change can be good.  We do need absolute transparency.  Like most people in Orinda, we want, as my friend says, good citizens living here.  I have never opposed Senior Housing and will even concede that we could use some empty nester housing....but at what cost to our property rights?

With few exceptions, the senior housing of today is missing the boat in California.  There should be independent living, assistant living, memory care and skilled nursing all in one development.  This is happening in only a couple of cities.  The models are out there for this.  My mom lives in one.  Again, poor planning.  Think of the jobs that would provide and the ease for both seniors and their children.....but that is for another blog!

PBA, according to the Sierra Club, has $292B to spend.  SB1 states that  The high construction costs in urban areas, particularly for multifamily dwellings, create an additional challenge.  For these reasons, it is critical to restructure and refocus redevelopment in California to assist in achievement of these multiple benefits. Isn't that double speak for build in the suburbs? 

Excuse me, but aren't they already declaring areas south of Market St. in SF blight and "redeveloping" there= determining people's homes are blight and tearing them down as we speak= relocation?..but to where? SB1 states that "Infrastructure is old."  Yes, and we are building before we deal with the inadequate transportation, fixing bridges, etc. Why isn't the money utilized there?  It would create jobs, as well. They are fixing freeways and putting in an express lane on 680S.  The e.lane won't happen until 2016.  They want people to get used to it?  Uh,..in our minds?

Please see this article that was in the Bay Guardian last year. :http//www.sfbg.com/2013/05/28/planning-displacemnt Fascinating!  The lack of ecology

Is ABAG still putting in their $100,000,000 building in SF?  Well there goes a portion of the money.  Couldn't they have found a few floors in an existing building and "sacrificed the $100M to a "challenging" transit project?

And for Orinda?
34191.26 (a)  A sustainable parking standards ordinance that restricts parking in transit priority project areas to encourage transit use to the greatest extent feasible.  The city will receive  "tax incremental funds" for this.  THAT'S GREAT FOR THE NEW PEOPLE WITHIN THE FUTURE PDA,  BUT HOW WILL THE REST OF YOU GET INTO THE 50 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY THE OLDER FOLKS AND HANDICAPPED PEOPLE?! 

Most important is that PB1 talks about redevelopment in developed areas.  Vague. On that point, you had better keep your property up as the Orinda Draft Housing Element 2013 Page 200 A-22.C indicated that the city will be conducting a field survey of Orinda's older homes and as related to the 2010 Draft, the city is to include an estimate of the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. 

What?!  Do we really have the man power for this?  And to what end?  Isn't this a step beyond redevelopment of the downtown?  Can you say government meddling? 

So now, our city will be looking into our neighborhoods for blight? And?  Using eminent domain, or just giving people a gentle nudge to fix up their property?  I thought we were going to have more police services for this crime wave we're having.  

(A nonsequeter but still applicable: join NextDoor.com and your neighbors will keep you up to date about crime in your area.)

By the way, is the city waiting for SB1 to pass?  Is that why we've heard nothing about the rest of the housing?  We know they have the plans.  FYI. You can hear the archived meetings on the Box App at the city council website

Overnight, the city thinks Second units are good for Orinda.   Action 1.D: the Promotion of Second Units.  This comes with a price...no pun intended  Action 1.E Legalizing Existing Unregistered Second Units....formerly illegal second units may possibly now meet the requirements of the zoning code.   I believe they mean to put prioritized deeds on your home for this and determine the rent based on square footage and the qualifications for the renter= low income, very low income.

Do we need more government intervention?  HELLO.  VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RENTING IN ORINDA FOR YEARS!  As such, shouldn't these units negate the need for high density housing for the very same people?! Hasn't it been proven to be better for people to live in a home rather than a high density building?  I would bet there are enough people to meet the mandates right now!

We are in severe jeopardy should SB1 pass.  Lets hope that Governor Brown isn't so starstruck with his bullet train that he doesn't veto it again...if even possible.  Do you want elected officials deciding your fate or unelected regional entities?  This plan/bill is flawed.  This Democrat is against it.

Please call Governor Brown at (916) 444-2841 or Fax (916)558-3160 and tell him
to veto it.
Here is the link to the District Senators: http:senate.ca/gov/senators?sort-a

With backdoor dealings, subterfuge and the lack of any positive environmental findings, Plan Bay Area is indiscriminate DUMB GROWTH.  As an example, look at all the parking that is going into the developments in Walnut Creek. With all those new cars, I guess I'll be doing all my shopping online!

.