Read on Twitter
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& #39;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& #39;t encountered the term "exclusionary zoning" and assume that it& #39;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& #39;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& #39;s potential endorsement of @laurafriedman43& #39;s #AB1401, which would mostly eliminate mandatory parking in places that are a short walk from high-quality transit.
