Good article! This is just rephrasing your argument with a different analogy, but I think there’s unfortunately a real comp between bills like SB79 and the downsides of IZ. Lots of cities, like you pointed out, essentially see new housing density as solely a “cost”. So SB79 makes transit more expensive because it forces the city to “pay” for their transit with even more density.
I’ve never been a fan of tying funding for housing or zoning relief to a narrow envelope along transit because it tends to restrict and cluster multifamily zoning and provide an excuse for otherwise banning it. You can call that “densifying” but we dont need more segregation or concentration of poverty.
Also not a fan of Japanese style unzoning, even if it were politically possible (which as you point out it is not). It too would lead to exclusion and even less affordable housing. Unlike the Japanese we are like a nation of spoiled brats with little sense of shared responsibility to ensure that the needs and preferences of our fellow humans are met. (Some comments here exhibit that attitude to a tee). We need legislative rules and guard rails—as well as funding— to make sure new production is meeting the broad range of preferences and needs in the city and region, including the most urgent. If all we succeed in doing is helping those at the top to get more of what they want, the movement will have been a practical and moral failure.
Sure you can haha. In particular, people commonly have conflicting preferences. State govs can use that to their advantage. For example, most people in a place like SF generally support “more housing” but may not want it in their neighborhood. If it’s up to their district supervisor to upzone, it’s easier to connect that rep with the localized housing they don’t like. But if the state gov in Sacramento passes wide-ranging pro-housing laws, voters are less likely to connect the dots. That’s why mayors and the state gov are historically better avenues for housing reform.
Your entire article is about how trying to shove up zoning down peoples throats causes them to find ways to cancel out your legislation.
I'm of the opinion that we need to treat peoples housing preferences seriously and convince them to want more housing, not say their desires are illegitimate and try to impose it on them against their will.
The only ones trying to impose their preferences on other people are those who oppose any change to the single family status quo. They are so caught up in themselves they dont even seem to notice others have differing preferences or care that they have different needs or recognize their legitimate claim to a fair share of finite resources. But the job of government is to try to zone to meet a broad range of needs and preferences and achieve balance. Not just to accommodate the majority, the loudest, wealthiest or most powerful.
Good article! This is just rephrasing your argument with a different analogy, but I think there’s unfortunately a real comp between bills like SB79 and the downsides of IZ. Lots of cities, like you pointed out, essentially see new housing density as solely a “cost”. So SB79 makes transit more expensive because it forces the city to “pay” for their transit with even more density.
Great piece. Thanks for covering Circulate's report.
I tweeted about it: https://x.com/i/status/2048086412717916226
I’ve never been a fan of tying funding for housing or zoning relief to a narrow envelope along transit because it tends to restrict and cluster multifamily zoning and provide an excuse for otherwise banning it. You can call that “densifying” but we dont need more segregation or concentration of poverty.
Also not a fan of Japanese style unzoning, even if it were politically possible (which as you point out it is not). It too would lead to exclusion and even less affordable housing. Unlike the Japanese we are like a nation of spoiled brats with little sense of shared responsibility to ensure that the needs and preferences of our fellow humans are met. (Some comments here exhibit that attitude to a tee). We need legislative rules and guard rails—as well as funding— to make sure new production is meeting the broad range of preferences and needs in the city and region, including the most urgent. If all we succeed in doing is helping those at the top to get more of what they want, the movement will have been a practical and moral failure.
You can’t top down your way through people’s preferences.
Sure you can haha. In particular, people commonly have conflicting preferences. State govs can use that to their advantage. For example, most people in a place like SF generally support “more housing” but may not want it in their neighborhood. If it’s up to their district supervisor to upzone, it’s easier to connect that rep with the localized housing they don’t like. But if the state gov in Sacramento passes wide-ranging pro-housing laws, voters are less likely to connect the dots. That’s why mayors and the state gov are historically better avenues for housing reform.
Your entire article is about how trying to shove up zoning down peoples throats causes them to find ways to cancel out your legislation.
I'm of the opinion that we need to treat peoples housing preferences seriously and convince them to want more housing, not say their desires are illegitimate and try to impose it on them against their will.
It’s not my article.
The only ones trying to impose their preferences on other people are those who oppose any change to the single family status quo. They are so caught up in themselves they dont even seem to notice others have differing preferences or care that they have different needs or recognize their legitimate claim to a fair share of finite resources. But the job of government is to try to zone to meet a broad range of needs and preferences and achieve balance. Not just to accommodate the majority, the loudest, wealthiest or most powerful.