5 ms·
Lots of towns have already done this. Berkeley did it years ago. It doesn't matter at all. The fact that Berkeley bans certain land uses means that the town nex
by cjtrowbridge 5y ago
Lots of towns have already done this. Berkeley did it years ago. It doesn't matter at all. The fact that Berkeley bans certain land uses means that the town next door, Emeryville, falls prey to fiscalization and simply makes their whole urban strategy be making money off of encouraging all the things Berkeley bans. The effect is that there are probably more gas stations than Emeryville than there would otherwise be in both Emeryville and Berkeley. The same goes for big box stores which Berkeley also banned. Emeryville is just a long endless chain of box stores and gas stations right next to Berkeley.
- bombcar 5y agoOjai bans "fast food" though the definition of that is a bit slippery - and so there are fast food places just outside city limits.
- plussed_reader 5y agoCupertino, CA is like this too.
- ericbarrett 5y agoSanta Cruz, CA—no new "big box" national retail chains allowed since the early 2000s (or maybe even 90s, I forgot). So they're all in Capitola, 5 miles away, creating incredible traffic on Highway 1.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jeffbee 5y agoYou must be joking. Berkeley loves its gas stations. There is nothing more Berkeley than a Volvo 240 getting 5MPG and spewing smoke all over town. When someone tried to develop apartments at 3000 Shattuck on the site of "Smog and Gas" -- a quite ironic name indeed -- the city's grey NIBMYs went to war, writing the zoning board that "Berkeley Smog & Gas better serves the needs of the working class of my neighborhood than the proposed speculation housing." The ZAB agreed, disapproving the project! It is on-the-record that the people of Berkeley prefer gas stations over housing. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with Emeryville. They have three gas stations, all on Powell St. Berkeley has at least 20.
- gnramires 5y ago> It doesn't matter at all That's not true: it will cause an inconvenience to Berkeley residents using gas-powered vehicles. It's not definitive, but it has an effect on stimulating energy transition.
- whatshisface 5y agoI'm sure the gas stations in Emeryville are very happy that the residents of Berkeley have to burn all that extra gas to drive to the big box stores outside of town.
- emodendroket 5y agoNow imagine more cities starting passing these laws. Gee, before you know it, it's less trouble to have an electric car.
- whatshisface 5y agoI think it would be more effective to have cities pass laws that say what follows: "We will ban gas stations when more than m out of n nearby cities have either banned gas stations or passed this law."
- emodendroket 5y agoI could see that being more effective or less, but either way I don't think it's totally pointless.
- whatshisface 5y agoI can understand your point about marginal inconvenience having a marginal benefit, but I think that car use may be so inflexible (I know that I literally need my car and would be willing to put up with any conceivable inconvenience law because I have to) that inconvenience laws, especially ones with direct gas-burning effects on anyone who keeps their car, can easily be net negative even for small increases in fuel consumption.
- agumonkey 5y agoIs this pattern named ?
- HonestOp001 5y agoVirtue signaling to unseen consequences. (VSUD)