> > This bill is saying that cities can’t take state money to build transit and then sabotage it with sparse housing and cars. > And, that's a fine general idea

> > This bill is saying that cities can’t take state money to build transit and then sabotage it with sparse housing and cars. > And, that's a fine general idea; the specific implementation is a bit different than that. How is this bill different from that? > So does an overbalance of residential property without adequate alternative transportation compared to the employment, retail, etc., services accessible by transit. What you are afraid of seem to describe exactly our current situation, where large office parks or shopping centers are build with little integration with housing. To the contrary of what you are saying this regulation would make it harder for cities to approve offices that can not be connected to new transit near housing due to zoning. I doubt that most people given the choice would choose to drive in traffic instead of taking transit to work if the housing situation allowed them to do so. > Yeah, look, I think on balance this is likely to be a net benefit, if something of a blunt instrument, in the Bay Area and L.A. Basin, but it's not limited to those places, and it's triggering transit conditions have no consideration of the connected services and only limited consideration of capacity. If there is no demand developers will not build, so I do not see how this can become a large problem.