« Cell antennae: 4G, 5G, Gee how many? | Main | Mission Creep at Caltrain »

March 12, 2019

Comments

Jennifer Pfaff

I'm not sure how this item was decided, but our own SM County Supervisors were set to consider a resolution of support today at their monthly meeting. It would really be hard to understand how the majority would be able to support something so half-baked-- actually, raw. "Movement" doesn't necessarily equate with "progress".

Bruce Dickinson

This is precisely why Burlingame should not be afraid of State threats to sue or withhold transportation funds. Slap some developer fees, pull the pension money out of CalPers, make some tough choices ($60 million dollar Community Center and $6 million dollar pool?), pull out of ABAG and basically "self fund". You gotta also have a City and Council who is willing to fight and all the op-eds in the world aren't gonna change other State Assembly-members minds. Put the money where your mouth is! Mr. Brownrigg should know this: threatless diplomacy is doomed to fail if you're not willing to back up your words with a credible threat of "force".

Bruce Dickinson thinks Joe is 100% right on this one. Far easier to blame "wealthy suburbs" for what Trump would call the "urban &hithole" that is now becoming San Francisco.

Housing

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/03/06/bay-area-cities-push-back-casa-housing-plan.html

phinancier

Do we detect a bit of Fake News from the Chronicle here? Either Mr. Chiu called out Burlingame by name or he didn't. Which is it? If he did why change it to fakeness? Giving in to political pressure? If he didn't which I doubt how did the reporter foul that up? And why? Seems awfully specific. So many questions? Maybe their blowhard editorial page editor John Diaz would care to weigh in on the faux news pas? Don't bet on it.

Bruce Dickinson

Yes, Joe, where in the article is Burlingame mentioned? It says "South Bay"

hmmm..Transference?

Joe

@BD, your reading comprehension is taking the day off. I explained that the Burlingame reference is in the print edition that was subsequently "tweaked" to say "South Bay"--which is in itself a little demeaning. I will post the photo of the print edition as soon as TypePad and I figure out which browser extension is causing the photo to not appear.......don'tya love technology?

Bruce Dickinson

WOW, sorry Joe, I must admit I wasn't wearing my reading glasses last night, so may have glossed it over. I believe you.

That is so crazy!!!

Would follow up with the Chronicle on that one.

No matter what the answer really is, it's terrible either way!

SFRecent

It makes sense to build affordable housing from Broadway to Peninsula and inward to the railroad tracks all along the Highway 101.

All those homes in this area seem to be pre-1950 and lack energy efficient materials the newer homes contain.

We need to save our world and stop the greenhouse gases within the next 12 years or it is doomsday..

Jennifer Pfaff

I'm guessing you don't live around here...most of this city is pre-1950, so why pick on Lyon & Hoag / Burlingables/ Oak Grove Manor/ etc.? Then why not tear down the whole city as most of it is near a train, or bus line.

I also wouldn't put much stock into the "green" argument. Time is going to tell just how green these materials turn out to be.

Finally, those of us who DO already live near train and bus lines (and there are thousands of us) have always been able to avail ourselves of these services. We have over 50% rentals, frequently in high density complexes of various ages, and so we are a poster child for who COULD use public transportation if it were adequate, safe, and part of a real network plan.

But far less than 10% of those able to use Public Transit, actually do. I think I recall it was just 3%, but let's call it 10% for the sake of argument. That is just staggering.

This has nothing to do with the housing being close to transportation, it has to do with the quality of public transportation offered. Probably half of this city, at least, could use public transportation, so it isn't geography, it is a quality, and convenience issue. Read= $$$ taxes required to subsidize.

Massive funding would be needed to get anything close to what people gush about having experienced in Europe and Asia. I lived there a long time, too, and never used the car except for going on long excursions, and even then, it would have been possible to take a train, instead.

In our case here, all that money was put into the expansion of auto related infrastructure, a long, long time ago. None of these panacea housing bills has actually addressed the Public Transportation Deficit Elephant in the Room. It's just easier to choke the communities with density, and eliminate parking requirements, and think that is going to force people to take public transportation, no matter how inadequate (and expensive) it is.

Throwing miles of spaghetti at the wall in 200 different forms to see what sticks is really poor policy, and won't solve much of anything.

Gasbag

SFRecent, you have 12 years to move to higher ground. Please get going soon.

Joe

The County Supes tabled their resolution in support of SB50. Quite sad that they even considered supporting such a disasterous bit of Sacramento overreach, but that the way of things these days:


In thanking county officials for delaying the SB 50 discussion, Burlingame Councilman Michael Brownrigg said he very much believes the region is experiencing a housing crisis and he agreed with many that some cities such as Burlingame haven’t done their part to keep up with the demand for housing.

But Brownrigg voiced concerns that the measures laid out in Wiener’s SB 50 may not be the best solutions for cities focused on supporting housing, noting Burlingame officials and residents recently approved a General Plan anticipating the city will grow some 20 percent in 10 years. He said Burlingame officials and residents felt rezoning industrial areas to allow for mixed-use projects is the best way for the city to facilitate more housing, noting he worries about efforts to upzone cities that result in no changes.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-county-officials-table-sb-talk/article_f09ff55c-4542-11e9-b352-e33e5368ab2c.html

Bruce Dickinson

Funny that Brownrigg isn't even in primary season yet, and he's already starting to sell out Burlingame to please the Democratic Party and line up really quickly with them!

Burlingame not having done it's fair share? What about Portola Valley or Hillsborough?

Bruce Dickinson may be rethinking my Brownrigg vote for Assembly. I want real representation!!!

Joe

Yesterday the Bolsheviks at the SF Comicle weighed in on SB50. "Comrade Doctor Zhivago, your house is much too big for one family, you will take one room and others will occupy the rest. It's more fair that way, don't you think?". (I paraphrase).

Yesterday's editorial states:

Even in San Mateo County, that hotbed of anti-housing sentiment, Supervisor David Canepa urged his colleagues to support the bill, albeit unsuccessfully.

In a state that has the least housing per person on the U.S. mainland and almost half the country’s unsheltered residents, SB50 is an idea whose time should have come long ago. But even last week, hearings in San Francisco and Palo Alto drew crowds eager to defend the indefensible status quo and to prevent the Legislature from, as a San Carlos official put it to the San Mateo Daily Journal, “invading the sanctity of our single-family neighborhoods.” The dedication and persistence of California’s housing deniers should not be underestimated.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Sen-Scott-Wiener-s-bill-to-overrule-13698342.php
------------
The "indefensible status quo"? Nice weightless assertion that reflects the editors' ignorance about what is being done to add housing--take a trip down California Dr, turn left on Bayswater, then part in the lots that are headed for "affordable housing". Doesn't feel like the status quo from here.

Cathy Baylock

Say no to "stack and pack" housing in Burlingame by signing this petition: https://www.change.org/p/california-state-legislature-no-to-sb-827-sb-828-stop-top-down-planning-unsustainable-high-density-housing-growth?recruiter=77800975&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&recruited_by_id=abe5ab00-f47f-40d6-93ec-79a5a29eba3f&utm_content=fht-13014441-en-us%253Av5

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.