Read on Twitter
Alright, folks! Grab your popcorn, because it's time for an extra special episode of The Livable California Show! Today's episode features suburb defender Joel Kotkin.
Follow along if you're the kind of person who likes have their day ruined before 12pm!
Follow along if you're the kind of person who likes have their day ruined before 12pm!
Joel opens strong, telling the audience that "unless you’re completely insane, pushing high density and transit during the midst of this is really hubris at its worst."
Calls it “lethal stupidity.”
Calls it “lethal stupidity.”
Joel asks a very important question: what are cities even for?
Joel's running through a timeline of housing affordability, and brings up homeownership in California.
He notes that renters are more likely to vote for the policies that "the current regime likes," so maybe they don't think homeownership is worthwhile.
He notes that renters are more likely to vote for the policies that "the current regime likes," so maybe they don't think homeownership is worthwhile.
Joel notes that lots of people are leaving CA. It's mostly young people, not old. Housing prices are the biggest reason.
No kidding.
No kidding.
Joel discusses poverty in interior counties, wage stagnation over decades, predicts that we'll have massive social problems in the coming years. No more "good, blue-collar jobs."
Joel claims cities around the world are de-densifying. Cities all over have fewer people in their cores than ever before. Idea that people are moving to cities is bunk.
(Could this be due to, say, I don't know, a refusal to build enough housing stock?)
(Could this be due to, say, I don't know, a refusal to build enough housing stock?)
Joel wants to talk "just a little bit" about COVID-19. Says that there's a "clear relationship between density, poverty and transit."
Claims that SF is doing better because it "doesn't have big poverty population."
Uh.........
Claims that SF is doing better because it "doesn't have big poverty population."
Uh.........
Joel: the state should have a policy of trying to bring jobs to areas that don't have them, like inland areas, instead of to the cities.
(Definitely no class or racial implications here, no sir)
(Definitely no class or racial implications here, no sir)
Joel, on immigration and migration from cities to the south: immigrants aren't stupid. They can come to LA, live in a crappy apartment with bad schools, or they can move to the south and buy a place near better schools."
Talking again about young people leaving California. Getting hammered by millennials leaving California.
"One of the things we know is that people don't have kids in the urban core. We know this. It's universal, happens everywhere. People have kids in exurbs."
"One of the things we know is that people don't have kids in the urban core. We know this. It's universal, happens everywhere. People have kids in exurbs."
Holy shit. Joel goes off on a weird tangent about SF. Says that "San Francisco is a city with more drug addicts than high school students."
"I guess that's the future that Scott Wiener wants for us."
"I guess that's the future that Scott Wiener wants for us."
Now Joel's talking about "Smart Sprawl," an idea he promotes.
(Sounds a whole lot like "clean coal," but that's just me.)
(Sounds a whole lot like "clean coal," but that's just me.)
Joel claims that studies have found density would do almost nothing to alleviate climate change. In some cases, suburban areas actually do better.
Joel says it's "amazing to me" that there's no state-policy on telecommuting requirements.
Says density advocates have "no answer to this," thinks it's because it's really about "social control, social engineering, don't need government in every aspect of their lives."
Says density advocates have "no answer to this," thinks it's because it's really about "social control, social engineering, don't need government in every aspect of their lives."
Joel claims that "pushing people onto transit" gives them fewer places where they can work.
(Idea: what if we *expanded* public transit networks?
)
(Idea: what if we *expanded* public transit networks?
)
Jill Stewart interjects with questions from the chat: what happens if we shift all the development and jobs to exurban areas? Won't housing prices go up there?
Joel: we always here that there's no land in CA, that's ridiculous. Can shift farmland, plenty of land, spent a lot of time in the Central Valley, lots of land there, east in the Inland Empire, etc.
Joel's going off on a tangent about his new book now, and "neo-feudalism" where everyone relies on the state to provide for them.
(This certainly doesn't *sound* progressive...)
(This certainly doesn't *sound* progressive...)
Joel: what we're doing now isn't working. People aren't widgets. The serfs have to "live like crap" (i.e. in apartments). Thinks Google should put their next office in Modesto so people can live where they work.
Jill going off on a tangent about how the 3.5M homes number is made up, fake. Real number is 1.2M, and that was "before COVID-19." Claims people are moving back in with their families, decreasing the need for housing.
Joel: the 3.5M number is absurd. How do you have this number with no population growth? Claims that he's heard there are a million empty units statewide. Lots of unoccupied units.
On to questions! Alix from Venice asks if cities have "specific DNA," feels that people are trying to impose NYC's DNA on Los Angeles.
Joel: "crazy" to impose NY on LA, which does not want to be that. Every place has their own DNA. People moved to LA from NY because they wanted space, to live a "particular kind of lifestyle."
Says after COVID, the desire to live the "NY lifestyle" won't be the same.
Says after COVID, the desire to live the "NY lifestyle" won't be the same.
Joel now going off on Le Corbusier, claims towers are a failed model. Says if you want to see bad density, go to "urban China," that's not a future I want to live in.
Okay, this is amazing. Joel is fighting with a participant in the health field, who says he disagrees with Wiener, but disputes the density relations to COVID.
Joel says there are "other doctors have different views."
Joel says there are "other doctors have different views."
Oooh, Stephen Nestel (Save Marinwood!) is here. Says Joel has been his lodestar on urbanism for many years (this explains a lot).
Has questions about China, and developers wanting some of that "China cash" after the ghost city phenomenon and impacts on the density agenda.
Has questions about China, and developers wanting some of that "China cash" after the ghost city phenomenon and impacts on the density agenda.
Back to COVID-19: Joel notes that after all of this, the idea of imposing "19th-century solutions" on the 21st century will go by the wayside
Alright, Joel's portion is over. Now we're moving on to a discussion about housing bills in Sacramento.
Jill: four bills that we'll fight, worst is Scott Wiener's SB902. Will put luxury 8plexes in single-family neighborhoods in all the big cities.
(The horror!)
Jill: four bills that we'll fight, worst is Scott Wiener's SB902. Will put luxury 8plexes in single-family neighborhoods in all the big cities.
(The horror!)
Jill: another attempt by Wiener to wipe out single-family living, he hates it. Jill asks boardmember Isaiah Madison to weigh in.
Isaiah: just another attack on SFHs, will bring development into SFHs in South LA, oppose it, people here aren't interested in that
Isaiah: just another attack on SFHs, will bring development into SFHs in South LA, oppose it, people here aren't interested in that
Jill: this bill would wipe out south LA, absolute target, largest middle-class black area in the country
Rick: bill will incentivize wiping out sensitive communities throughout the state
Rick: bill will incentivize wiping out sensitive communities throughout the state
A commentor asks if they have any allies in the legislature or city councils.
Jill: number one fighter with us is Paul Koretz, helped stop SB50, furious about these proposals. Also cites "Alanna Duratzo" from LA, a "big-time labor leader," everyone who opposed SB50
Jill: number one fighter with us is Paul Koretz, helped stop SB50, furious about these proposals. Also cites "Alanna Duratzo" from LA, a "big-time labor leader," everyone who opposed SB50
Burbank City Councilmember Emily Gabel Luddy (sp?) is here. Very opposed to "the Wiener bills." Claims Burbank isn't "anti-housing" but deserve the right to decide what housing works for us, whether we want transit or not.
Okay, this one's a doozy. Margaret Clark, former Mayor of Rosemead, chimes in. Appreciated Kotkin's comments about China, says "the Asian people in our community want to live in big houses."
Clark continues: we need to reach out to the Asian community, these nice huge beautiful houses will be taken away, will have fourplex, 8plex next to them. Wiener thinks SFHs are racist, that we hate minorities, but "the Asians" want these beautiful homes, the Asians love this
Now we're talking about RHNA. Rick Hall claims that they need to learn more, understand RHNA better to counter some of these bills.
(Wish they'd had that idea years ago)
(Wish they'd had that idea years ago)
Jill claims that they (Livable California) are in a war against the state and the media (calling out Liam Dillon by name). Says that Scott Wiener is leading the war.
Now Susan Baldwin, city planner and AICP from San Diego chimes in. In favor of TOD, against sprawl developments, but very skeptical of Wiener bills. None of the housing being built is affordable, very skeptical of the 3.5M home number. "We're gonna turn CA into a shithole."
One more big push for donations from Jill and Rick, and that's a wrap. If you're still reading, I salute your resolve.
Have a great Saturday, everyone!
Have a great Saturday, everyone!
