16 ms·

California is currently attempting to pass a bill doing almost exactly this - SB 827: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/03/03/sb-827/ https://www.eastbaytimes.c

California is currently attempting to pass a bill doing almost exactly this - SB 827: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/03/03/sb-827/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/03/03/sb-827/ A lot of people are up in arms because if you include Muni bus/rail as "transit hubs," supposedly 96% of San Francisco is vulnerable to significant and sudden height increases (from 4 to 8 stories). That would, indeed, be a pretty drastic change to the landscape, but more housing is desperately needed, so it seems the pros (better for climate, better for lower income residents, etc.) outweigh the aesthetic cons here.

Tempest1981 9y ago
Even pro-growth Mountain View doesn't like Wiener's SB 827 because it cripples their power to negotiate with developers -- to get money for transit, schools, parks, utility upgrades, etc. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/03/25/housing-bill-draws-pushback-from-local-leaders https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/03/25/housing-bill-draws-...
- jphelan 9y ago
  The whole point is that city councils today have complete discretion over the allocation of building permits. Of course city councils won't like a rule that limits their power. Software developers are rarely happy when security people make it harder to ssh into prod machines, but sometimes it's better for some powers to be restricted and more carefully applied. Also I'm just curious, how many of the mtv city council are renters and how many are home owners? Edit: typo
- closeparen 9y ago
  God forbid we fund services out of general property taxes rather than specifically taxing new buildings.
jphelan 9y ago
IMHO the aesthetic cons will seem petty when you're waiting an hour for an ambulance because the EMTs are late to work because of their four hour commute. We have no housing oversite on these councils and even in Sunnyvale where we're talking about voluntarily adding 7k housing units on El Camino, the council's primary concern is the impact on home owners' views. I sat in the council planning meeting and it was all about how to make the buildings tolerable to the council - who are home owners. To my knowledge I was the only renter there. They want to add 400 units along a mostly empty 1 mile stretch (mostly car dealerships), to keep the appearance minimal. But, that means that mile can't support walkable restaurants and those 400 people will be getting in their car on crowded El Camino to do anything. If they would just build dense enough to support walkability and to have enough riders for transit efficiency to improve! Their compromises pick the worst of both worlds. And then in Cupertino, the mayor points at Palo Alto and says "why should we build if they aren't?" Darcy Paul literally said this to me at a vallco meeting. From what I see, I think the city councils say one thing about sb 827 but really they'd love to have the responsibility be taken out of their hands. They just aren't capable of solving their prisoners dilemma. Edit: paragraph break

Tempest1981 9y ago

Even pro-growth Mountain View doesn't like Wiener's SB 827 because it cripples their power to negotiate with developers -- to get money for transit, schools, parks, utility upgrades, etc. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/03/25/housing-bill-draws-pushback-from-local-leaders https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/03/25/housing-bill-draws-...

jphelan 9y ago
The whole point is that city councils today have complete discretion over the allocation of building permits. Of course city councils won't like a rule that limits their power. Software developers are rarely happy when security people make it harder to ssh into prod machines, but sometimes it's better for some powers to be restricted and more carefully applied. Also I'm just curious, how many of the mtv city council are renters and how many are home owners? Edit: typo
closeparen 9y ago
God forbid we fund services out of general property taxes rather than specifically taxing new buildings.

jphelan 9y ago

IMHO the aesthetic cons will seem petty when you're waiting an hour for an ambulance because the EMTs are late to work because of their four hour commute. We have no housing oversite on these councils and even in Sunnyvale where we're talking about voluntarily adding 7k housing units on El Camino, the council's primary concern is the impact on home owners' views. I sat in the council planning meeting and it was all about how to make the buildings tolerable to the council - who are home owners. To my knowledge I was the only renter there. They want to add 400 units along a mostly empty 1 mile stretch (mostly car dealerships), to keep the appearance minimal. But, that means that mile can't support walkable restaurants and those 400 people will be getting in their car on crowded El Camino to do anything. If they would just build dense enough to support walkability and to have enough riders for transit efficiency to improve! Their compromises pick the worst of both worlds. And then in Cupertino, the mayor points at Palo Alto and says "why should we build if they aren't?" Darcy Paul literally said this to me at a vallco meeting. From what I see, I think the city councils say one thing about sb 827 but really they'd love to have the responsibility be taken out of their hands. They just aren't capable of solving their prisoners dilemma. Edit: paragraph break