There are plenty of people who foolishly believe we can build our way out of the so-called "housing crisis". Dense development hasn't caused lower housing costs anywhere in the world--in fact, many of the densest locations are also the costliest. And when the other quality of life components and job prospects are as good as the Bay Area, one would have to be extra foolish to try to out-build the demand and further diminish the quality of life. But Sacramento has foisted SB 9 and SB 10 on us anyway. Most of them couldn't get through Econ 101, but that is where we are at.
The Burlingame City Council will discuss what to do about SB 10 tomorrow night. The Staff Report is super thin on SB 10:
SB 10. California Senate Bill (SB) 10 allows (but does not require) local agencies to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. (Ed: pretty much all of B'game).
The General Plan Update has already provided a range of multiunit residential and mixed use land use districts with a wide range of residential densities, and the Zoning Ordinance Update underway will provide refined development standards for the corresponding zoning districts.
Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to pursue zoning allowed by SB 10. Whereas SB 9-compliant zoning is required, municipalities may choose to adopt (or not adopt) SB 10-compliant zoning.
And the report claims that neither SB 9 or SB 10 will have any fiscal impact! It might be time to double-check the thinking on that since residential property taxes never cover the cost of providing city services--never mind the costs to the school district that is pretty much out of real estate.
But let's look a little deeper courtesy of last Sunday's Mercury News piece with the sub-head "In an area noted for its booming economy, stunning weather and natural beauty, a majority feel their quality of life is in decline". The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area News Group commissioned a survey by Embold Research to dig into this and it's not pretty.
In a foreboding breakthrough, for the first time since the poll began posing the question in 2018 a solid majority -- 56% -- said they expect to leave the Bay Area in the next few years...a similar majority said the region is headed in the wrong direction. In the survey of 1,610 registered voters, 71% said the Bay Area's quality of life has declined in the last five years.
Two problems topped the list of increased concern being "serious or very serious"? Drought (+41%) and Water Supply (+32%). I'm glad to know I'm not alone on this. The cost of housing was still the highest overall at 92% but only up 6%. What if even half of the half of people that are considering leaving do so? Even if it is only 10% that would be significant. B'game has a huge amount of new housing already approved, in design and "in-the-dirt". Maybe we should see how that all plays out? I hope the council's direction to staff on SB 10 is a brisk, clear "forgetaboutit" so they can get back to ensuring our public safety, water supply, small business vitality, economic health and quality of life.
Recent Comments