A majority of the Culver City city council agreed tonight to agendize a discussion about exclusionary zoning our residential zones. The advocates who called for this conversation organized very openly, and so there were many opponents. 1/

Much of the opposition actually made me hopeful--people just haven't thought about the consequences of reserving the majority of valuable urban space for cars and one specific form of housing with mandatory private park space. 2/

People are new to thinking about this. For example, they haven't encountered the term "exclusionary zoning" and assume that it's an activist framing, instead of the literal description used by the United States Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler. 3/

They think that "greenlining" has something to do with land speculation instead of being associated with investment in redlined communities and sharing of opportunity in high resource neighborhoods. 4/

Some are fearful of change and have strong feelings of nostalgia for a time when the consequences of our past land use choices were not yet studied and understood . . . and they haven't been exposed to that understanding of consequences. 5/

There is much reason for hope that we can create more just cities--on land use, transportation, funding, and (though I know I have many skeptics and critics here) policing. Onward. /end

PS--We also agendized the City's potential endorsement of @laurafriedman43's #AB1401, which would mostly eliminate mandatory parking in places that are a short walk from high-quality transit.