This is very refreshing to see. One of the faux-leftist points that NIMBYs use to block housing in California is to say that developers only want to build in co

This is very refreshing to see. One of the faux-leftist points that NIMBYs use to block housing in California is to say that developers only want to build in communities with lower rents, and displace existing residents, and therefore all development should be stopped to prevent gentrification. However, the past year has shown the opposite, and completely disproven this line of argument. What causes gentrification is that city planning forces all development into the communities with the lowest rents. And the bills that would have broadly upzoned, and included protections for at risk communities, would have accomplished more housing affordability without displacing the most at-risk tenants. Seeing where builder's remedy projects have gone should be a mask-off moment for those that opposed SB50 and SB827, two bills that would have allowed a ton of new development that enables transit. Projects like this one in Los Altos Hills are good for increasing economic integration of the Bay Area, but they do it at a cost of reinforcing car-dependent living.