3 ms·

You'll understand why this is once you watch this 36 second video clip of a guy shouting he will devote his life to stopping 900 homes from being built where an

You'll understand why this is once you watch this 36 second video clip of a guy shouting he will devote his life to stopping 900 homes from being built where an abandoned K-Mart and Circuit City now lay - and how he will succeed just like he's done in the past. https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/971633159669338113 https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/971633159669338113

pfarnsworth 9y ago
You can’t just add homes and not worry about traffic. That only exacerbates commute issues which is one of the reasons why houses so far away from business centers get so expensive, because houses even further have exponentially worse commutes. Public transportation needs to be fixed first so that people from east bay and beyond can get to the Silicon Valley and SF faster. If I could live in Tracy and get to SF in 30 mins or even 45 mins, I would move there in a heartbeat. But it takes 1.5-2hrs even with BART. That will do more to lower house prices than cramming a small number of houses or condos in an already crowded area.
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  Paving over San Joaquin County with detached single family homes on quarter-acre lots will never fix our housing problems and certainly runs against our climate change goals. We have to build walkable neighborhoods a sensible distance from job centers, along existing transit corridors.
  - pfarnsworth 9y ago
    lol With all these disparate opinions, the problem will never be solved. People are going to have to agree on a sub-optimal but better plan otherwise the status quo will continue to win. Keep in mind that the NIMBY powers that be are a lot stronger, and as the house prices go up, every new home owner becomes more and more disinclined to support new housing in the SF Bay Area. The ONLY chance for lower house prices is better, more efficient public transportation and moving people further away from their jobs.
- CabSauce 9y ago
  One of the more interesting theories I've seen about traffic is that people respond to traffic the same as any other cost. Meaning that if it takes longer to get to the city due to more homes in the area, fewer people will be willing to make the drive. So the theory is that infrastructure use will always expand to meet capacity. I'm not saying I buy this idea to the extreme, but I think it's a pretty accurate model for how I make my travel decisions.
- DrScump 9y ago
  If I could live in Tracy and get to SF in 30 mins Heh. I had a couple of co-workers in Sunnyvale who moved that way (to Ripon and Manteca) to settle their families in single family homes. They formed a vanpool. Result: each had to drive only one way, and they made enough from the vanpool to more than pay for all their commute costs. This was in 1985.
timr 9y ago
This is not informative. Pick any planning meeting, at random, from anywhere in the United States, and you will find someone like this. Cranks are everywhere, and practically the entire purpose of public meetings are so that the cranks have a place to go rant and "be heard" by local officials. The real question is: does anyone listen to them, and if so, why? There's usually a good reason that isn't being discussed. Silicon valley bedroom communities should be building more housing, but this kind of stuff is just straw-man argumentation.

pfarnsworth 9y ago

You can’t just add homes and not worry about traffic. That only exacerbates commute issues which is one of the reasons why houses so far away from business centers get so expensive, because houses even further have exponentially worse commutes. Public transportation needs to be fixed first so that people from east bay and beyond can get to the Silicon Valley and SF faster. If I could live in Tracy and get to SF in 30 mins or even 45 mins, I would move there in a heartbeat. But it takes 1.5-2hrs even with BART. That will do more to lower house prices than cramming a small number of houses or condos in an already crowded area.

ebikelaw 9y ago
Paving over San Joaquin County with detached single family homes on quarter-acre lots will never fix our housing problems and certainly runs against our climate change goals. We have to build walkable neighborhoods a sensible distance from job centers, along existing transit corridors.
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  lol With all these disparate opinions, the problem will never be solved. People are going to have to agree on a sub-optimal but better plan otherwise the status quo will continue to win. Keep in mind that the NIMBY powers that be are a lot stronger, and as the house prices go up, every new home owner becomes more and more disinclined to support new housing in the SF Bay Area. The ONLY chance for lower house prices is better, more efficient public transportation and moving people further away from their jobs.
CabSauce 9y ago
One of the more interesting theories I've seen about traffic is that people respond to traffic the same as any other cost. Meaning that if it takes longer to get to the city due to more homes in the area, fewer people will be willing to make the drive. So the theory is that infrastructure use will always expand to meet capacity. I'm not saying I buy this idea to the extreme, but I think it's a pretty accurate model for how I make my travel decisions.
DrScump 9y ago
If I could live in Tracy and get to SF in 30 mins Heh. I had a couple of co-workers in Sunnyvale who moved that way (to Ripon and Manteca) to settle their families in single family homes. They formed a vanpool. Result: each had to drive only one way, and they made enough from the vanpool to more than pay for all their commute costs. This was in 1985.

timr 9y ago

This is not informative. Pick any planning meeting, at random, from anywhere in the United States, and you will find someone like this. Cranks are everywhere, and practically the entire purpose of public meetings are so that the cranks have a place to go rant and "be heard" by local officials. The real question is: does anyone listen to them, and if so, why? There's usually a good reason that isn't being discussed. Silicon valley bedroom communities should be building more housing, but this kind of stuff is just straw-man argumentation.