29 ms·
Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
- jonahhorowitz 5y agoLooks like the California legislature can move fast when it wants to. Now fix the rest of CEQA.
- shitlord 5y agoCEQA is just one symptom of the problem. Entrenched interests will use anything at their disposal to prevent development: zoning regulations, building codes, concerns about racial/socioeconomic equity, legal stalling tactics, etc.
- davidw 5y agoI wrote this one up about a small development here in Bend, Oregon: https://bendyimby.com/2022/01/08/hacking-land-use-laws-for-economic-segregation/ https://bendyimby.com/2022/01/08/hacking-land-use-laws-for-e... They will literally grasp at anything that lets them stop homes from being built.
- pgodzin 5y agoWe should take away all of the legal pathways they can weaponize to prevent development.
- vorpalhex 5y ago> Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) noted that environmental standards are not being changed. “We are changing what they apply to,” he said. Either the environmental review standards are good and needed.. or they are not. This is post-hoc ruling and I am curious how the court will react. The only thing the opposition needs to do here is run a few pressers with homeless students.
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoThe environmental review process is broken [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley-enrollment-climate-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley-enrollme...
- casefields 5y agoHogwash. CEQA is doing exactly what it was meant to do. By its very nature it's a conservative ideal that we should be careful about development. That process slows/stops things you hate, but also things you like.
- space_fountain 5y agoIt was sold as a way to protect the environment but it doesn't help when business as usual is destroying the environment. It was also sold as a process requiring much less time and money than it takes now, but yes you are absolutely right that its fundamentally conservative and fundamentally locks in those with power under the current system. It needs reformed
- mperham 5y agoNo, what it does is force development thru sprawl which decimates wild lands. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards.
- exogeny 5y agoGood. NIMBYs are a huge problem, and any argument predicated on "preserving the character" is disingenuous at best and racist at worst. It's sad that legislation once designed to do so much good has been weaponized by such obstructionists.
- ketzo 5y agoIf nothing else, I hope Newsom can cement an identity as the "anti-NIMBY governor." S.B. 9 [1] was a great step. This also sends a pretty stark message. [1] https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9 https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9
- MaxDPS 5y agoNewsom has helped pass a bunch of anti-NIMBY legislation. I know it will take some time for it to have an effect but I’m actually a bit hopeful for once.
- rablackburn 5y ago> any argument predicated on "preserving the character" is disingenuous at best and racist at worst Calling NIMBYism's "preserving the character" argument disingenuous is probably going too far. That really is the problem many NIMBYs have with proposed developments. They like their neighbourhood exactly how it is, and if they could mandate perfect stasis they would. It may not be a persuasive argument, but in many cases it is genuine.
- kaibee 5y ago> They like their neighbourhood exactly how it is, and if they could mandate perfect stasis they would. Y'know, if a community wants to have _perfect_ stasis like that, it should be allowed. Which of course also means that when you sell your property, any gains in land value should also be taxed away and the property's max rent should also be locked in at purchase time. This would of course, even more preserve the character of the neighborhood. Otherwise it is too convenient for NIMBYs that their policy preference also happens to align with their economic interests. (/s obviously, though a land value tax would be excellent)
- jeffbee 5y agoThis is a significant repudiation of the NIMBY point of view. When was the last time that literally every statewide elected official came together to unanimously pass a law over the span of 4 days? Californians of every party are united in the belief that Phil Bokovoy is a jerk.
- favorited 5y agoFunny how the "they can't accept N students, there's not enough housing!" guy is simultaneously the "don't build any new housing" guy. And, as luck would have it, he's also the "don't increase density in existing housing structures" guy. What are the odds?
- jeffbee 5y agoAlso the "converted a duplex into a one-man home" guy. Also the "parks on the street for free" guy. What a surprise.
- raldi 5y agoBest part of the story is how he spent a bunch of money on a lawsuit whose sole final result is that now UCB can grow without fear of future lawsuits. He would've been better off setting the money on fire.
- jeffbee 5y agoThis is white peoples welfare. You can be a historically bad lawyer and financial advisor at the same time but still be a comfortably-housed person with zero taxes.
- stingrae 5y agoalso the "lives in New Zealand 50% of the time" guy
- gyc 5y agoWhether they represent a liberal district or a conservative district, every legislator in California represents a significant number of constituents who wants their kids to go to Cal.
- falcolas 5y agoSeems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.
- jeffbee 5y agoI've seen this take a lot in the last half a day and it makes no sense at all. The court rules on the law. It's an ordinary statute, and the legislature changed it. There is no checks-and-balances conflict here. The statute says whatever the legislature says it says.
- rablackburn 5y agoYeah, from what I understand this is exactly how the separation of judicial and legislative powers is _meant_ to work. The court's power is to interpret what is written. The legislature's power is to write the words. If the legislature doesn't like how the court interpreted the statute they're meant to rewrite it so that the intention is clearer.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y agoThe exact opposite. The legislature (which passed this unanimously) AND the governor passed this legislation as a check on the power of the court. This happens all the time, e.g. famously when the US passed the 16th amendment to allow income tax.
- colinmhayes 5y agoReally they're just undoing a law that has had many unintended consequences. The court was just ruling based off this CEQA, so the legislature fixed the it.
- falcolas 5y agoThey're interfering with a private lawsuit, and changing laws with retroactive effect to do so. That's what's so odd about this.
- paxys 5y agoGood. I wish they'd sign more such laws to deal with all the property developments across San Francisco that are stuck in years-long "environmental review" or other similar bureaucratic hurdles put forward by NIMBY groups.
- edm0nd 5y agoThat'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning.
- bradly 5y ago> That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning. Couldn't the Gov. sign another law stopping that as well? Similar to the legislation around single family housing lots?
- conanbatt 5y agoWhat you have now was passed by Gov.
- bradly 5y agoYes. That was the point of my comment :)
- smugma 5y agoWhat's more feasible is that CA HCD (Housing and Community Development) rejects SF's plan as not consistent with state law, as they recently did to LA[0] (even though LA's plan was really pro-housing overall, there were some equity issues that HCD was unhappy with). SF is considering allowing any property have a 4-plex (6 if at a corner), which may be used as a poison pill to continue to restrict development [1]. [0] https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-02-24/la-needs-to-rezone-for-a-lot-more-housing https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-02-24/la... [1] https://reason.com/2022/03/09/san-franciscos-efforts-to-block-duplexes-could-force-it-to-allow-skyscrapers-instead/ https://reason.com/2022/03/09/san-franciscos-efforts-to-bloc...
- mistrial9 5y agoA college town that was filled with ordinary college commotion is largely silent day and night. The streets of Berkeley, California near campus are empty for more than a year now. University Avenue, a major road leading to campus is quiet day and night, it used to be filled with cars, music and daily activity. Half of restaurants and most retail have closed in the last two years; parties are hidden due to covid-19. What has replaced it in the downtown and flatlands are super-scary predatory criminal loners, hard core drug-addicted mentally ill and some of the most expensive housing in the United States. Landlords feasted on the rental income derived from "market forces" of thousands of 20-somethings working for FAANG and bio-tech. The homes in the hills are overflowing with paper income, and the covid-19 rates are among the lowest in the western US due to a combination of factors. It is a stunning turn of events, worthy of Heinlein. The behemoth schools that are UC Berkeley continues to bring in nine-figure money with off-shore students paying high tuition, looking for their chance to strike it rich in the high tech scene, while those of ordinary means are economically crushed.
- xadhominemx 5y agoWhat’s your point?
- jeffbee 5y agoYeah, the streets are so empty in Berkeley these days that when I took these photos on Saturday it was literally just tumbleweeds, not hundreds of people gathering in the streets of southside. Truly, a hell-hole. https://twitter.com/Jeffinatorator/status/1502780672708014081/photo/4 https://twitter.com/Jeffinatorator/status/150278067270801408...
- nomel 5y agoA synthetic gathering is not related to the reduction in the natural hustle and bustle. Do you have any pictures before or after that group passed through?
- tylerhou 5y agoAs someone who lives near downtown Berkeley, there are plenty of people walking around and gathering during the day; particularly at the square area near Shattuck and Center. On University you see people lined up outside Berkeley Social Club/Imm Thai Street Food nearly every day. I've only been on southside a few times this year, but every weekend I've gone there were the normal amount of people there (basically the same as prepandemic). Don't get me started about the block-long lines at Cheeseboard. So I'm not sure where this notion of Berkeley being a ghost town is coming from.
- pmalynin 5y agoNext cancel Prop 13, or phase it out over the next 5 years.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bcrosby95 5y agoThat would require a proposition.
- CameronNemo 5y agoNot necessarily. 2/3 of the legislature can override prop13.
- ro_bit 5y agoProposition -13 (or 1/13, depending on the scheme) to be exact
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kuang_eleven 5y agoWe fucking tried. Even Prop 15 to implement a split-roll failed due to truly monumental amounts of bullshit spewed by the defenders of Prop 13, combined with the usual levels of reactionary pearl-clutching of California property owners.
- outside1234 5y agoThe bill we need is something that blanket allows building of multistory multifamily housing across the state without local review. Sort of something similar to the law we passed around ADUs but for multistory multifamily housing.
- arrosenberg 5y agoIt's SB50, but it's failed to pass a few sessions in a row.
- bubblethink 5y agoWouldn't this increase property values and rent too? What was the angle for NIMBY objection ? It seems like this will only increase demand but not the supply - an ideal NIMBY outcome.
- pvg 5y agoIt's not really stated explicitly but it mostly boils down to wanting to have the benefits of the place being a college town without too many of the inconveniences of the place being a college town.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoThis is a thing people often don’t get about NIMBYs. It’s almost never about property values. It’s generally about preserving things as they were at the time the NIMBY person settled down there.
- genocidicbunny 5y agoYour average NIMBY doesn't want _any_ change. They want their neighborhoods to be preserved exactly the way they are without anything changing. Higher property values is just a mask to hide the less palatable message of 'I want to ossify my neighborhood'.
- mbg721 5y agoAnother way to frame that is "I'm heavily personally invested in this neighborhood, and I don't want all the things that I love about it to be lost." Change for change's sake isn't necessarily good.
- coolspot 5y agoCareful when you talk like that to a Genocidic Bunny.
- genocidicbunny 5y agoYes, and that is the framing that is commonly used by NIMBYs. The trouble is, this is akin to trying to stop the ocean from breaking waves on the beach. The change is going to happen. You can stand against it, or you can work with it to get a mutually beneficial outcome. If you choose to stand against it, don't be surprised when the world either rolls you over or goes around you.
- TedShiller 5y agoAnd that’s why Berkeley is no Stanford
- Overtonwindow 5y agoIt is worth noting how fast the California Assembly can move when it wants to. For a single party state, it is an interesting study in governance.
- guelo 5y agoThis doesn't increase the amount of housing. I guess more Berkeley people, students and not, will be moving to Oakland.
- crhulls 5y agoI'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad that we have become a neighborhood for tourists and wealthy tech owner second homes. But, the character of the town remains, which is a nice silver lining. With recent California rules, affordable housing is being forced by the state. Any open parking lot, any church, any building not considered "fully utilized" is now being allocated for low income units. Even most low income residents in the town don't like it, as it doesn't match the character of the area whatsoever - it undermines the very reason people live here to begin with. I'm a unicorn founder so know I'm in a very privileged position. I actually bought a place in town which I'm turning in to multiple units for working class people because I didn't want someone else to buy it and turn it into a mansion. This is very different than state mandates that override any sort of local planning. I'm trying to help solve the problem while also preserving the essence of the community. I think it is overly simplistic to call NIMBYs evil and YIMBYs good. I like living in a small rural town. People move here because they want that. Forcing a town of <1,000 people to infill with huge apartment buildings doesn't fundamentally alter the overall housing problem, but it does impact the people that live and work in the community. I also don't claim any moral high ground here - there is no right and wrong about this. We all have our desires about how we want the world to evolve, and I wish we could all respect the complexity of the situation vs putting people in competing good vs evil camps.
- jeffbee 5y agoWhen did you grow up there and did anyone have babies and if so where did they expect them to live? The current housing crisis is a demographic phenomenon created by longevity and birth rates 40 years ago. Those facts require the provision of a lot of new housing somewhere.
- crhulls 5y agoI grew up there in the 80s and 90s. It is a really tough challenge. It is important to note that almost all the people, even those forced out due to cost, are opposed to the current affordable housing plans. The statewide legislation is a very blunt instrument. It doesn't work well for small towns.
- gnicholas 5y agoCEQA for thee, but not for me.
- devwastaken 5y agoGovernment protects government. This is further proof universities are above the law, so much so they get brand new law made just for them, but not for you. Remove federal funding of universities. This is a racket that must be put down for the betterment of society.
- namlem 5y agoIf any university system deserves special status, it's UC. They are what universities should aspire to be.