3 ms·
I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities or even boroughs: San
by opportune 7y ago
I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities or even boroughs:
San Rafael-Sausalito
SF + Daly City + Colma + Brisbane + South SF
San Bruno - RWC
Palo Alto - SV
San Jose + Santa Clara and assorted surrounded munis like los gatos. Honestly you could probably include the Palo Alto-SV area with this one if you wanted.
No idea how to split up the east bay, guessing you will run into issues with nobody wanting to absorb the poor munis.
Anyway, the benefits of this is that it would be easier to align incentives at a regional level rather than creating adversarial, counter productive squabbling fiefs that keep acting optimally at a local level, but very sub-optimally at a regional level. The regions are also big enough that a much larger portion of people would actually live and work in the same area
- Redoubts 7y ago> I don't know if that level of consolidation is necessary but the core area could definitely be consolidated into like 6-8 municipalities There are 9 Bay Area counties, so we agree?
- opportune 7y agoNote I said core area, I didn't mean to include most of the east bay. The areas I was thinking were only in 5 (SF, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda) of the 9 counties
- eitally 7y agoPut Menlo, Mountain View & Atherton with Palo Alto and keep it separate as the "mid-peninsula" entity. Move Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Campbell into the San Jose / Santa Clara group as the "south bay" entity. Then you have your RWC through San Bruno entity for "north peninsula", and everything from South City through SF get lumped into the "SF" entity. That keeps it relatively simple and puts similar NIMBY categories into like groups (I'm mostly looking at the PA / Menlo / Atherton / Los Altos folks here).