Grab your and join me on this cloudy Saturday morning for a presentation of NIMBYism in the time of COVID-19: A Livable California Live-Thread!

We've spent the first 10 minutes working on "technical issues." Apparently a password was set for the Zoom call and no one can figure out what it is. Classic.

Jill claims that it's "a new security" that Zoom did not notify them about.

Again, classic.

Jill's introducing Peter Calthorpe. Says that he came out against SB50 at "a gathering of silicon valley power brokers," told them disrupting existing residential areas was "not the way to go."

Peter: starting with a powerpoint. Ironic, people think of me as the father of TOD, spent years figuring out anti-sprawl strategies. Probably doesn't need to tell this group about the problems with sustainability of sprawl.

(Uh...do you know who you're talking to?)

Peter: everyone driving 15,000 vehicle miles per year is unsustainable. Breaking the backs of the middle-class in America. The American Dream of a couple cars and cul de sacs just won't work. That paradigm is gone.

(I can literally hear the brains exploding now)

Peter: truth is SFHs are important lifestyle, important in shaping communities.

(Not sure how this tracks with the previous comment)

Peter: SB50 was deeply flawed, can't just draw a circle around existing transit. Could "invade" single-family neighborhoods, could displace affordable housing. Also unnecessary.

Peter: need to solve the crisis without destroying communities we built and love.

Whoooooo boy.

Peter is showing his presentation. Talking about the jobs housing imbalance, particularly in the Bay Area. Says 880,000 jobs added, only 100,000 jobs.

(Pretty sure those numbers are right on the money)

Now Peter is talking about El Camino Real, which runs the length of the Peninsula. Says this strip could accommodate massive amounts of new housing and accommodate transit via BRT. Can do this without needing to "disrupt" SFHs.

Peter: you don't have to touch any SFHs if upzone El Camino. Those homes would use less energy, less water, have less miles travelled, etc. than normal households

(unclear if that's versus SFHs or triplexes, duplexes, etc.)

Peter: El Camino could accommodate quarter mil (250k) new homes. 500 linear miles of this type of space in the Bay Area. Potential for 2M new units in the inner bay area alone.

Oh boy, now we're going to questions!

People want to know if Peter is talking about vacant parcels only.

Peter: lolno

Concerns about loss of businesses, whether this will be mixed-use, etc.

Peter: need to point out that this plan will not be "one size fits all"

Peter's talking about mixing shopping and housing, notes that he can show people lots of new developments "of Safeways with housing on top." That wasn't happening 10, 20 years ago. Says this wasn't what people wanted before.

Peter notes that the state has a 2M home deficit, and his plan has the capacity to build 2M homes in the Bay Area alone. Notes that they haven't even looked at SoCal yet.

Jill interjects, notes that many people (her, assumedly) don't trust local bodies on transit, that the Bay Area's transit authorities are ineffectual. Asks why we can't do light rail instead of busses

(lots of class implications here)

Peter: cities here in America don't have the density to support light rail. Arterials, however, could support transit (via BRT), less costly, doesn't involve above or underground work"

"It's simple, you just take some land away from parking"

Again, heads exploding

Now Peter's talking about Europe/Australia and autonomous busses. Peter thinks autonomous vans (6-10 people) are a better fit for the US.

Hmm.

Jill asks how tall these buildings would have to be.

Peter: wouldn't be affordable to build without 4 stories and a podium.

A commentor notes that it should be left to the cities.

Peter: leaving this to the cities has lead to this lack of housing. Cities have pushed housing away, leading to sprawl. Needs to be a mandate that cities study commercial lands, arterials, and rezone.

Jill: fairly large group here that does not think it's the cities fault. LA cities almost never deny housing. We don't believe this is the cities' fault.

Peter: hmm.

(Literally, hmm).

Peter: this is a rational way of saying that we have to work together, mobility crosses city lines, we need to do these things regionally. This is a way we can achieve this without touching any SFHs, any residential homes. Do we need the state to do this? We can debate that.

Peter: over the years I've seen many cities that do not want, who refuse to take on more housing. We need to produce more housing for the sake of working people, and to shift away from the automobile.

Peter: It’s kind of like the virus (COVID-19), if one person opts out of doing their part, it screws the rest of us

Says there need to be mandates, you need to reshape arterial and commercial land, cities can reshape, but there needs to be a mandate

Jill: so much distrust between people (Livable California members, presumably) and Sacramento, Scott Wiener demonizes SFHs, long road to go down, he’s failed 3 times, how are we supposed to trust this

Peter: completely agree with you, told Scott he had the wrong strategy, would spill over into the well-intentioned fight for infill, that he’d poison the well with this, and lo and behold, that’s what happened.

Peter: I know there are neighborhood advocates listening right now who don’t want it in their 'hood, but you can have it in your overall communities. I think everyone here understands there’s a crisis around housing and transportation.

(Hmmmmmm)

Moving to questions now. Rick Hall notes he'll still personally be pushing for "geographic equity," which "he [Calthorpe] would define as sprawl, but I don't."

Incredible brainworms here.

Arthur Keller, from Palo Fucking Alto, is complaining about cities that add "some" housing but add far too many jobs and just push the problem off on other cities.

DUDE. Your city is the poster child for this!

Aurther is complaining about apartments not having back yards. "How can the people go to the backyards when they don't have any?!"

Is worried that more people will use the parks. Lmao.

Jill talking now, slamming all the companies that are "packing themselves" onto the Peninsula in the same of "synergy," says people should just telecommute instead.

Ah, here it is! Alex(?) from Venice is worried about density and the coronavirus, says it's "no coincidence" that the virus came out of China

A medical professional surprisingly chimes in to combat this, says density is not related to disease spread.

Goes on state that medical professionals are not going to give up their cars.

Pat Burt, former Palo Alto Mayor, weighs in on a question about the economics of housing vs office space. Pat claims analysis shows that cities do not derive net benefit from new office space. Says cities believe it to be "fiscal panacea" but it isn't.

Pat Eklund of Novato is here! Notes that she's currently fighting against MTC and ABAG (ironically, she serves on the executive board of the latter).

Says not all cities are the same, Novato is very different than Palo Alto. New housing does not pay for itself.

Jill goes off on a tangent about Michael Storper, a "geography expert" who opposed SB50. Says Storper thought the “sneaky core, the sneaky heart” of SB50 would let developers build luxury 10-unit buildings, it’s back in a couple laws right now, need to defeat it.

Jim from Lafayette: in contact with Scott Wiener's office in 2017, says in those days he could always get Ann Friedman (he definitely means Annie Fryman, lol) to call him back. Told them to think a little smaller.

Jim: lots of opportunities for underused land, can put small buildings here and there. Wiener wasn't interested (shocker), instead wanted to develop the BART parking lots!

Huge pack n stacks going up in the burbs. People say there’s no construction but there's tons!

Jill now complaining about Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, says he's a "total YIMBY."

Media has bought this story that we're the enemies, it's not real, it's not true.

Jill's complaining about the media again. Says they're "tired of bad, misleading coverage." Claims local media is ignorant, not covering this, have no idea what’s going on. We’ve criticized them [media] to no avail.

Now we've moved on to Scott Wiener's new bill, SB902.

Jill: LA times badly reported this bill, that’s probably Liam Dillion because he’s so biased and YIMBY. It was reported by 4plexes, actually 8 luxury units on every parcel in cities of 50k and up. It's a disaster.

Now Jill's trashing Assemblymember Bloom from Santa Monica. Says he "become a Scott Wiener acolyte" as time has gone on, claims bill AB1279 punishes healthy, thriving communities by forcing new “high resource,” (read: wealthy) designation

Jill: Neighborhoods within those cities will be punished. Most bizarre, nasty bill, truly bizarre, evidence that Bloom is losing touch with who he used to be. Very scary bill.

(Whew)

Palo Alto Councilmember Lydia Kou is here! Very concerned League of Cities is deviating from its mission of protecting local control. Legislature in recess, but need to stay vigilant, 300 housing bills when they come back.

Lydia continues, notes that after their League of Cities call on Friday, a colleague from Oakland, Ken Kalp (Dan Kalb?) called them NIMBYs! Says it was very rude and disrespectful.

Julie Testa (Pleasanton City Councilmember) concurs.

A little more Scott Wiener bashing from Jill that I didn't catch because her phone was cutting out, and we're done! Hope everyone enjoyed the commentary.

See you all in two weeks for the next one!