4 ms·
As much good stuff as the bill had in it, I think I'm glad it failed. The idea of upzoning near transit is a good one, but tying it directly to transit growth
by notatoad 9y ago
As much good stuff as the bill had in it, I think I'm glad it failed. The idea of upzoning near transit is a good one, but tying it directly to transit growth is counterproductive. There was already talk of neighborhoods in LA lobbying to reduce bus service on their streets so they wouldn't qualify as a "high quality" bus line and be subject to the new zoning.
There needs to be a way to build transit-friendly neighborhoods without turning people against transit.
- redditmigrant 9y ago"There needs to be a way". Like what? Given the dire housing situation in California, making perfect the enemy of good will end up badly in the long run.
- notatoad 9y agosetting up public transit as a villian isn't a "making perfect the enemy of good" situation. the bill as written wasn't good. it was actively bad. Pitting residents against public transit is counterproductive. my first thought is that instead of tying the upzoning to transit lines or transit stations, it should be tied to transportation corridors. if a route carries a certain amount of people, whether by car or bus or train or jetpack, nearby buildings should be ineligible for certain height restrictions and parking minimums.
- redditmigrant 9y agoWhy wouldn't the residents then become even more anti housing because more people will lead to corridoring? This is how all these anti housing debates go, a well intentioned person with just a no and no thought on any actual solutions.
- pwinnski 9y agoI believe the bill, anticipating such lobbying, target bus stops as of now, already. Reducing bus service wouldn't take a location off the list, and adding new stops wouldn't add a location to the list.