Berkeley’s ‘Effort to Right Wrongs of the Past’ Ends Single Family Homes

War=Peace said:
That's YOUR ridiculous/irrelevant straw man argument, and not the topic. Irrelevant fallacy proceeding from irrelevant fallacy...

Irrelevant, but yes, and also the result of widespread Democrat criminality/voter fraud/voter suppression in those states. Tell it to a Republican.
Click to expand...

The topic is housing. I’m not sure what straw man you’re referring to. I’ll admit it’s my fault to assume everyone on the right is pro markets and pro development. As stated earlier NIMBYism is a bi-partisan position.
 
cawacko said:
The funny part is you can drive through parts of Berkeley today and think you are in the slums and they're all million dollar homes.

Are you suggesting we don't build anything but single family homes in this country?
Click to expand...

there is sense in saying that once population density reaches a certain level, housing has to be structured to compensate for it.....
 
cawacko said:
The topic is housing. I’m not sure what straw man you’re referring to. I’ll admit it’s my fault to assume everyone on the right is pro markets and pro development. As stated earlier NIMBYism is a bi-partisan position.
Click to expand...

Reread the OP. I believe you. I have no idea who you may assume is on the right, or what the relevance of your assumptions may be; perhaps if you simply read & responded to what is being said & not your baseless assumptions, you might have more edifying interactions. Yes.
 
cawacko said:
The topic is housing. I’m not sure what straw man you’re referring to. I’ll admit it’s my fault to assume everyone on the right is pro markets and pro development. As stated earlier NIMBYism is a bi-partisan position.
Click to expand...

So many people in California would be financially ruined if the values of their homes and rental properties dropped much, regardless of their politics.
 
dukkha said:
Berkeley, California, is considering social justice policy for future housing in the northern California city by ending single-family-home zoning by December 2022.

The San Francisco Chronicle described the plan as “an effort to right the wrongs of the past and address the region’s housing crisis.”

The Berkeley City Council is set to vote next week on a “symbolic resolution” to end the ability of families to live in a home where only their family resides.

The policy targets safe and prosperous neighborhoods, according to the Chronicle:

Berkeley is the latest city looking at opening up these exclusive neighborhoods to more housing as the region struggles with exorbitant rents and home prices and increasing homelessness. Sacramento recently took a big step in allowing fourplexes in these neighborhoods and one San Francisco politician is pushing a similar plan.

Berkeley may also allow fourplexes in city neighborhoods. Next month, the council will consider that proposal, which will likely spark push-back from tenants groups fearful it could fuel displacement if more protections aren’t included.

For Berkeley, which has historically been anti-development, the moves are the latest shift as the city slowly embraces more density, including plans to add housing around the North Berkeley and Ashby stations.

Councilwoman Lori Droste, who introduced the resolution and who considers single-family homes “racist,” grew up in the Elmwood neighborhood established in 1916 and developed to put one house on each lot.

“At the time, an ordinance stated that its intent was to protect ‘the home against the intrusion of the less desirable and floating renter class,’” the Chronicle reported.

“I live in the Elmwood area where it is sort of the birthplace of single-family zoning,” Droste said. “I thought it was incumbent upon me as representing this neighborhood to say that I want to change something that I think is detrimental to the community.”

Councilman Terry Taplin, who also authored the resolution, said the same reforms that need to be made to policing should apply to housing.

“This is really a historical moment for us in Berkeley because now the racial justice reckoning really has come home,” Taplin said.

David Garcia, the policy director at left-wing University of California Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, called the proposal a “big deal.”

“It wasn’t that long ago when Berkeley wasn’t considered the most forward thinking on housing,” Garcia said.

But he also warned of harming current housing.

“It’s important to be thoughtful about these decisions because they cannot be easily reversed,” Garcia said, adding:

Creating such a significant change of land use in such a large part of the city is going to involve a lot of planning and critical thinking on how to ensure the best policy outcome. You’re going to want to make sure the policy itself does result in the kind of housing city leadership wants to see.

Jassmin Poyaoan, director of the Community Economic Justice Clinic at East Bay Community Law Center, said policies should start with the idea that “housing is a human right.”

The plan will bring 1,450 new “housing units,” about 50 percent of which would be for low-income families.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...zqt_GCTt3tMpXlGVCCjd2_OolkRoahoDKPI3d_2LilQ_I
Click to expand...

Wow. You can smell stalin's pipe tobacco in the air!!
 
War=Peace said:
Reread the OP. I believe you. I have no idea who you may assume is on the right, or what the relevance of your assumptions may be; perhaps if you simply read & responded to what is being said & not your baseless assumptions, you might have more edifying interactions. Yes.
Click to expand...

I live here. This story has been all over our local news and my Twitter feed. I’ve been discussing it since the second post ITT. It’s also relevant outside just Berkeley as the state has a housing crisis and other large cities are facing similar issues. There has been a ton written nationally on zoning codes and their history and what we should do going forward with them, especially single family zoning.

So please don’t tell me I’m not discussing the topic.
 
dukkha said:
Berkeley, California, is considering social justice policy for future housing in the northern California city by ending single-family-home zoning by December 2022.

The San Francisco Chronicle described the plan as “an effort to right the wrongs of the past and address the region’s housing crisis.”

The Berkeley City Council is set to vote next week on a “symbolic resolution” to end the ability of families to live in a home where only their family resides.

The policy targets safe and prosperous neighborhoods, according to the Chronicle:

Berkeley is the latest city looking at opening up these exclusive neighborhoods to more housing as the region struggles with exorbitant rents and home prices and increasing homelessness. Sacramento recently took a big step in allowing fourplexes in these neighborhoods and one San Francisco politician is pushing a similar plan.

Berkeley may also allow fourplexes in city neighborhoods. Next month, the council will consider that proposal, which will likely spark push-back from tenants groups fearful it could fuel displacement if more protections aren’t included.

For Berkeley, which has historically been anti-development, the moves are the latest shift as the city slowly embraces more density, including plans to add housing around the North Berkeley and Ashby stations.

Councilwoman Lori Droste, who introduced the resolution and who considers single-family homes “racist,” grew up in the Elmwood neighborhood established in 1916 and developed to put one house on each lot.

“At the time, an ordinance stated that its intent was to protect ‘the home against the intrusion of the less desirable and floating renter class,’” the Chronicle reported.

“I live in the Elmwood area where it is sort of the birthplace of single-family zoning,” Droste said. “I thought it was incumbent upon me as representing this neighborhood to say that I want to change something that I think is detrimental to the community.”

Councilman Terry Taplin, who also authored the resolution, said the same reforms that need to be made to policing should apply to housing.

“This is really a historical moment for us in Berkeley because now the racial justice reckoning really has come home,” Taplin said.

David Garcia, the policy director at left-wing University of California Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, called the proposal a “big deal.”

“It wasn’t that long ago when Berkeley wasn’t considered the most forward thinking on housing,” Garcia said.

But he also warned of harming current housing.

“It’s important to be thoughtful about these decisions because they cannot be easily reversed,” Garcia said, adding:

Creating such a significant change of land use in such a large part of the city is going to involve a lot of planning and critical thinking on how to ensure the best policy outcome. You’re going to want to make sure the policy itself does result in the kind of housing city leadership wants to see.

Jassmin Poyaoan, director of the Community Economic Justice Clinic at East Bay Community Law Center, said policies should start with the idea that “housing is a human right.”

The plan will bring 1,450 new “housing units,” about 50 percent of which would be for low-income families.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...zqt_GCTt3tMpXlGVCCjd2_OolkRoahoDKPI3d_2LilQ_I
Click to expand...

This is unConstitutional, and whoever proposed it should be hanged.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So many people in California would be financially ruined if the values of their homes and rental properties dropped much, regardless of their politics.
Click to expand...


That’s like saying we should keep the stock market artificially high because it would be financial ruin for people if it reflected true value
 
cawacko said:
I live here. This story has been all over our local news and my Twitter feed. I’ve been discussing it since the second post ITT. It’s also relevant outside just Berkeley as the state has a housing crisis and other large cities are facing similar issues. There has been a ton written nationally on zoning codes and their history and what we should do going forward with them, especially single family zoning.

So please don’t tell me I’m not discussing the topic.
Click to expand...

"Housing crisis" means the municipalities are charging too much for taxes.
They do it here, too.
1 week's work/paycheck should cover your housing, and that's priority 1.
The thing is, they are charging too much for taxes everywhere! It wasn't like that when I was younger.
 
cawacko said:
I live here. This story has been all over our local news and my Twitter feed. I’ve been discussing it since the second post ITT. It’s also relevant outside just Berkeley as the state has a housing crisis and other large cities are facing similar issues. There has been a ton written nationally on zoning codes and their history and what we should do going forward with them, especially single family zoning.

So please don’t tell me I’m not discussing the topic.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant; you can't see the topic for all the weeds you've planted in it. Ditto. Ditto. Not the topic. Ditto.

You aren't - as noted, you're lost in the weeds you've planted here.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Your reading comprehension sucks.
Click to expand...

It’s the exact equivalent of what you are saying. We have a housing crisis because we don’t build enough housing, and it has huge negative repercussions economically in our area and state. But you’re saying if we don’t keep the market artificially high people will lose some value. For starters, homes or investment properties aren’t guaranteed to increase. Nor should the gov’t favor existing homeowners over younger people or current non home owners. But that’s what your position is arguing for.
 
cawacko said:
The reality is not everyone can, or should, own a home. The medium home price in the Bay Area is like $900K. It's probably over $1m in Berkeley. Not everyone can afford that. And if you can't where should they live?

And if you're a working class person who doesn't come from money how are you supposed to be able to afford a home in your 20's or even your 30's in some places?

I'm not sure how this is turning owners into renters. These renters can't afford to own.
Click to expand...

This is an irrelevant appeal to poverty. The reason homes in California are so expensive is taxes and government regulation more than anything else. Sure, demand plays a role but like in Portland restrictive zoning regulations, oppressive building codes and zoning, along with astronomical property taxes are really driving the price up.
 
cawacko said:
It’s the exact equivalent of what you are saying. We have a housing crisis because we don’t build enough housing, and it has huge negative repercussions economically in our area and state. But you’re saying if we don’t keep the market artificially high people will lose some value. For starters, homes or investment properties aren’t guaranteed to increase. Nor should the gov’t favor existing homeowners over younger people or current non home owners. But that’s what your position is arguing for.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the motivation for NIMBY by a very large and powerful force in the community, as was very clear, stop making shit up.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
This is an irrelevant appeal to poverty. The reason homes in California are so expensive is taxes and government regulation more than anything else. Sure, demand plays a role but like in Portland restrictive zoning regulations, oppressive building codes and zoning, along with astronomical property taxes are really driving the price up.
Click to expand...

We have Prop 13, property taxes in California are not high. If they were higher it might actually bring down costs.

The whole premise of the move in Berkeley is easing zoning restrictions to allow denser development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top