The Sierra Club and tenant groups are right to oppose SB 827.
No amount of "amendments" will make it palatable, nor does it contain provisions for enough affordable housing. This is why people commute so far; they can't afford to live near their jobs in San Francisco. This is obvious.
Density in the eastern part of San Francisco has displaced thousands because market rate housing reverberates to make surrounding neighborhoods more expensive when the new residents demand high end amenities.
Scott Wiener never met a condo project that he didn't like.
Real estate money made the difference in his election and real estate interests have the most to gain from SB 827, not the people of California. People will get out of their cars if transit is available and affordable, but that takes government money and people don't want to pay more taxes.
10
It makes no sense to build dense housing near transit until there are dense job centers near transit. People will take transit if their jobs are within a five minute walk of the transit station. If work is a five mile drive from the closest transit stop, transit is not a reasonable alternative to driving. The incentives should be to build high density job centers around transit stops and to move jobs to those centers.
11
Our research team just published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that shows that, in Salt Lake City, increasing population in the city center didn't increase CO2 emissions while a similar level of population increase in the expanding suburbs was associated with an increase in CO2 emissions. We need to ground truth these policies with scientific measurements in order to see what effect they are having on CO2 emissions. Our study can be found here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/27/1702393115
article about it can be found here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/08/sci...
7
As per Richard Edward DeLeon, in his seminal book: Left Coast City: Progressive Politics in San Francisco, 1975–1991, the local Sierra Club has opposed higher-density urban development for decades, so this is in fact not surprising, as the author contents. This group's approach to environmental protection has been, and remains, to simply price out as many people as possible. They are more anti-people - particularly those of modest means who are being crushed by the cost of living here - than pro-trees and clean air. I suppose that's one way of going about achieving a light footprint - just keep everybody out. It's the California way.
15
As a city council member (speaking only for myself) in an East Bay town of 18,500 with a similar population density and ethnic mix as San Francisco, I've spent many hours, sometimes with angry frustrated citizens at the podium, struggling with gentrification and housing costs. However, State Senator Wiener's bill SB 827 (for some reason unnamed in this shallow article) takes an approach that never occurred to me, and is one I don't think will be productive.
First of all, the important thing to remember is that cities don't build housing, developers do. Here is a short list of constraints that get in the way: 1) Lack of property for sale, 2) lack of interested developer, 3) lack of capital, 4) lack of skilled workforce, 5) burdensome regulations (including state-mandated ones like CEQA), and finally, 6) zoning.
In my built-out city 1) is the problem. Further north, even before the fires, 3) and 4) were the problems. Zoning might be a constraint in more remote 'burbs, but we sure could get a lot of work done before it becomes a problem in my neck of the woods. San Francisco, BTW, is actually issuing permits and building apartments at a rapid pace.
If cities want to build out commercial space, they need to be required to do the hard work of building housing, schools and parks for their new residents. Growth should be balanced, or not permitted. Given the funding Wiener gets from the growth lobby, it's not hard to see why he pretends not to understand this.
8
I do not own a car and ride transit almost every day, but Scott Wiener's claim that SB 827 will get people out of cars by allowing higher density near transit is based on wishful thinking, not fact. Los Angeles and San Francisco have been upzoning parcels near transit for years now, always claiming this policy will increase transit ridership. But transit ridership in LA is lower than it was 30 years ago, in spite of increased population. Also, a recent report by UCLA's Institute for Transportation Studies shows that car ownership rates have soared since 2000. While the transit numbers in San Francisco aren't quite so dire, transit ridership in that city is 11% lower per capita than it was in 1992. I believe transit-oriented development can work, but simply upzoning parcels near transit hasn't worked and will not work. Creating truly transit-oriented communities requires planning. SB 827 is an irresponsible shortcut that abandons planning. The facts do not support Wiener's claims.
9
If you want more people on public transportation,
invest money in public transportation.
Bart is crowded and often delayed, much like the NYC subways, the DC Metro and Boston’s T. Plus, the Bart parking lots are often full by 7:30.
10
It seems like this proposal would only reduce CO2 emissions if people already living in the state move from homes further away to these transit hubs, and their old housing returned to open space. This is unlikely to happen, so really what it means is that these new developments are for new residents coming into the area. While the rate of growth of CO2 emissions might decline, absolute amounts will continue to increase, even with these transit hub developments.
The only real solution is to not have as many people living here in the first place. But we're told we just have to accept population growth, so no one does anything about it.
9
Add to the mix: a Vacancy Tax -- a steep tax on any empty house, storefront or lot. Owners are free to leave property unoccupied, but they have to pay for the privilege. A Vacancy Tax has the power to open up thousands of units, and turn thousands of derelict lots over the builders.
The proceeds from a Vacancy Tax can go into affordable housing – OR it can allow cities to waive all the costs of permits and government fees associated with building. This will do three things: If it’s cheaper to build, more people will. Lower building costs will bring down rents. And in the long term, if the city has to cover theses costs, it will incentivize them to bring the costs down.
3
Double the density of apartments, or accept rampant sprawl, or (most likely) a combination of both. Boy, I guess there are just no good alternatives in the context of a rapidly growing population.
Unless, wait, it's coming to me, unless ...
Why don't we cut back on immigration, so that our population stabilizes? Then we can avoid further crowding AND further sprawl, leave a little bit of the good life for future Californians and a little bit of habitat and natural resources for other species.
US citizens have chosen to stabilize our population, by choosing to have only two kids on average. How about our politicians accept that good choice, and finally end US population growth?
We can't create an environmentally sustainable society with an endlessly growing population.
12
The Sierra Club’s NIMBY stance is a disappointing but not a surprise. We’ve been having this same battle in San Francisco for a while now, where the local chapter is captured by rich, white, land-owning boomers.
The bill does nothing to change affordable housing requirements or rent control. It will result in MORE, not fewer, affordable apartments by allowing taller buildings to be built more easily—buildings that must meet existing affordable housing mandates, which in SF are quite stringent. And the amendments to the bill will protect renters in non-rent controlled cities far better than current law. If the Club still opposes, then we will know that it’s really just about protecting the rich single-family home owners at the expense of everyone else and the climate.
I’m sorry, but the “environment” of single-family homes surrounding transit is not what we mean when we say we want to protect the environment. I don’t see any reason why BART stations in Berkeley and similar cities should be monopolized by single-family homes. Don’t want to live an a 4-8 story building? Fine; don’t. No one is forcing you to sell your $2 million craftsman that’s steps from the station. But stop preventing those of us who want denser, more affordable housing near transit from having it. That’s all we’re asking.
I’m not sure how increasing density in our cities became a controversial proposition either for the environment or for social justice; it’s sad.
Signed, a former Sierra Club member
20
Why not incentivize neighboring states to not be such laggards of opportunity?
3
Wow! Over 20 paragraphs until the REAL problem is mentioned. Only high-end housing is being built (by greedy developers) near mass transit stations. Longer commutes will continue as long as closer housing is either unaffordable or unavailable.
11
The autonomous (and electric) vehicle revolution currently underway will largely render this issue moot.
Scott Wiener’s bill will transform San Francisco from livable neighborhoods with defensible space to a skyscraper community with rampant crime. Suburban communities such as Orinda will not be recognizable. This bill is so heavy handed that a backlash will surely result. Zoning has always been and should be a local concern. I doubt that it will pass and if it does, litigation will wrap it up for years
13
Cities like Orinda are the problem. A BART station surrounded by multi-million dollar single-family homes. What terrible planning, which is hurting all of us in terms of traffic, high housing prices, and greenhouse gas pollution. It’s time for a change.
20
What is "defensible space"? And how do skyscrapers = "rampant crime?" I live in a high-density residential area of Warsaw, Poland, very mixed economically and it is quite safe, I can assure you. The Soviet housing blocks may not be pretty by Bay Area standards, but they keep one warm and housed.
14
"Cui bono?" (This is a Latin expression that means, "Who gains?") The people who gain from high-density, high-rise housing are real estate developers (think Donald Trump), banks, insurance companies, construction workers, architects, and interior decorators. Already, there is a mass exodus from coastal California. The exodus will grow. The State of California is acting like an imperialist force, making local California communities colonies of the state.
11
The injustice of NIMBYism boils down to the fact that NIMBYs say they are protecting their real estate equity, but that skyrocketing equity was not created by them. They contributed no sweat of the brow, no innovation, nothing to it. Their equity comes from other people who are building up the economy and simply need a place to live. But by pulling up the ladder, and digging the moat, and denying that housing, NIMBYs can sit back and force the productive members of the population to bid up the price of housing that the unproductive members just sit on. AND they refuse to pay property tax on the full value of their ill-gotten rise in equity!
The YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard - look it up) revolution is getting started, as people start understanding what's really up.
24
The same thing is happening in my hometown of New Rochelle, N.Y. and many other places.
High rise, luxury condos clustered near transportation hubs.
Huge profits for the developers. The politicians are in the pockets of the developers.
Huge displacement of low income residents.
Whatever happened to the memory of Jane Jacobs?
11
People, proposing building these beehives, most probably live in their 5000 sq ft villas on the coast or in the penthouses located in city center. Another case of aristocrats telling peasants to reduce their standard of living even further to assuage their guilt for their riches.
11
I live in a micro-flat in a high-density core area of Warsaw, Poland (I am from California) and I agree with these proposals fully.
4
SB 827 is an Environmental Disaster.
SB 827 Punishes Responsible Local Governments.
SB 827 encourages the removal of existing affordable housing in order to build high-cost housing.
SB 827 Ignores Key Aspects Essential to Responsible Long-term Planning.
SB 827 Perpetuates a False Narrative about the Causes of Traffic Congestion.
SB 827 Eliminates the Possibility of Ever Having Mass Transit in areas that currently lack it.
SB 827 Will Affect Schools Severely.
SB 827 will lead to building high-cost luxury housing units near transit stops, despite the fact that wealthy residents are the least likely to use public transit.
SB 827 perpetuates the myth that people will move frequently in order to live close to where-ever they are working.
SB 827 is Driven by an Outsized Sense of Entitlement.
SB 827 is being promoted by the developer-owned YIMBY movement.
13
Fact check: while transportation does account for roughly 30% of CO2 emissions, the transportation category also includes commercial transportation (trucks) and aviation. If you only include emissions from gasoline products, then perhaps 15% is due to cars and trucks. Let's say half of that is due to commuting; that leaves 7.5% from commuting emissions. So, if this proposal miraculously resulted in 10% of the Bay Area population (700,000) people moving into this new housing, and ALL of those people gave up their cars and commuted by bus or train, then you'd lower CO2 emissions by < 1%.
Source: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf
9
When I am inside my own car
I feel like a cocky rockstar;
The lord and mainstay
Of ev’ry highway,
Why wouldn’t I want to drive far?
2
Conner is a flagrant partisan for real estate interests and the YIMBYs in their pay and thrall. Wiener, the carpetbagger from Philadelphia is in a never ending fund pump of 41% real estate interests to kindle his political aspirations. SB 827 has become a bridge too far in the litany of regulations stealthily sequentially slid through the state legislature to trap residents in web of suits forcing gentrification, Manhattan style canyonization and destruction of the neighborhoods that make the diverse, attractive, livable San Francisco and every other urban area in California.
Why does NYT allow such naked non-stop partisan editorial reporting by this "journalist". It is not "news fit to print" it is pandering to real estate, foreign investors and speculator landlords evicting to profit further from the land value bubble they create.
12
Baby Boomers--please tell us how the "character" and "soul" of your urban neighborhoods are gone now that millenials are demanding being able to afford to live in the same area. At the very least be honest that the only reason you're really against density is that any increase in the housing supply diminishes the demand to buy your single-family house. I never aspired to live in a cramped studio with my wife and child and pay over half our income on rent but that's the world you left us.
17
More housing actually increases the value of their homes as they become even more rare. It’s more like - walking into your local cafe and there’s a line of strollers. 30 minutes to pick up a latté?
The most effective way to "wean Californians from cars" is to reduce the number of Californians- the number of whom has increased by 20 million in the last 50 years. Expelling all the illegal immigrants and significantly reducing the number of legal immigrants would be a good start.
11
I want to live in Santa Barbara. If I lived there, I wouldn't need a car. I want someone to pay for me to get a house and live there. Santa Monica has a good climate. People will want to live in those buildings regardless of their commute. So you destroy Santa Monica and people will still drive long distances.
Why not stop people from having more than two kids? That would cut out a lot of driving in the future.
9
We're grappling with some of the same problems in Seattle as traffic here becomes horrendous (and we were lamentably slow to embrace even a light rail system, forget mass transit). However, the city government is trying to increase the housing stock through zoning changes that make for higher rise (although arguably not high enough) buildings in established neighbourhood "urban villages" and in making it easier to increase the housing stock even in single family neighbourhoods.
I can understand the NIMBY reaction of many Bay area residents to denser development (we have that here too) but the reality is your traffic is even worse than ours, there is way too much single level sprawl, and the price of housing, both to buy and rent, is rising to such astronomical levels that it will eventually deter even highly paid workers from moving to or staying in the Bay area. And when that happens, no matter what the undoubted advantages enjoyed by Silicon Valley, companies will start moving elsewhere.
Increasing investment in places where people can live and work has to be the way to go and that means building upwards in neighbourhood urban villages as well as investing in in public transit. Even in California, the younger generation won't forever tolerate wasting their lives sitting in traffic for 3-4 hours a day.
9
The younger generation will also eventually get married or its equivalent and have children. The manic development of luxury dorms for tech workers in Seattle takes no account of the future. Look for a mass exodus to the suburbs, with an attendant increase in traffic, as the then-37-year olds look for a home they can afford that is bigger than 400 square feet.
8
There are many ways to increase housing density without relying exclusively on "luxury dorms". For example in Seattle we've been slow to devote more development to townhomes which are far more widespread on the East Coast and are comparatively space efficient when it comes to land use but also provide a spacious and family-friendly home environment. And even what used to pass as sprawl suburbs around Seattle such as Bellevue have their own urban centre with high rise apartments.
Older generations fell for the lure of the automobile but I think the younger generations who see what's possible in Europe won't make the same mistake.
1
The scarcity of townhomes or condominiums in Seattle is the result of a Washington state law that creates onerous legal liabilities for anyone who builds them. That's why developers are building apartments instead. It's a failure of regulation, not a failure of the market, and it denies first-time buyers and others a less expensive way to become homeowners instead of renters.
Build up and get a bicycle. That’s what we have done on the East Coast. The lifestyle is pretty good.
5
In our popular urban areas
The more you build in proximity to transit the more valuable the immediate area becomes.
And, the more you restrict auto traffic and penalize car use, the more valuable these same locations near public transit become.
Neither solve the problem of pollution and congestion. Our very culture is based on the car and the individual driving. So, the infrastructure reflects that. I would be in support of eminent domain for train line construction way before construction of more high density buildings.
Keep in mind, many buildings right here in NYC that are designated new construction “affordable housing” are over 50% vacant. People can’t afford them. So, the city is now taking city-owned properties wherever they can find them, clearing them out, and getting bids from non-profit developers to build ultra-low income housing. The vision is more about target numbers than results. This idea to build build build may not actually be helping everyone. Homeless population soaring. Why not incentivize at a state level? Grants to businesses outside of city center? Or for example, a high speed train between NYC and Buffalo?
4
A better way to enhance the attractiveness of mass transit options is to improve the quality and availability of mass transit, so that it is convenient and affordable. And it's more likely to achieve results quickly. It doesn't have to be expensive high-speed rail. A real commitment to comfortable high frequency bus service that doesn't take 2-3x as long as a drive would be a boon, and flexible to future growth.
Compulsory urbanization - compulsory anything, for that matter - is always going to feel, well, involuntary. Because it is.
9
What you say sounds so simple. Surely you must realize that everyone's already thought of this. But when you get to the "how" - which is exactly what this "involuntary" plan is doing - someone always says that there must be some other easier, cheaper, more voluntary solution that requires no skin off their nose. I guess we can transport everybody on flying unicorns and rainbow ponies.
2
Transportation serves communities. The communities don't serve transportation. That's the unicorn.
And I do have a good amount of knowledge on this topic. I was raised on it. I've been studying this since I was quite young - my mother was a transportation economist, who in the course of her career guided two major east coast suburban counties to establish working bus systems, both of which thrive to this day, though woefully underfunded. It's not magic. It's just not free.
1
The author should have summarized the Sierra Club's opposition:1) unintended consequence of thwarting future transit in underserved areas; 2) displacement and gentrification; and 3) evaluate the impact of last year's new anti-nimby laws.
2
This article is an editorial in favor of SB 827 masquerading as a factual report. SB 827 represent radical, blunt change to California land use law transforming overnight the zoning of millions of single residential homes across the state in neighborhoods no one would consider transit hubs. Further, the bill is authoritarian in nature as it strips power from city councils and transfers this power to state authorities depriving local residents of the ability to shape the future of their communities.
14
Local communities live in larger communities, and just like an individual’s liberty in swinging their fists is denied by those around them, so too must small local communities liberties be curtailed by the needs of larger communities they neighbor. The only authoritarian part of this puzzle are the existing zoning codes that deny individuals from developing their property to a level that fits properly with it’s locations transportation capacities.
3
SB 827 is about alleviating the housing crisis first; the environmental benefits are nice, but secondary. In this context the opposition of the Sierra Club makes more sense, though in many people's opinion it is still inconsistent with their mission.
The core of this issue a generational divide between residents who have cheaper, grandfathered in living costs and the residents who don't. The former consider the housing "crisis" a minor problem, outweighed by their concerns about their views, parking, and "quality of life."
The latter just want a place to live that allows them to prepare for retirement. The last eight years of the great recession lowered their incomes, concentrated jobs in urban centers, and caused the cost of living in those urban centers to skyrocket.
Some of the commentators have claimed incorrectly that there is no provision for "affordable" (subsidized) housing. In fact local requirements are still in place, so for example in SF the minimum is >15% (I forget the exact number).
7
People who believe in low income housing, homeless shelters, drug injection sites, etc are perfectly free to vote for those things to be built in their neighborhoods but have no right to tell those who don’t want such things that they have to take them. Forcing these things on more suburban areas will hurt Democrats considerably. Especially when there are PLENTY of abandoned industrial areas that can be developed into high density housing without destroying the character of existing neighborhoods. There is no inherent right to live in any neighborhood you choose if it’s out of your price range
9
Telling people how and where they should live will, at least in CA, soon becom the authorities enforcing where and how people live. This approach along with current sky high property, housing costs and state income taxes helps explains the state's outmigration of its middle class. Keep it up, soon only the very poor and very rich will be left in CA.
6
Scott Wiener was my San Francisco "City Council" member and has served stunningly well in his new role as State Senator. Get 'em, Scott!!
5
California does not need more high rise housing.
It needs total expulsion of illegal immigrants. That would reduce pollution
by reducing population. The agricultural stoop labor could be done
by importing low income people from the big crime-ridden eastern
inner cities.
3
Wish Mr. Wiener would put the focus on reliable, safe, fast, and clean, public transportation.
7
It’s worked in Sydney!
2
The giant tech companies and their employees need to stop the hypocrisy and relocate their headquarters and lives if they care so much about the environment in CA.
There is plenty of space available in the Plains states and zero reason these companies can't move there.
But they won't. They'll donate millions to Dem candidates and environmental groups, but they'll never do the 1 thing that would stop the sprawl: take the jobs somewhere else.
This is why we in the flyover states just ignore the coastal liberals: their hypocrisy.
5
They're ruthless profit-enhancing entities and would move if it made business sense. But they can't find brains in the plains. Sorry to be rude, but that's also exactly why Goldman Sachs won't move to Peoria. You're always free to start up your own tech or finance companies if you don't like this answer.
1
Like there is no hypocrisy in flyover states? Also, by the time this takes affect, robots and artificial intelligence will have destroyed most human jobs already.
Although there have been some notable wins and losses, we have a provincial-level municipal planning board that reviews contentious planning projects. All cities and counties are creatures of the State legislature. It wouldn’t take much to implement sane land-use planning policies that require a fair mix of residential construction to compensate for all of the corporate construction. Palo Alto has a small resident population that benefits from all of the property taxes derived from business in the area, without having to put up any additional affordable housing or amenities. At least some of these tax dollars should be used to make sure workers have a place to live and a way to get to work.
3
Just allow everyone to Telework.
2
America doesn't do mass transit very well. In New York City, the subways are an international disgrace. I believe that the NYC subways have helped populate the entire nation as generations of New Yorkers have fled the city to get away from the hideous screeching monsters. Americans also have a lot of stuff and are always taking their stuff from one place to another. Mass transit is terrible a this. Cars move stuff and infants and large dogs very nicely and they bring you right to where you want to be, not to a station eight miles away. There is no way on earth that anyone will ever pry Americans away from their cars. They would sooner lose a kidney. Stop trying.
4
Interested in dealing with carbon footprints, start small ban private jet travel.
3
Many of the projects that are called "transit-friendly" like Parkmerced, destroy environmentally sound existing housing without proof of "obsolescence"
The carbon footprint of the impacts of demolition, regrading, and re-planting are huge and dont catch up for carbon impacts for 40+ years... We have to tackle the issues up front, by using infill and preservation solutions.
In addition many basic transit solutions in SF like the DTX downtown extension and simple loops and links of transit lines are ignored while funds are diverted to "big-dig" projects like the central subway and warm-springs bart extensions vs providing funding for local projects that solve un-linked areas and missing systems (ex: Geneva Harney LRV line to the BVHP developments in the SE sector of SF)
Sustainable Communities means involving the community and ensuring some semblance of affordability. Currently in SF we lack serious steps on essential housing stock, the need to repeal costa-hawkins, and the concern for transit improvements that are lagging the housing being developed...
A.Goodman SF D11 Excelsior
2
Why not the more modest step of allowing duplex or fourplex housing in single-family neighborhoods, regardless of distance to transit?
I wouldn't want an 8-story condo going in across the street from my single-story home, but a two-story duplex could preserve the character of the neighborhood while adding more housing.
6
Want people to live in California, and above the poverty level? Start paying them more. You're telling me that Silicon Valley's billionaires can't afford it?
1
See all the sheeple, herded into their little tricky, tacky, but maybe gilded, boxes! Sheeple, we know what’s best for you said the sly foxes, er, legislators! LOL
3
Let us see the politicians lead by example, give up cars, refuse government vehicles and use mass transit.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen.
Do as I say, not as I do.
9
Combine the lack of public transportation with the utter gridlock that uber and lyft have significantly contributed to in San Francisco's South of Market area, and then ponder that officials want to roll out their "Central SoMa Plan" to make space for 40,000 new jobs but only 7,000 units of housing. It doesn't take a genius to predict what will happen.
7
SB 827 (and its partner in crime SB 828) are attempts to legislate stealing in yet another effort to transfer middle class wealth held in home equity to the pockets of oligarchs who will build market rate housing that will not solve anyone’s housing crisis.
Method to the madness behind SBs 827 and 828:
Upzone single family home parcels, declare the single family homes that sit
on the parcels today as “blighted” due to “underutilization,” then grant eminent domain authority to oligarch investors for the benefit of their private property developments (for the purposes of building still more market-rate housing that will not help the housing insecure).
This tired story of legislative efforts to separate the middle class from real estate investment should be all too familiar to Brooklynites, as it is just a new take on the story told in the 2011 documentary “Battle for Brooklyn”.
Hey California, and the Bay Area in particular, why aren’t we addressing the root causes of our housing crisis:
(1) too much office development in the Bay Area relative to the amount of available housing;
(2) woefully inadequate public transit that is not capable of bringing enough people from where they can afford to live to where the jobs are in less than an hour?
Isn’t it selfish (and risky from a national security perspective) of the Bay Area to concentrate all the jobs here when so many other areas of the country need economic growth and have housing that most working people can afford?
9
I think it’s pretty clear that Mr. Wiener has received large amounts of financial support from the building trades and development interests. He is effective at foisting outsized bills into the legislative flow, knowing that they can be pared back. So he’s unusually good at that dark art. But the carefully crafted arguments fall apart under any close examination save that of the people who make money tossing up buildings. San Francisco is already more dense than Hong Kong and is rapidly losing its unique character. Former Mayor Agnos suggested we be place on the UNESCO world heritage list. And as others have mentioned our infrastructure is already way over extended. This bill is legislative bullying and should be smacked down accordingly.
13
I grew up in Van Nuys in the 1960's, and left in the mid-70's for greener pastures in NoCal, when overbuilding and traffic jams ruined my idyllic youthful existence--orchards replaced with housing tracts, etc., etc.
Just since the 2010 census California's population has grown by over 6%:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045216
Question #1: Even if tall building near every single transit hub were built, how much overall reduction in carbon footprint would that bring? Question #2: And what's your plan when the population grows another 6% in the next 8 or so years? See the problem?
California tried a similar strategy years ago with massive road construction, and you can see how successful that was today. To paraphrase a famous Sierra Club quote, "Building more housing to cure transit congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity." Might as well accept this hard reality and deal with the root cause: overpopulation, 'cuz it ain't going away.
https://www.capsweb.org/about/about-us
8
The problem with Scott Wiener's proposal is that there is no plan to have affordable housing built along the transit stops. Essentially it is a trickle down theory which does not work. In LA Chinatown, the developers are building market rate housing along the stops. One studio 600 sq. ft. apartment would rent for $1800 per month. The residents cannot afford it. The worst is that all of the new developments charge the same/similar prices/rent. Even now with an oversupply of market rate apartments, none has lower the rent. We have an affordable housing problem, not a market rate housing problem.
10
Ah yes, we must continue to grow with no limits and we must destroy low density neighborhoods so we can continue to grow and grow. Los Angeles county has a population of over 10 million, which is a larger population than 43 individual states!! But we must keep cramming more density into our city. Please explain why that has to be so?
I see all the giant apartment building construction sites all over LA and please don't tell me that more than a tiny fraction of them will actually be affordable for a middle or working-class family.
This is just another scam to make real estate developers rich. Can we really not come up with another solution?
25
Transit-Oriented Development could be a great way to decrease vehicle miles traveled. However, it needs to be done right.
One study found that at least some new Transit-Oriented Development decreases transit ridership, because low-income people who have been using public transit are priced out of the new developments, move farther away, or at least to somewhere without easy transit access, so buy a cheap old car.
Hopefully Wiener will amend his bill to help it do what it is intended to do.
3
Might this lead to simply removing/relocating transit stations becoming the obvious NIMBY tool to maintain the status quo? With BART the infrastructure is more permanent but bus stations are pretty easy to move. I support the bill's goals but this seems to be a gaping loophole that will do opposite of what's intended in many cases.
I live in the area and would do everything by bike if I were pretty sure it would be there when I returned. Locking up a decent bike outside is like leaving cash on the ground. Vagrants even strip parts off locked bikes. Secure parking in every commercial area with bike theft police crime units would get me out of my car 90% of the time.
8
I'm glad to hear you would bicycle instead of drive most of the time if the infrastructure were good enough. Have you used the BikeLink lockers at BART stations? If so, would those satisfy your standards for secure parking, if located in every commercial area?
1
Get a Brompton, problem solved. I love my Brommie.
I have lived in the Bay Area since the mid-80s, and the housing crisis has got to be this state's number one priority. I support this legislation (and can't believe the Sierra Club would be against it). It is asinine that we have an extensive transit system that serves communities with nothing but suburban sprawl. Suburban transit stations sit isolated from downtown areas, surrounded by nothing but single family homes (and most of those homes are still so far from the station that everyone needs to drive a car in order to ride the subway). I appreciate past efforts by communities to limit density and population growth, but the complete shutdown of housing construction, especially high-density apartments, has caused the overall quality of life in our region to plummet. Local communities are not going to solve this problem without significant pressure from the state. Everyone wants to think that this is the problem of the next community over, and thus nothing gets done. It is appalling how high the cost of living has become simply because communities will not allow the construction of sensible housing around transit centers. Massive amounts of money have been spent building regional transit systems that don't come close to realizing their full potential because they serve small suburban communities filled with people who will generally just jump in a car vs. hop on the subway. Our entire way of zoning and constructing residential communities needs an overhaul.
20
Another way to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to set a future date, as in England, where only hybrid and electric cars and small trucks will be permitted to obtain state licenses. California has very limited mass transit so the current proposal would have only a marginal effect.
7
Major flaw in this plan: our public transit is a shambles and cannot even handle current volume. One of the great hypocrisies of the Bay Area.
32
I live within two blocks of a BART station in Berkeley, CA, in a SFR urban community with a park near by. Wonderful area to live in, etc. I previously lived only in high-density big cities in Europe and North America. If one person could feel comfortable with high-rise cities, that's me. I am also a forever-guilty-for-what-my-existence-is-doing-to-the-planet environmentalist who keeps track of our carbon footprint and energy/water use. We walk and transit to everywhere.
Regardless of what I may think about this proposal, I do not see how it might solve any of the problems it claims it will.
There should be high density requirements of some sensible radius around each large employer, not each "transit hub". No sane person will want to take transit to where the jobs are in the Silicon Valley, some 45 miles away, or take BART to the city via a bottleneck BART tunnel.
Also, very old infrastructure: century-old pipes the utility says they are on track to replace in the next 50-75 years, frequent black-outs, and a city way over its head in unfunded liabilities (basic city services possible only with special parcel taxes). BART is unbelievably overcrowded now. The various transit systems don't even line up to make them sensible to use.
Then there is that pesky little warning from USGS of a very large earthquake in the next 20 years, liquefaction, flooding etc. The trans-bay BART tunnel also shifted and lost most of its tolerance in the last major earthquake.
Sigh.
24
Your are correct, the connections have to be on both ends. The new Apple Space ship in Cupertino is by a freeway interchange. Nothing else to support thousands of workers coming into my old home town of suburbialand. Yes the buses are all over town, and Apple has those silver bikes the employees ride between buildings. Cupertino City tried to increase density at Valco, next to the Apple property. The NIMBYs are all against it. My sister, who still lives there, tells me that a lot of the resistance group is the new immigrants from Asia that do not want to go back to living in dense housing. They love their 60s single story ranch houses and their cars. The American dream of suburbia continues to entice and delude. The infrastructure costs to reverse this even if the housing is built are enormous.
2
Lots of malls and big box shopping centers are near transit centers - this could be a good retrofit opportunity for failing 90s developments
8
Great idea!
Los Angeles has an extensive rail system before the gasoline and automotive industry snake their way into the political environment. My father (a baby boomer) talked about taking the trolley from LA to the beach. I grew up in California and hated driving. I despise driving so much, I live in Boston - with the snow and cold, at least I don't have to drive to get to work and get around. I can't imagine people giving up their cars in California, you can't survive without one.
5
I was raised in LA/OC, and have rented in SF and SD. I know each region is different, but all need more housing. Many people I know have had to leave the state or move far away from their work. Recently many apartment complexes in my hometown (of ~100k people) were blocked due to vague concerns mostly from homeowners about the effect of apartments on the “character” of the community. Now many of these parcels are industrial parks or vacant commercial/retail buildings instead. People are being forced out while largely wealthy homeowners with free time to devote to zoning activism block construction on vacant lots or abandoned/underutilized commercial property. The worst is when train station adjacent land has no housing or is completely vacant, common throughout California, especially SoCal. I know this is not the case everywhere but I’ve seen it so many times while commuting via Amtrak/MetroLink, just look along the route between LA and SD. Despite what many think, renters are not here to ruin anyone’s quality of life. I just want to live, contribute, and have shelter in the community I love. I wish people would try to think about their community as the people who live in it and want to contribute to it and not the aesthetics of its buildings, the number of parking spots, and the “small town feel”. Even if 827 is not the right answer we have to do something. The crisis isn’t going away and the pain it causes only grows stronger.
7
As someone who lived in the Bay area most of my life I think this is a terrific idea. The biggest problem facing California is housing prices. The only way to make progress on that problem is to break the backs of the NIMBYs. NIMBYs are the scourge of modern life. If housing prices don't moderate, they will eventually crash.
20
Having lived in California for my high school years I can say the obvious solution is to make public transportation a state institution rather than allowing it to be privatized. The city I lived in, Rancho Cucamonga, had very few buses and bus stops were seemingly miles apart. 3 years there and I saw maybe 6 buses. Public transportation is one of the best ways to reduce pollution as not only does it provide alternative ways of travel but it provides jobs. I grew up in and currently live in a huge city with over a million residents and our public transportation, while not perfect, is constantly being improved and added to. It's reliable and effective, and it's provincially governed. California and other states should do the same. Free markets and laissez faire economies may be preferred but the priority should be the environment.
6
This entire bill ignores something very important: it's not healthy to live near a freeway. There is a lot of evidence that shows, for instance, that women who live next to a freeway have more miscarriages and autistic children, and elements of pollution have been found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. Some one needs to find out how far away from "transit centers" would be safe for humans to live.
12
Hopefully this kind of legislation could encourage density a bit further away from freeways. Many train and bus hubs are fairly removed from freeways at least where I live, more focused on downtown business districts. The freeway adjacent apartments I see seem to be aimed at car commuting rather than public transit.
My 37 mile commute typically takes over an hour, much of the freeway driving at less than 20 miles an hour. I have rear ended twice. It exhausting and a waste of my time, but an equivalent house nearer in would be well north of a million, which I can't afford.
What I want is rail line. Anything really, that doesn't depend of the freeway. I can take public transit - but why bother being stuck on a bus that is stuck in the exact same commute, that requires a transfer between home and work? Instead of an hour, it's an hour 15. And I work in Bishop Ranch, one of the biggest corporate parks on the west coast.
Building near transit avoids making the freeways worse. All for it. Then build more public transit.
11
Why can't you consider a smaller home, or a multi-family unit?
"Wean"? "Force" is more likely. Given a choice, most choose cars over transit, and space over crowded housing. The only way to make this happen is to take choice away and force people into living this way. Good luck with that.
13
There is at least one other way: influence people to make better choices.
What would you recommend when so many people are making choices that are so harmful?
Stalin had some luck, Castro too.
1
As currently written the legislation is a simplistic, meat-ax approach to a complicated issue. Ninety-six percent of San Francisco would be subject to the density increase, and this level of increase will be extremely unpopular in many San Francisco neighborhoods. Scott Wiener was my supervisor. Having heard and dealt with him and his staff on a few neighborhood concerns, it is hard to believe he is naive. The legislation appears to be a political maneuver to push local government to improve the approval process for sensible high-density developments, as opposed to a workable solution. In the long term local jurisdictions will not tolerate the loss of control. Populist draconian initiatives limiting State control over development could be the ultimate outcome if the legislation were to pass in its current form.
There are many entrenched hurdles that will thwart or slow any meaningful implementation in large portions of the City that this legislation is meant to address. Small lot sizes, property line setbacks, aesthetic guidelines, building code limitations on wood construction, development fees, affordable housing requirements, permitting time, and the high-value of single-family homes will continue to push many developers to build low density projects in most single-family neighborhoods.
6
This article provides a very simplistic view of a complicated problem. Scott Weiner's misguided bill pretends as if every city -- indeed, every neighborhood -- in the state of California has the same problems, the same geography, and the same solutions as San Francisco. That's simply not true. San Francisco is a vertical city with an existing rapid transit infrastructure. Los Angeles and San Diego are horizontal cities forced to rely on unreliable buses. LA's existing rail and subway system are limited and serve a small fraction of the city. Yet Weiner's bill is written in such a way that virtually all of residential South LA and the Westside will lose their zoning protection and be at the greedy whims of developers who can build 8 story luxury condos and apartments in hundreds of neighborhoods. These buildings won't help transit, since transit is so limited, but they will add density and pollution. Many areas of Southern California are intelligently zoned. If Weiner's bill passes it will eliminate years of careful zoning and turn much of the state into an imitation of Dubai -- all because one city has a problem. One size does not fit all. Hopefully future NYT articles will provide a more complete view.
22
I support the basic idea, but I'm not sure about the idea of limiting it to transit corridors.
For example, the Pittsburgh/ Bay Point BART line, which is what they are talking about here, is already full every morning during commute time, with trains running an average of every 6.5 minutes. My understanding is that BART can't run trains more frequently, because of the bottleneck that runs from West Oakland all the way through downtown SF due to only having one platform, and there is no realistic possibility of adding a second set of platforms to the downtown SF stations, the cost could run into the tens of billions.
So I'm not sure how many more people we can really pack onto bart. At some point, it's just going to be trading one group of people for another, as others will start driving because BART becomes so crowded and unpleasant.
13
Having lived in Tokyo, you can pack a LOT more people on a train. Just not on BART.
1
Los Angeles, early in the 20th Century, had the largest metro system in the world, both in size and passenger numbers. But it suggested the idea that the government should serve the people instead of business interests and was dismantled.
7
The State needs to invest in more efficient transit in suburban areas. In the suburbs, taking transit other than BART simply is not an option because it's too time consuming. Take me for example. I live approximately 5 miles from work and would love to take the bus. In order to do so, I would have to walk 15 minutes to a bus stop where the bus comes every hour. Then I would take that bus in the opposite direction from work for approximately 15 minutes to the BART station where I would pick up an express bus that would stop at a few locations and drop me off about half a mile from my job. This would take more than 90 minutes each way. It takes me 15 minutes to drive each way to work.
12
Could you bike? Less than 1/2 hour each way, and useful exercise as well as decompression time after work!
1
The roads are not really safe for biking because the cars go too fast, no streetlights, and there are a lot of hills.
8
Street lights are not so important when you have good lights on your bicycle.
I ride all over Concord, PH, Martinez, WC, and have done so for about eight years - including on YVR, Treat, and Monument. Those are not great places to bicycle because they have no bicycle infrastructure, but there is some political will now to start improving that in a few places, e.g. a County project to add paint-buffered (although not protected) bicycle lanes on Treat around PH BART. But for enough of that to happen to make a real difference, residents need to speak up to our Board of Supervisors (for us, Karen Mitchoff) and our City Councils in support of good-quality infrastructure. They are very hesitant to do anything serious because they don't think it has enough support among residents.
1
Wiener's bill is a good one and thoughtfully executed, especially with the revisions that show he is listening.
My understanding is that BART is at 110% capacity (or is it more)?
Hopefully if the bill passes, attention will then turn to transit.
4
Let's be clear. The land use problem in California is a symptom of the state's economic success. There's too much opportunity and not enough land. So before sides are taken, what should be acknowledged is something, alot of things really, have worked and are working incredibly well.
This battle between pro-density advocates and conservationists has been raging since the state's beginning. But again, the end result is a place that despite it's traffic woes, is one of the world's great examples of a balance between cityscape and nature. In this case, the issue of local control vs encouraging density is done under the auspices of achieving high-minded goals related to climate change and community. These aren't minor, unimportant, or even diametrically opposed themes; and Californians know that the continued success of the state depends on both sides continuing to have loud seats at the table.
7
The Sierra Club tarnishes its reputation once again. It typically opposes every step forward on environmental issues. In the State of Washington, it opposed a law that would have created a cap and trade system that would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In that case, it wanted the law to raise more revenue to support more renewal energy projects. The law was crafted to be revenue neutral to maximize its appeal to voters. The Sierra Club, as usual, demanded it ALL and got nothing.
More recently, the Sierra Club opposed California’s renewal of its ground-breaking cap and trade law. Once again, the Sierra Club wanted more. Fortunately, California’s legislature ignored the Sierra Club, which is what they should do again in this case.
In opposing the proposal for greater in-fill housing to build more desperately needed housing and reduce suburban sprawl, the Sierra Club serves its upper-middle class constituency. Sierra Club members are members of the aging “I’ve-got-mine” club. They have no interest in the growing population of homeless people and they can and do drive wherever and whenever they want.
Sierra Club claims to be concerned about climate change, but their policies and actions say otherwise.
7
The cap and trade bill was loaded down with gifts to the oil and gas industry. The proponents of the cap and trade bill acknowledged that the majority of greenhouse gas reductions in California have come from laws, building codes, and regulations increasing, for example, energy efficiency and renewable energy.
On cap and trade, the Sierra Club joined with most of the environmental justice groups who have seen that cap and trade increases dirty air pollution in poorer neighborhoods.
4
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is the dead end of every ideology.
We write the laws that are capable of being passed. They are by definition, NOT perfect.
2
A spokesperson (self-appointed?) for the local YIMBY group was quoted recently in an SF paper as referring to SB827 as a "shot across the bow to white people" living in single-family dwellings, particularly on the west side. I'm dismayed and appalled that the "far left" is now attacking "the left" (because pretty much everyone is 'left' in SF) in an ill-conceived class battle: young vs. old, 'poor' vs. 'rich', etc. SF has long been evolving into a young person's town, kind of an outdoor gym, where older, long-time residents are scolded or punished for driving their cars or living in homes they bought twenty, thirty or forty years ago. My husband and I live modestly in our house, take MUNI whenever we can (and always did when we worked downtown), are involved in local organizations and are open to density infill where it makes sense--ON major transit corridors, but not IN the surrounding neighborhoods. Other comments here rightly bring up questions of already-overloaded transit and other infrastructure that is already inadequate and would break down under increased use. Developers will, as they always do, circumvent the "affordable" part of housing, and new apartment building units will be snapped up by wealthy out-of-towners (as is the case now), and not by workers living in Tracy or Stockton in order to shorten their commute. Scott Weiner should not get to decide, all on his own, that the hard left revolution gets to throw out the old lefties from their homes.
14
Shorter commutes can never be counted on by developers because it is too easy to fire someone in today's economy. As soon as someone settles into housing with a short commute, their employer downsizes and suddenly they find themselves commuting across the bay again.
8
Good news! SB827 does not contain any provision that would throw homeowners from their homes (regardless of their age or politics). It would counteract the forces that are currently throwing many renters from their homes, however. Perhaps you don't care about that because you see it as somebody else's problem.
4
SB-827 is not just the right solution from environmental and housing-crisis perspectives, it is also the most *equitable* solution I've seen proposed thus far. No other bill has stood up to the wealthy, exclusionary communities at the root of the housing crisis like SB-827.
The change being asked of current homeowners isn't even that drastic compared to changes that have happened in the past (Sillicon Valley used to be all orchards and farmland before it was paved over for suburbia). Displacement and gentrification are valid concerns, but the recent amendments (including a guaranteed right to remain) go a long way in addressing these fears. In fact, the bill has been designed to force wealthy areas (Palo Alto, Beverly Hills etc) to also accept changes, and since these areas are generally far less dense and have more exclusive zoning than lower income areas, the changes they will be forced to accept will be far more extensive.
The economic transition taking place within the United States and the rise of the knowledge economy, attracting migrants from within the country and without, means that the population of California will keep growing regardless of what happens. The choice at hand is whether these people will be housed in efficient, livable urban areas with easy access to transit, or in sprawling central-valley developments. SB-827 is moving in exactly the right direction.
9
High density living model that should be followed : SINGAPORE.
Flat out excellent. Naysayers, I suggest you visit and then say no.
Their MRT is flat out amazing. Our BART could be that only if we had the will to be that.
8
Are you seriously comparing the urban concrete jungle of Singapore, an island with breezes to dissipate heat and pollution, to California? And what about the taxes, population, immigration laws, and sustainable industry? Not an example at all.
2
The Sierra Group's opposition is just another reason why many are frustrated with "environmental groups". These groups always seem to be "anti-" this or that, but they rarely put forward concrete, viable solutions. They often cite vague "renewable energy" solutions without any specificity or place faith in technologies that are perpetually "ten years in the future". Look at these low-carbon solutions and the problems that one group or another has with them:
Nuclear - radioactive waste disposal; unintended radioactive releases
Hydro - destruction of forest/canyon by dam; impact on migrating fish
Wind - bird kills; sound; visual eyesore
Solar - destruction of habitat (often desert)
Biofuels - actually NOT low-carbon; major technical issues (e.g. algae)
This does not even get into the NIMBY aspects.
We need to take environmental action, not just always be in opposition.
9
There's an easier way.
Triple the property taxes on homes to drive down their value, and thus make them more affordable. Most homeowners won't be able to pay the higher taxes, and will either have to sell or default. Then the locality can rent the property to whomever it pleases.
1
Yes, but the voters would have to approve such a measure. Good luck with that!
1
This piece cites the fact that in dense and transit friendly cities like San Francisco people drive less than they do in the LA area. However it misses the main reason that people that live in dense areas are more likely to leave their cars at home and use mass transit.
And that is because in dense cities the major obstacle to driving is the lack of free and abundant parking. There can be no greater example of this than Manhattan where only the rich can afford to drive to work because due the density of Manhattan there is practically no free parking, and parking garages cost more than $400 a month.
In Los Angeles on the other hand there is no reason why a person who owns a car should not drive it wherever he wants to go. In addition the LA metro area is so large and spread out that its impossible to get around without a car. So the idea of building tall buildings next to mass transit based on the idea that people will live there so that they can rely on mass transit doesn't make much sense. And this is because well over 90% of that metro area is not served by mass transit, so living within walking distance of mass transit that will not get the great majority of those people to where they need to get to is basically worthless.
15
Look at European cities. Compact, well served by public transit, and still a high standard of living. The 1950's "American Dream" of a three bedroom ranch for everyone resulted in smog, ever-increasing commute times, and dependence on foreign oil for our very survival. And the quarter-acre lawns of green grass, how often do families with 1-2 kids really use them these days? We waste water and pile on harmful chemicals to appease prickly neighbors.
I'm against unplanned density as much as I am sprawl, though. The building needs to fit the neighborhood. Keep tall buildings in the city core, with moderately tall housing in reasonable pockets around mass transit stations.
More than that, employers need to be encouraged to let workers telecommute. My employer won't even consider it.
13
How about bringing mass transit under the Bay to Marin so that people can choose not to drive into the City or down to the Peninsula? Think about how many cars that would take off of 101. As in the Chunnel, make it for rail only. We have a great bus system here in Mill Valley, as well as ferries from Sausalito and Larkspur, but the need to connect BART to Marin is inevitable. Prohibitively expensive, I realize, but inevitable.
6
I don't think this is going to work.
4
all this makes perfect sense, to the rich environmentalists who don't live anywhere near these "hubs". California is a fantastic place, but its the world capital of phony progressivism. Time after time I engage people who are anti taxes, mad about being exposed to the homeless, sick of the wasteful spending and $80 billion choo choo trains, pro immigration but are unable to connect with most latinos unless they seem "white", and huge environmentalists except they despise bicyclists and drive 6000 lb SUV's. I think, wow, Trump voters, and then they reveal themselves to be Rachel Maddow addicts.
18
So true!
1
a cruel page opposit:
ny times today:
Florida Bridge Collapses; at Least 6 Are Dead
A Bold, Divisive Plan to Wean Californians From Cars
This was a pedestrian bridge my understanding of it. Fell on cars.
As someone who has lived in SF, Oakland and now NYC, I think there's really only one word why liberals don't allow these denser developments: nimbyism.
They want their neighborhoods to never change, they want their backyards and lawns, they want their 2500 square feet for a family of four. Then they blame developers for being greedy while preventing any real solutions to housing.
And joila! A full blown housing crisis in SF and the rest of the state.
The future means fewer cars, Californians. I miss and love the state, but you'd have something to learn from NYC.
6
voilà?
One word: dormitories.
1
Maybe California can look to Mexico City for solutions, it will after all soon be a province of Mexico.
9
Great, now all those people living alongside these highways can die from COPD from inhaling all those exhaust fumes.
Brilliant idea
5
The Cosmopolitan Elites lost in their own little concrete jungle.
5
The fact that this is not already encouraged is insane. Why would you keep low density housing near mass transport? NIMBY-ism at it's finest.
5
The need is to reduce immigration, eliminate illegal immigration, eliminate chain migration and eliminate anchor baby (antiquated) legislation. I know many here, being progressive and all, think open borders is the 'kind' thing to do, but it's not. It's not kind to citizens here already and it's not kind to those coming to the US that believe the streets are paved with gold and they can have what they want, when they want it.
Population growth is out of control across the globe, but only for those that have little to support even themselves. It seems the poorer you are, the more kids you have. In the US that is because you make money on each kid if you are poor OR you believe that God wants you to procreate (sorry Catholics and Mormans). We have past the point where population expansion is a good thing, but continue to entice those least capable of supporting families to have more kids. Insane!
PS We do not need to be China, or Hong Kong (not really the same). They live on top of each other and it's misery. While 'they' know nothing different, just ask the poor citizens whose land was taken by the Communist party and were forced to move to dense cities with no hope for employment. That is where progressives sit today - they've evolved over the last 15 years into Communists.
14
fFinally an action to stop the exorbitant housing prices in CA. Silicon Valley can't be a place for cramping 2500 to rent a room.
2
No, California instead just keeps adding millions of illegals annually AND gives them all sanctuary. Without giving it a thought as to where all of these people are going to live. And what about water issues? Overcrowded schools and public transportation? Are all of these insignificant, minor afterthoughts?
California's problems are based on the rapidly ever growing overpopulation.
15
1970s ranch house going for over $1 million? Time to build more units.
7
I live in a city in the east bay where NIMBY residents are challenging the demolition of an abandoned Taco Bell on a large lot next to a Home Depot, Next to a BART station and an elevated highway due to the 6 story building ruining the character of the area. SMH!
6
New York City's mass transit system is a lesson to all Americans to just buy a car.
9
Many communities across the United States require a person to drive endlessly to get anywhere....see Naples FL for more info.
1
Classic NIMBY. Progressives finding out that glorious environmental and communitarian goals end right where their own personal preferences begin. Ha!
2
There's no limit to human stupidity. Who can solve the conundrum when you lose your job and find another 80 mile away?
How do I know?
BECAUSE IT HAPPENED TO ME....MANY TIMES.
Work and study at home and provide free region wide transportation.
Or continue business as usual.
Get people out of their cars, that's the goal.....
3
Without demolishing original homes, wouldn't this just lead to more people moving to California - and therefore greater pollution (and water shortages)?
Seems like a developers' trick to open up more zoned building space. But I may just be more suspicious of authority than normal today-after reading about Russia's hacking of U.S. power plants, and Trump's ridiculously weak tap on the wrist sanctions.
11
Will the bill include provisions for making the new 8-story buildings affordable for average and below average workers, who still, by the way, outnumber the six figure earners? Maybe Mr. Weiner doesn't know this but Cali is the "original drive to you qualify" location.
3
The issue is that some of the more upscale neighborhoods in California (and here I will talk about the SF BAY AREA) don't even have any public transportation, or very little. Take Danville....it will stay rich and inclusive and its residents will continue to commute to commerce in San Francisco or Silicon Valley. Or take places in Silicon Valley such as Los Gatos, or Saratoga, nary a public transportation area will you see....
So what is disturbing about Weiner's push is it pushes the lower and middle class to live in urban density when they don't want it. And the are tax payers like the wealthy. We in California are being pushed by big money developers and have been since 2009 when money became cheap. In my neighborhood it will is a disaster not an urban heaven, with homeless and luxury apartments. This is the house that Sacramento built. Developers buy off our politicians. Their children work for our politicians. And they create discourse that is on par with Trump's. Please consider this: This is the State's way out of building better public transportation (BART is overloaded by the way).
14
Look to NY/NJ or Boston where successful public transportation systems already exist and work very well.
3
Paradoxically, in the SF Bay Area bus and BART ridership is going DOWN, despite more people moving in. This appears to be due to two things: 1) ride sharing (Uber, Lyft) is more convenient even if more expensive and no parking worries, plus right to the place you want to be and 2) decades of neglect by the transit agencies that have led to dirty, decrepit train cars and buses, homeless people using transit as their sleeping quarters day and night (sometimes clearing out a car with the odors they emit), disgustingly dirty train stations, constant equipment breakdowns leading to daily delays.
So just building denser housing is not going to solve things in the way they might wish.
14
The problem isn't too little housing, it is too many people. Why should the corporatocracy control how many people live in coastal California? Californians who care about the environment need to demand that CEQA gets real teeth to stop development based on damage to ecosystems, not just do the pseudo-mitigation that goes on now. Planning must be based on the carrying capacity of the land, including other lifeforms, not the tax revenues that will accrue from development.
Hypocrites that we are, the loss of habitat and destruction of species in other nations is decried, but when it comes to the almighty dollar in California all kinds of destruction is approved.
Let the housing crunch occur, and housing prices rise - people can move elsewhere. That might be what saves the remnants of the wild on the California coast.
16
Wow, I'm having a serious case of deja vu. 30 years ago, I was on the executive committee of the Greater Boston Group of the Sierra Club, when we debated a similar measure: this one would have changed zoning in much of Cambridge from 4 story to 8 story apartments.
Some members argued that this change would help curb sprawl, by encouraging more densification. But others, including me, argued that all we could be sure the measure would do was to make Cambridge more crowded. There was nothing in the proposal that would have prohibited sprawl on the outskirts of Boston.
This proposal (and the one 30 years ago in Boston) is a good example of how our national environmental groups have ensured their powerlessness and irrelevance in debating the fundamental environmental issue in our country today: whether the US will continue to grow our population by tens of millions of people per decade.
The Sierra Club ties itself in knots over whether to support densification. But in the context of continued large scale population growth, driven by mass immigration, there are no good choices.
Sprawl stinks. Doubling density will stink. The smart answer is to cut back on immigration to a level that allows us to stabilize our population. But of course, that isn't even up for debate. Not 30 years ago, not today!
7
Can we please come back to the real world? A friend in Los Angeles reports that she tries to send her 8th grader to school in the morning by the public Metro bus, and lives within 1/3 mile of two different bus lines. There is a transit "app" that informs when the next bus is to be expected. At rush hour, one is supposed to arrive every 15 minutes. At least two days a week, both bus lines are 45 minutes behind schedule, and she has to drive the kid to school. Until there's a better Metro track record than that, no one is going to get out of their cars.
22
The Times article misses the real motivation behind this bill. Couched as promoting transit for environmental benefits, its real purpose is to remove owners of single-family homes from cities to suburbs and replace them with apartment tenants, as the state’s cure for too little new housing. This is most apparent in San Francisco, Scott Weiner’s State Senate district. That city’s planners found the bill would upzone 96% of land from single and double family to four to eight-story apartments. This would change America’s third-most dense large city to its first, doubling its density to match Brooklyn. And San Francisco’s public transit is already overloaded, with BART and city light-rail removing seats to accommodate crowds.
In local media Weiner explained the bill will provide affordable housing for residents displaced by young Silicon Valley tech employees who bid up city rental prices. He justifies displacing homeowners with the term “density equity,” as if it is a moral imperative for the state to enrich developers while pushing typically older, long-time residents far from their neighborhoods and accessible needs like doctors and public transportation. His bill has elaborate financial and relocation protections for tenants only.
Weiner sneers at city councils for their failure to solve affordability, but no one has tried carrots instead of sticks before taking away local oversight over zoning.
26
Nothing forces homeowners to sell their homes. If you want to continue to live in your single-family home, then do it. All this does is allow people to build 4-8 story buildings if they WANT to.
There's a far less disruptive way to reduce California cities' carbon footprint: employers should allow those employed in non-physical labor to work from home, commuting to the office only for important meetings. But then, that wouldn't make a heap of money for campaign-contributing developers, would it?
12
Pass the law, build the housing. The Sierra Club is wrong on this. Many of their donors in well-to-do Bay Area suburbs have selfishly fought all construction of apartments because they don't want lower income folks moving into their cities and sending their kids to the local schools. These cities have forfeited their right to local control of land use because they are not actually managing the land- they just say no to everything that's not a single family house for rich people.
11
Where I live and work the only people to benefit from living in new construction in the city and walking to work earn six figures and up. Some rent, some buy. They can order in whatever they need. They can take cabs or driving services wherever they want to go or rent a car. For them, location is a perk. For the rest of us location determines whether there is a roof over our heads and food on the table.
11
Our state and those of us to live in it are in a crisis that will only be solved by all of us putting our preconceived notions aside. After the wildfires in October, Santa Rosa, for example, went from a 1% vacancy rate to, effectively, a 0% vacancy rate. The homeless population is exploding; those who can find housing are paying an ever-greater share off their income on rent, the only places where projects "pencil out" are in the outlying areas. The result? Sprawl, big box retail districts and endless gridlock. This situation requires creativity and pulling out all the stops. SB827 isn't perfect but neither (obviously) are the current patchwork of local zoning regulations, rampant NIMYism, and lack of regionally-based transit. We need housing and unless we want to pave over the entire state that means a variety of solutions: micro apartments, co-housing, high-density, mid-ride apartment buildings and more that address all income levels. Sensitivity to local preferences can be handled through design sensitivity.
16
I can’t see this solving the problem. At most, it might provide housing for the young, mostly single tech workers who have flooded the Bay Area. But most will eventually age out of the units. I say that because I don’t think people change all that much, from generation to generation. That standard, storybook life progression from shared apartment to solo apartment to freestanding home is still holding true, it seems to me, even for millennials. Once you start having kids, that compact, urban living often loses its appeal. You want better schools, in the suburbs. But will mid-rise, compact living in the ‘burbs hold the same appeal? I don’t think so.
Moving out of the city and inner suburbs has become an economic necessity for most workers in the Bay Area. Home sales are booming in smaller communities an hour or more out from urban centers. We need more high-speed public transport to these outer regions, not more home density around the stations in closeer-in communities.
22
Those high density apartments and condos built or being built are rented or bought before they are finished. Demand is there, but the units are not. Prices are rising 10-20% per year. Good if you already own, but bad for anyone coming to the area, especially from outside California.
The curse in the Bay Area is hundreds of square miles of land already covered with low-density single-family-house suburbs - room to build other types of housing is running out except on the edges of the region - but there the land is still cheaper so they are putting in large tracts of low density single family houses thereby ensuring more decades of continued housing shortages.
The future for the populated areas is much higher density housing. it will happen, the only question is how long it takes to get there.
5
The Sierra Club is right. A bill like this will just lead NIMBYs to oppose mass transit.
The only solution that would actually work would be for the state to limit zoning to only specific categories - like residential mixed with commercial spaces under 5000 square feet, residential mixed with commercial over 5000 square feet, industrial, and historic districts on the NRHP. No other restrictions - height, number of units, minimum lot size, etc. - should be allowed. Within the parameters set by the state, you could build anything you wanted to.
2
When my family moved to the Bay Area in 2011 we decided to down size from three cars to one car. Some of this decision was to partially offset costs of living in the Bay Area, some environmental concern, some to get more exercise for me. My observation is that the ridership on the local buses are largely those that can’t drive or appear too poor to own a car. It takes me more time to get to any of my destinations than it would in a car even if I don’t have to change buses. I see apartment complex after apartment complex go up on the transit route but little change in the ridership on the city buses. Until the public buses have more middle class appeal I don’t think middle class ridership will improve.
63
you had three cars?
Just another way of funneling money to developers. A favorite source of funds for cash dry cities and counties.
21
You can build all the transit hubs, high density apartment buildings and social housing everywhere you want, but if there is no water, then there is no life.
Building more while not addressing this issue ( like having farmers grow water intensive crops in a desert ) is just ridiculous. Not addressing population explosion is another matter as well, but medical, scientific and overall breakthroughs are making us live longer with more births,
Not to mention that ice shelves ( which dwarf the size of these areas we are trying to convert ) are breaking off from the caps, and likewise plastic islands in the middle of the ocean.
Not in my backyard though ...
28
You can build all the transit hubs, high density apartment buildings and social housing everywhere you want, but if there is no water, then there is no life.
Building more while not addressing this issue ( like having farmers grow water intensive crops in a desert ) is just ridiculous. Not addressing population explosion is another matter as well, but medical, scientific and overall breakthroughs are making us live longer with more births,
Not to mention that ice shelves ( which dwarf the size of these areas we are trying to convert ) are breaking off from the caps, and likewise plastic islands in the middle of the ocean.
Not in my backyard though ...
4
High density housing is a complete violation to California's environment and residents. The mass development of track homes, condos and apartment buildings in the East Bay has already strangled the quality of life out of the suburbs while the greed of man wants to build higher on top of an already disastrous housing situation. If you think high density housing is the answer - move to New York.
16
ON the other hand those high density apartments and condos are rented or bought before they are finished. Demand is there, but the units are not. Prices are rising 10-20% per year. Good if you already own, but bad for anyone coming to the area, especially from outside California.
The curse in the Bay Area is hundreds of square miles of land already covered with low-density single-family-house suburbs - room to build other types of housing is running out except on the edges of the region - but there the land is still cheaper so they are putting in large tracts of low density single family houses thereby ensuring more decades of continued housing shortages.
The future for the populated areas is much higher density housing. it will happen, the only question is how long it takes to get there.
3
I live in the East Bay. Where is this development happening? My neighborhood and surrounding areas consists of post-war housing. There's not much development.
1
Surely you are joking. People drive on California because it’s the only safe way to get from point A to point B. Walking and biking are deadly and the only thing saving you is the armor of your car and it’s front and side airbags, just ask anyone. If you want people to use some other means of going somewhere you must completely restructure the last 80 years of development that has everything spread out. It takes 20 minutes to get to a grocery store! Good luck!
8
I used to live at a three story apartment building within walking distance of the Pleasant Hill (East SF Bay town) BART station. Last time I was in the area the station was surrounded by these types of complexes and taller office buildings and hotels.
I'm all for certain cities deciding to allow for this kind of development but I also support smaller, more scenic communities like Lafayette/Orinda's possible opposition. People can have a choice what kind of community they want to live in based on individual preference and whether they can afford it.
Letting the state override local control might seem nice when it happens to suit your wishes. Maybe not so much when the other party takes control.
19
I drive by the Pleasant Hill BART station and the apartments you mention daily. The rent on those apartments is high, and really only affordable to people who earn six figures and have no children.
6
Driving less is not so much the issue as the type of fuel being used. Public transit, although beneficial to some, should not be seen as a panacea towards a better life.
Having personal motorized transportation gives way more mobility freedom that public transit which just regiments one's life to bus/train schedules.
6
Denver City Council just approved this same thing this past month. The main difference between Denver and SF/Bay Area is the maturity of the Bay Area's transit system. Denver's intent is good, but in addition to a relatively new and sparse lightrail system, implementation of our code is led by a developer-driven zoning code and an affordable housing policy that allows high-rent, high-density development of poorer, minority neighborhoods without providing enough "affordable" stock for those being displaced (that aren't just studio or 1-bd units).
It comes down to whether or not there are any legal "teeth" in the plan to enforce including affordable units--without it, the end result will be like what's happening in Denver--lots of studio, 1- and 2-bd high rent units attracting out-of-staters while displacing families who have lived in these areas for generations.
Ironically, despite Denver's supposed concern for climate-friendly infill density, it still finds it necessary to spend billions on a 10-mile overhaul of I-70 that will add lanes, increase pollution, and displace 56 homes and 17 businesses across lower income, minority neighborhoods.
https://www.thenation.com/article/redlining-returns-to-denver-but-with-a...
3
Excellent idea. People are commuting longer and longer distances as housing costs in the bay area rise. This is unhealthy in every way. We need more apartment complexes near public transit and fewer big energy guzzling homes. The highways are clogged already. If we keep going in this direction it's going to be total gridlock.
1
In my present state of Utah TOD had come under fire with claims of land deals with those in politics, developers and the state transit agency - UTA.
Anti new urbanism and some distorted view that the UN is behind TOD has a following in my state.
Any program that deals with land use, zoning, building codes brings out NIMBY in most areas.
It makes sense but too many never want change.
That is because in UTA's case there have been several clear examples of insider deals and improper loans to insiders that were never paid back. The Wasatch Front, especially SL County need a more robust transit system and building higher density housing along transit corridors makes complete sense. That doesn't mean UTA isn't very corrupt. They are so corrupt then have been invested by the FED's (because the state wouldn't do anything) and were required to have have a outside overseer in order to avoid prosecution. Federal prosecutors cut a deal with the UTA to refrain from bringing charges against the agency in exchange for UTA's cooperation in a long-running criminal probe into former UTA board members and others concerning possible misuse of taxpayer funds and development around train stations.
1
Public transportation needs to be faster & more convenient than driving or people will choose to drive. I don't drive so I'm very in tune with public transportation & just how inconvenient it can be. A few years ago Trimet made changes to a bus route that for years had allowed people to get from the suburbs to downtown Portland in 45 minutes. They split the route & cut service so that the commute doubled because you had to wait nearly an hour for the bus that would take you the rest of the way home. As you can imagine people who had the choice to drive but were taking transit to avoid rush hour traffic & save on parking started driving. Only those of us without that option kept riding the bus & were stuck waiting.
Yes high density housing near mass transit will help. But we also need to speed up our transit & make it more convenient than driving. Why is it that only Europe & Asia have high speed trains. If California was smart it would lead the country by connecting smaller communities to major cities with high speed trains. This would allow people to live further from their jobs but still be able to get to work quickly.
We used trains to connect this country in the not so distant past. Portland used to have a trolley system. Cars & planes changed how we viewed mass transit & we stopped investing in it. If we're going to get serious about climate change, lessons from the past can work today. People will take trains & trolley's as long as they're convenient.
44
I live in an area of the SF Peninsula that used to be called "Deadwood City". In the past few years large apartment buildings sprung up along the track line of CAL TRAIN. I assumed because this was the last bit of unoccupied land.
The result has been a total transformation of the city. People on the streets at night. Dozens of new restaurants, and no parking space. When San Jose and the "South Bay" built a light rail system, they did the same thing. High density housing around tram stops.
It's a formula that works. It's one reason I love working in European cities. You can walk or take the underground everywhere. Using a car (and trying to park it) is a huge waste of time.
96
Even 18 years ago the first 4:30am BART into SF was crowded. The California housing equation includes added expenses due to earthquakes. Some cities zone "historic" as anything 25 years or older. And rent control, which we will be voting on. What's 'affordable' won't last long. Even "low income" gets skewed by skewed income distributions. And is the type of development planning being influenced by the expected property tax revenue?
6
The elephant in the room is scale. If the neighborhood is single family, then an eight story building is out of scale. Development with varied heights of three to five stories would fit better and probably be more desirable. In addition the bill should also encourage mixed use for restaurants, shops and offices. From the reading of the article it appears it using zoning not form based codes.
13
The bill and its supporters explicitly reject this argument. Detached single family housing is never an appropriate use for land served by dedicated transit like rail stations. Preservation of this low density pattern is wrong.
17
But single family homes are what so many people want. How can you legislate a change of people’s dreams?
Scale is critical! And 8-story buildings are not going to be a safe fit, unless at great cost, for many places. This area has unstable bay fill, landslides, earthquake faults everywhere, and wildfire zones. My understanding is that come earthquake disaster time, 8-story buildings require special firefighting/evacuation equipment most fire departments can't afford. In addition, there's nothing in the bill to assure open green space within easy reach of these new residences, or provide child-friendly facilities. If I thought this would welcome families, I'd support 3-5 stories. But if it's more condos with short-time residents, I see it as raising city funds through frequent transfer taxes. Berkeley already welcomes smaller condos for that reason.
What I find baffling is this idea that rampant building should take place with only transit access as criterion, when we have such inadequate public transit infrastructure, and jobs continue to be concentrated in SF, Peninsula and South Bay. Adding housing in "the suburbs" at this high density will exacerbate the misery on BART and the highways if people still have to reach those faraway jobs. Perhaps controls on how many jobs are concentrated in an area without adequate transit should be part of this discussion?
This bill is too simplistic, and reeks of developer-payoff.
8
So state and local government can't get public transportation right and yet the state wants to cram everyone close to that same public transportation.
How about this: put in reliable public transporation first, then high-rises next to the stations/hubs. Create demand for thos high-rises.
32
That's the chicken-and-the-egg problem, and housing is a particularly long-lived asset. California should have done this when BART construction started ~fifty years ago.
1
The problem is that even if there is demand, they can’t be built. The local zoning prohibits it. That’s why this new law is needed.
1
The Sierra Club position in this case is exactly why there is no high speed rail in the DC, NYC and Boston corridor, where it would in fact pay and get used. NIMBY and abuse of environmental laws coupled with having to deal with 100’s of jurisdictions make it unfeasible. There is nothing unique to California here, Transit oriented buildings in Fleetwood, Mount Vernon, NY took years to get approved – it’s a 25 minute train ride to Grand Central on the Harlem Line. Mount Vernon is a poor, corrupt, minority city and it held out years. Go a quarter mile into the Village of Bronxville and forget it; nothing is ever going to be built.
11
Sprawl is dead. You have to build ‘up’ esp near transit. The east coast has been always been doing this; rowhouses , multi-family units. It’s not a big deal, it’s not complicated and it works.
15
'Twas ever thus. Here in L.A. people complain endlessly about the wretched state of our roads. But a gasoline or other tax to provide funds to repair them? The same people get red in the face with indignation at the very idea!
29
No, we get indignant when the gas taxes that we do pay are stolen to pay for other things than fixing roads. It happens time and time again and we're sick of it!
5
I lived for many years in high rises over mass transit stations in Hong Kong. I never had a car because I certainly never needed one. Imagine how it feels to go anywhere you need without worrying about that huge gas-guzzling hunk of metal.
23
Low income people in San Francisco live in their cars, not in "existing housing". The best way to bring down prices is to increase the housing supply.
And since when has the sierra club been credible? They sold out a long time ago.
18
This is not surprising, since environmentalists oppose any form of growth, including the growth of the human population.
1
The human population sailed past the 7 billion point a few years ago. That growing number is now putting enormous pressure on fresh water sources, and on land and other limited natural resources. Opposing its continuing rise is just being smart.
4
Another scheme to take zoning decisions out of local hands. The problem is carbon emissions,the solution is nuclear power. Grandiose social engineering by leftist just make things worse.
8
Good story of a very appealing bill, despite the headline’s cliches and not necessarily on point assertion. While yes, more housing near transit could lessen driving, the main point of this bill is to respond meaningfully to the housing emergency facing so many Californians. This is not a bill intended to fix traffic jams, as might be inferred from the headline.
So many of these recent "goals" about climate change and housing mandates passed by California legislators are & were "aspirational" and when passed, the prevailing opinion was that they were fine as a goal but were not realistically achievable.
Now, people like Sen Wiener are trying to use the decent intentions of the state to force-feed permanent changes to the entire state. In reality, legislation such as the proposed SB827 & 828 are more appropriately niche specialized bills that perhaps should apply to SF, but not as a state bill. It's obvious over reach, by a new, starry eyed man attempting to be a legislator. The bill was cooked up in private, by a clique group of yimbys and did not reach a result through the legislative process.
Wiener is scrambling, trying to throw amendments at it to correct the hasty, one-sided bill. This might be a lesson learned for Wiener. reach consensus prior to getting out your crayons...
Further than that, California, with its progressive posturing, would benefit more from real efforts, and less from the grandstanding bills and executive orders, attempting to redefine lifestyles and society. Aspirational goals are just that, and by definition, not realistic.
13
The Sierra Club’s opposition is a sad reflection of how far the group has fallen—from protecting the environment, to protecting the property values of its wealthy, white, coastal donor base.
7
Sounds like they’re getting better at protecting their members. Bravo!
1
Articles like these reaffirm why I have little faith in our ability to counteract climate change. My cohort of highly-educated liberal friends firmly believe in climate change but they think doing so and being angry at Trump is enough. Meanwhile they jet off to far-flung destinations for vacations, live in large homes, eat red meat by the kilogram and produce children according to their personal desires.
They are exactly the people that would fight the building of a modest high-rise because it marred their view or changed "the feel" of their little enclave. As to the megatons of extra carbon their objection will directly produce? "Not my problem."
We are so, so selfish and yet we will all cry "why us?" when the coming catastrophes gather in frequency and size.
67
Agreed. The worst things one can do to the environment: have children, fly on airplanes, eat animal products. Yet these are the three that no one talks about.
1
If SB827 dovetailed with AB3037 then maybe we finally have a chance at making the Bay Area more affordable for the regular people that don’t make cat memes at work
The Bay area will never be "more" affordable. It will never cost less to live there than it does now, no matter the social engineering used to try and make it so.
13
The most effective solution is zero population growth. Even with smart, transit oriented development (and sometimes it is not that well done) each new mouth to feed means we lose some rainforest to agricultural production somewhere else and otherwise grow our ecological footprint.
Paul Erlich wrote about this decades ago, and it is only more true today. As long as we thinking there are workable solutions to continued population growth, we are drifting further away from livable communities.
37
And perhaps limiting growth by not allowing millions of illegal aliens to stay.
9
Looking at BART Station Profiles (Use) and Home Origins, stations in high density locations have the greatest number of passengers who have walked/bicycled, used other public transit, or were dropped off. That is - stations without parking.
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/StationProfile2015_HomeOri...
Maybe build those high density apartments/condos around these stations, AND at stations with parking sprawl, replace much of that with high density housing.
I don't see the crux as a housing shortage/cost crisis. We need to make car ownership, maintenance, fuel and insurance costs, along with driving privileges and licensing, much less common (affordable).
For auto diehards? Regional ride-sharing services and autonomous vehicles that are more regulated and controlled when used.
For those truly addicted? Sprawling car rental lots located a shuttle bus ride from the terminal ends of mass transit lines. The only direction these vehicles can be driven is "away."
2
Building more high density housing near major transit routes makes good sense, as long as there is capacity on the routes to be used, or at least they can be upgraded. Also new buildings should be required to meed earthquake resistance standards aimed at limiting damage to what can be repaired, not the weak current standard of just staying up long enough for people to escape, but leaving a ruined building that is unsafe to enter and must be demolished. That is bad planning.
3
Has the senator created a map with 1/4 and 1/2 mile radius circles around each bus stop and train station? In San Francisco that would be a map in which every home in the city could be razed and replaced with an apartment complex, without public input. This land use plan would destroy the character of a city and would create a great incentive for residents to flee urban areas.
Silencing the public never leads to a more desirable community and certainly will not lead to a reduced carbon footprint.
55
The San Francisco Planning Department did this and found that 96% of lots zoned for single-family (not necessarily detached) houses and duplexes would be superseded by the bill’s shift to four-to-eight story apartments.
2
I think that this response is incorrect. Not all bus lines are express lines, and restrictions related to historical preservation are but two of the limiting factor mentioned in the article. Moreover, if *everyone* were to leave the city, SF would presumably have solved their housing crisis to boot. In reality, I suspect that demand would rise to fill this new capacity. Finally, tenant protections and low-income housing provisions could cover existing residents. It seems that SF residents are not immune to "conservative" thought when their personal comfort and familiarity are on the line.
Dense and affordable housing near mass transit hubs is indeed sorely needed. However residential and commercial developers must begin weaving in more substantial open space to improve quality of life in and around these areas. We can't live in endless cement and new buildings. Cities and developers, please incorporate more sky, sunlight, dirt, trees, and birds into the mix. This would go a long way in getting community buy-in, and feels critical to maintaining our sanity.
31
In spite of all their talk about progressive policies on climate, homelessness, and income inequality, many Bay area residents are incredibly reactionary whenever those policies might demand anything of them personally. The Sierra Club's statement is a perfect illustration.
Being offered a job in suburban Silicon Valley was an eye opener for me: I have no interest in a house or a driving commute - I'd like to live in a comfortable apartment walking distance from work and a downtown where I can eat, drink, meet up with friends, and the like. Turns out, that lifestyle can't be had at any price throughout most of the south Bay.
Instead, the area clings to the 1960s vision of the future, where people live in a quiet suburb, commute to work on a freeway in a personal car, and cities are dirty, unpleasant places where poor people live. Not because that vision is objectively better, but simply because those who bought property here 30 years ago prefer it that way, and aren't interested in changing their own lifestyle one iota to accommodate others.
188
Reducing emissions is only part of the goal for SB827 and not the main one. The main purpose, the one that Weiner has been talking about most, is to increase the amount of housing and to try to bring down housing costs. Two things that we desperately need in California. Cities always want state money for more transit infrastructure to serve existing residents but they never want to improve housing to make that transit beneficial for everyone. It is very reasonable for the state to demand that projects built with state money serve the wider community.
24
I live in the Bay Area and I can attest to how horrible traffic has gotten in the past 10 years since the rise of big tech. ALL of these companies are located in low density super expensive Sourh Bay. It is all only going to get worse and the state must plan accordingly. The only solution is high density development . America needs to follow the rest of the world and give up their comforts like having their own vast suburban yards that no one ever uses. it is simply eye candy. Mountain View for example should not be suburban given the number of jobs in the area. Plus high density makes an area more vibrant and interesting . The young workforce that Silicon Valley craves wants to live in a vibrant area like San Francisco not a snooze fest like suburban Palo Alto or Mountain View. Go where the demand is. Sierra Club you are on the wrong side of history on this one .
144
I think we need more clarity on the actual purpose of the bill.
If it is to increase the supply of housing - yes.
If it is to create more affordable housing, perhaps not. Housing prices are not simply a function of supply and demand but rather of what people can afford to pay. So long as - as the Association of Bay Area Governments projects - current and new jobs in the Bay area pay a lot, there will be people who can afford higher rents and home prices. The increased density will come from new construction which will not be affordable unless mandates around affordability of units or subsidies are included.
If it is to decrease the use of cars we would do better thinking less about how to get from home to transit stops (including parking, since BART lots fill up before 7 AM) and more about how to work transit accessible. Its fine to take transit to work but if you can't get there after the last stop because the work is in the less dense and and less transit friendly suburbs, well you are going to drive.
And most jobs are not in center cities.
26
Carol - when you add more housing, to the extent it keeps up pace with employment and population growth, housing does become more affordable. The Bay Area is not building enough and it is causing major affordability issues. Housing is a function of supply and demand.
1
yes and no. If everyone had poverty wages then it wouldn't matter how short supply was - costs would go up some because people would illegally double up but not in the same way they have.
Housing inflation is partially the shortage of supply (which certainly explains gentrification) but that in combination with the very high wages which permit individuals to bid up prices and landlords to charge very high rents.
Increased supply would somewhat mitigate this, but wouldn't I would guess affect the lack of affordable housing. Since it would be new construction prices could only go down so much, given construction costs and the cost of land. To increase the supply of affordable housing we would need to subsidize it. Increased density might also raise the cost of surrounding homes as individuals basically sell the land high prices so that developers can build multi-story units.
Finally there is some admittedly old research that shows that vacancies need to rise dramatically before landlords lower rents since they realize that others in the building will ask for their rents to be lowered as well.
The ABAG report forecasts a dramatic rise in the number of high wage households and low wage (less then 30,000 households) Without other legislation, I do not see increased density doing much if anything to help the low wage workers.
The changes needed to combat climate change are hard. Liberals (and liberal states like California) need to critique their own blindspots. Portland's not perfect by any means (our VMTs are not going down fast enough either), but we have begun changing land use laws to increase density, against the same resistance the article describes in the East Bay. The reason to do this is to preserve options for our kids. Once they’re in control, these changes, like with gun control, will likely happen. But we can’t afford to wait a decade or more if we’re going to make a dent in the rate of growth of CO2.
13
Or: we could embrace electric vehicles and build more carbon-free nuclear power plants instead of shutting them down. Problem solved.
7
We *could* but we’re not. The adoption rates of EVs are still too slow to hit California’s carbon goals, and the non-EV car purchases in North America are for larger and heavier vehicles. Politically, nukes are a non-starter in the U.S. The results of land use changes like those discussed in the article can last for a century or more. The Sierra Club may wish that everyone would embrace the common good, but that’s not the world we live in.
Arizona Refugee, our premise seems to be change is impossible, that we’re doomed to occupy “the world we live in”. I beg to differ.
Because building nuclear power plants along the earthquake fault lines is so genius.
4
, High density housing is undoubtedly necessary to prevent sprawl. Of course the legislation should include a clause that the buildings must accept Section 8, provide 50%, at least, affordable and low/no income housing, with an emphasis on outreach to the homeless population.
17
Why? The homeless population in the Bay Area has no need to commute. They need different services entirely, but don’t require access to downtown areas. What they need is access to mental health services and drug treatment. If this housing is targeted at “low income” people without work requirements, it will face even more opposition than it does currently.
21
A laudable goal. But in the world we live in--if 50% of the building is a homeless shelter, wealthy people or even middle class won't want to live there.
@Ariel: Maybe some of the homeless will find jobs that require a commute, do you think?
1
Has Bart's carrying capacity been taken into account? Commuting by public transit during rush hour, we are already jam packed in there. Will there be more frequent trains to match the expected ridership increase?
128
I think they are getting new trains and upgrading the signal gear with the money from that new bond they passed last year.
6
As someone who stays active in Bay Area transportation policy, the answer is Yes. BART's New Train Car Project is adding 60% more seats to capacity in the next 6 years. Our ferry systems are adding a ton of new boats and several terminals. Caltrain electrification will allow for double the trains, and the brand new SMART in the North Bay is already adding cars to keep up with demand.
Not overnight, but it's a good amount.
2
Many people don't take BART because the trains don't run on time and it is not reliable. I had a friend who was trying to meet me in Marin, who was in the East Bay. He had to take the train into the city, to take a ferry to Marin from the city. Over two hours, and then do the roundtrip back the other way to get home. When an Uber was a simple 25 minute drive. What would you do? We tried every imaginable way to use public transit. In the end, the Uber was the way to go. Its not like people don't want to try. The infrastructure isn't there.
6
I think one valid objection that cities might take to the state mandate would concern infrastructure, specifically: who is going to pay to install larger water mains and sewers needed to support a more dense population. In a place subject to devastating earthquakes, you don't want high density population where you can't take care of them after an earthquake.
30
California is RICH, especially the Bay Area. They can afford the necessary upgrades, and the buildings would of course need to meet strict earthquake resistance requirements.
3
A question for Tony: Is the public sector rich?
Another question: Earthquake requirements raise costs. Who is going to pay those costs?
I'm ignorant and would like to know.
4
Yes, the California's budget is in excellent health - a minor tax on the state's many billionaires would easily pay for the building requirements (which I think are already costed in for most of the Bay Area)
“Land use is so fundamental to everything”
We have to fit several billion more people somewhere on this planet over the next few decades. California's population is estimated to grow by between 10 and 20 million over the next 30 years. Our species must cram together in cities made up of huge apartment blocks, as in China, to avoid converting productive farmland to housing at a time when more and more food is necessary to feed our exploding population.
We as a species must choose between quantity of individuals with the sort of controls and restrictions necessary for the survival of an enormous population, or the freedoms and quality of life we enjoyed with the lighter footprint of a smaller population.
The "greenest" choice is to have one child, or none.
134
I agree with you. I have decided to never have a child. More adoption is necessary. I was adopted myself.
9
Good luck teaching that to the mostly Catholic population moving into the state. Who are having as many children as possible that they can't afford.
6
The Poet McTeagle - Interesting you mention the "greenest" choice - having one child, or none. Apparently, the Sierra Club decided to stay far away from advocating such a position, just as it backed away from reduce, re-use, recycle. Guess these views weren't appealing to its corporate donors, for whom consumer shopping is so important, or, in the case of limiting population growth , just too controversial to touch.
3
The Sierra Club is wrong on this one. I suspect that their rank and file membership are NIMBYs.
"...bill would pre-empt local zoning rules and allow developers to build apartment buildings up to 85 feet tall within a half-mile of train stations and a quarter-mile of high-frequency bus stops." and "The law applies only to parcels already zoned for residential use, and city rules like historic-building protections and affordable-housing requirements would still apply. But localities would be prevented from restricting such areas to single-family homes." That seems pretty reasonable to me. The locals still have a say, but they can't block a new appartment complex simply because they don't want one. There is a housing crises in California. It's time for the Sierra Club to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
146
Ansel Adams, who once held a position on Sierra Club’s Board of Directors, famously recognized that “Nuclear energy is the only practical alternative we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal.”
Yes, Sierra Club was once part of the solution.
4
The Sierra Club refuses to admit that the primary problem to all this climate change and destruction of the Earth is overpopulation. The Sierra Club supports liberal ideology, not the facts.
1
Add more people to the state and it will go from a housing crisis to a water crisis.
2
Interesting to see this framed as a climate change initiative. I’ve been following these developments in the Bay Area and have seen it as more of an innovative way to address our dire housing issue. We are in critical need of housing period all over the Bay Area - yet many communities here don’t see themselves as a tightly interconnected unit where new housing is needed all up and down the Bay in order to resolve the problem. Change is uncomfortable but over time it’s better to come up with innovative solutions than to do more of the same nothing and let things get worse.
48
Exactly right. On visits to the Inland Empire in SoCal I'm always amazed at how high rents are, even though it's a low-income (and high-crime) area with few jobs nearby aside from warehouses. The commuter trains to L.A. and O.C. are full, but hardly any new housing is being built near transit. I'm sure most residents don't doubt climate change, but that's a somewhat abstract issue (and disputed by the usual right-wing cranks), while everyone knows first-hand that housing costs are sky high. Presented strictly as a housing issue, this proposal would get more traction.
7
The Sieera Club’s objection confounds me.
High rise housing near mass transit provides the most convenient living situation. Californians might come visit Jersey City/Hoboken for an excellent example of lovely high-density living with excellent transportation options (train, bus and ferry) plus pedestrian-friendly shopping.
101
Right, use Metro New York as an example of having “excellent” public transport system. NYC subway system is collapsing, a PATH train crash’s into a station platform killing passengers, Metro North operator falls asleep as train goes off the rails killing passengers, a snow storm immobilize’s the New Heaven Line, LIRR in consistent crisis. All Metro systems are operating with mid 20th century equipment. Diesel is fuel of choice. On a recent trip to Germany I saw a 21st century public transport system that connects all parts of a a city and it’s various suburbs without having massive Soviet style high rises-Hoboken. US, California, politicians need to go to Germany and see what a 21st Century transport system looks like.
Density housing will not do a damn thing if a public transport system dose have advanced capacities.Dense housing becomes then another bad experiment which has social and political consequences leading to further class divisions in America.
4
Taher, Right on point about the German rail system, and all of Europe in general. In Larkspur, CA in Marin, hundreds of single family homes were built into an area near the town center recently. A small quaint town near the US 101 in Marin County. It is now a complete traffic gridlock. No public transportation, other than the highway, the Ferry System if you are working downtown, and they are expanding the Ferries to include Alameda and Oakland, I believe, in the East Bay. Very few take the bus, and traffic continues to be a nightmare. Marin is one of the most highly protected counties in the country, and there is no place to build. Allowing high rises, would destroy the beauty that makes it the most desirable place in the country to live, with wildlife and environmental protections, and access to protection open space and beautiful trails on the lakes and mountain. It is a conundrum, and yes, environmental groups usually in cahoots, find themselves disagreeing about development, especially when trains end up destroying marshes and natural habitat that cannot ever be replaced. Europe began their rail systems a long time ago. California was built for the automobile. The infrastructure just isn't there.
3
"Land use is fundamental". Yup. 1/3 of renters are paying over 1/2 their income in rent. California is notorious for housing costs and commuter times. Yet the age-old American instinct to "preserve communities" and prevent "gentrification" endure. Where, in all that concern for preservation, is concern for those renters, never mind the environment?
71
See: "Some of Mr. Wiener’s most vocal opposition has come from anti-gentrification and tenants’ rights groups that see his plan as a socioeconomic makeover backed by the real estate industry."
As this issue is playing out in Washington, D.C., new developments at Metro stops provide for a handful of moderately priced options and thereafter cater to higher and higher income renters. There are real issues all around and some balance of concerns is required.
4
Force companies to let employees telecommute more. This enforced collaboration insanity is a key part of the problem.
40
This works (somewhat) for certain jobs - mostly high paying, white collar jobs - but a firefighter can't telecommute to a burning building.
3
More telecommuting could also be a lot cheaper than more buses.
2
Control of zoning and other landuse decisions should be the prerogative of local jurisdictions, but many times those jurisdictions abuse their power (or a privileged class citizens force that jurisdiction's hand) to "maintain the character of the community" which often entails regulations aimed at preventing more affordable housing and excluding low-income or communities of color. Displacing existing low-income communities should be averted, but if cities fail to allow for adequate housing development the state has every right to usurp that authority. Cities are creatures of the state, and their zoning authority is enabled by the state. By misusing their laws, restrictive cities open themselves up to loss of local control.
80
A 60% market / 40% affordable ( rent stabilized ) or even a 50/50 would be the correct mixture along with well define Green Building development zoning rules.
Local Governments have an opportunity before them that could redefine development in a more positive manner.
Unfortunately, many city & state elected officials do not want to bite the hands that feed them. Such as, NYC Developers effectively changed the 80/20 from a 20 yr to a 30 yr RE TAX abatement with little to no Green Building zoning rules.
5
It's not "misusing" laws, it's a difference of opinion and a value system that may differ from that of new urbanism.
In essence, it is a usurpation of local control, and in a place like California, once that starts it snowballs. Sacramento is ripe with dysfunction, and to think they will solve this issue is misinformed and counter-intuitive.
The legislators passed a huge number of housing bills last session, and their effect has yet to be integrated. But hey, let's jerk our knees repeatedly and throw down more statewide mandates?
Years back with SB375, those sharp minds in Sacramento decided to let unelected regional agencies make the decision to put 95% of all new housing in 5% of available land. Problematic? Yes, and the problem is of their own making.
3