California SB 6 and AB2011 were both passed in order to deal with this issue (ministerial process ignores CEQA) as well as to rapidly encourage house development in all parts of CA. Here's an...
California SB 6 and AB2011 were both passed in order to deal with this issue (ministerial process ignores CEQA) as well as to rapidly encourage house development in all parts of CA. Here's an article from earlier this year highlighting some of the effects which are already kicking in and how it's going to rapidly affect housing in California.
Sounds like progress. But it’s somewhat worrisome that Alameda has already been trying to develop Alameda Point for years. I wonder what other obstacles there will be?
Sounds like progress. But it’s somewhat worrisome that Alameda has already been trying to develop Alameda Point for years. I wonder what other obstacles there will be?
Requirements on housing density have made nearly every city lose their rights to have control. The ones who managed to maintain control all had to very quickly approve a LOT of housing development...
Sounds like progress. But it’s somewhat worrisome that Alameda has already been trying to develop Alameda Point for years. I wonder what other obstacles there will be?
Requirements on housing density have made nearly every city lose their rights to have control. The ones who managed to maintain control all had to very quickly approve a LOT of housing development which meant NIMBYs losing out everywhere. If Alameda Point somehow survived this, then there's probably a good reason which has to do with safety or feasibility.
Well, from the article you shared: Maybe that's a special case because it's city-owned land? They seem to have made too hard a deal, so the developer balked when costs got worse. I think it could...
Well, from the article you shared:
In 2015, the city approved a plan for almost 1,000 housing units here [in Alameda point], along with retail, residential and commercial space, a sports complex and large public art sculptures.
But, the development highlights the other big challenge city and state planners face when it comes to getting housing built in the Bay Area: Just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s doable.
The redevelopment of Alameda Point has been going slowly and not so smoothly. Construction and labor costs were rising before the pandemic, but now, coupled with inflation, they're only becoming more expensive.
“What we have in our favor is that the city owns the land, so we have a lot more control over our destiny,” Thomas said. “But [there are] no new streets, old infrastructure, old sewer systems that need to be replaced.”
According to Thomas, Alameda Point Partners, the developer working on the project, has come back to the City Council at least six times to renegotiate the deal, partially because of costly city requirements to install public art and contribute to transportation infrastructure. And in the meantime, construction has stalled.
Maybe that's a special case because it's city-owned land? They seem to have made too hard a deal, so the developer balked when costs got worse.
I think it could be a more general problem though. A plan to build doesn't necessarily mean having money to build, private developers need to supply at least some of the money, and even when some legal barriers are removed, there are other ways to make things unprofitable for them so they don't actually want to invest.
I think the California state government's pro-housing laws are a big step forward, getting rid of some of the legal barriers to building. All California cities need to have plans about where to build. But paper plans aren't buildings, there's still strong opposition in many places, and opponents may come up with other strategies. We'll see where it works.
I would suggest you read what AB2011 and SB6 do. It's not just about approving plans. Housing density also has to be met within certain timelines or they take over. It's not just about putting it...
I think it could be a more general problem though. A plan to build doesn't necessarily mean having money to build, private developers need to supply at least some of the money, and even when some legal barriers are removed, there are other ways to make things unprofitable for them so they don't actually want to invest.
I would suggest you read what AB2011 and SB6 do. It's not just about approving plans. Housing density also has to be met within certain timelines or they take over. It's not just about putting it on paper.
Chiming in with an uninformed thought, Alameda also has incredibly high levels of toxins. It's possible they need to do some serious mitigation (a la Hunters Point or Point San Pablo) before they...
Chiming in with an uninformed thought, Alameda also has incredibly high levels of toxins. It's possible they need to do some serious mitigation (a la Hunters Point or Point San Pablo) before they are allowed to develop.
[...] CEQA has emerged as an unexpected impediment to California’s going green. Across the Golden State, CEQA lawsuits have imperiled infill housing in Sacramento, solar farms in San Diego, and transit in San Francisco. The mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to stop small projects—especially housing—from starting in the first place. Indeed, one of the main effects of CEQA has been to exacerbate the state’s crippling housing-affordability crisis.
[...]
The acts work like so: For any public project, the state must conduct an initial environmental study, considering a range of possible effects relating to issues such as air quality, noise, and protected natural areas. If a project crosses certain thresholds—say, by encroaching too much on wetlands or generating too much stormwater runoff—the agency must conduct an environmental-impact report (EIR), extensively documenting all possible harms, setting out potential alternatives, and organizing public hearings for feedback. In this sense, CEQA’s purpose is strictly informational: Legislatures and agencies are always free to go forward with a project, as long as they acknowledge, disclose, and mitigate its impacts.
In the early days, initial studies and EIRs were generally quite short, and covered only truly public projects. But in 1972, the California courts interpreted a “public project” to include any private development that required governmental approvals. In cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, where almost nothing can be built without some form of discretionary permit, this effectively meant that every apartment building and office tower in the state now had to conduct an environmental assessment. Notably, no other state applies its environmental-policy act in this way.
This mandate wouldn’t have been such a problem if bringing a CEQA suit weren’t so easy. As a “self-executing” statute, CEQA is enforced by aggrieved parties requesting that a court mandate either a full environmental review—in cases where none was initially deemed necessary—or heavy revisions to an existing EIR. Litigants can even file these lawsuits anonymously. In theory, the system was meant to protect those most affected by proposed projects. In practice, it has made CEQA the preferred lever of California’s infamously litigious NIMBYs (Not-in-My-Back-Yard-ers). Anyone with a few hundred bucks can drag developers to court, forcing projects to undergo years of delays and to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Los Angeles native checking in... I'll preface this by saying I have no idea how to actually solve the development issues that plague the area. And I'm not really sure how to structure the ensuing...
Los Angeles native checking in... I'll preface this by saying I have no idea how to actually solve the development issues that plague the area. And I'm not really sure how to structure the ensuing rant, or what point I'm going to be trying to make.
I tend to think of the development cycles here as bearing more commonality with infection. Think of a ringworm infection, with a leading edge expanding outwards. We have a lot of restrictions on verticality, some founded in good reason (look up some photos of the '94 earthquake if an illustration is needed), but also with a smidge of bad faith (because there are plenty of ways to build vertically that account for the issues justifying prevention). But there is a constant need for more housing, so the ring expands outwards. Since the flat land and valleys are already packed full, that means expanding out to the hills.
The result is massive scars of development plots that level entire hills and literally alter the landscape irrevocably.
There has been an uptick in development projects repurposing previously developed land, though. But these projects often fall short of the mark, particularly when it comes to accounting for increases in traffic in a given area. The transportation infrastructure here is not easily adapted to suit new needs. There is a constant push for new public transportation, but it's always too little, too late.
That said, there have been some projects that seem to have tried their best to accommodate all concerns. Mixed used, vertical developments near public transportation hubs are all the rage right now. But quite a few of these developments have taken excessive advantage of the ease on parking requirements when building in proximity to transportation hubs.
Because of the highly competitive nature of the job market across pretty much all sectors within the area, personal transportation is too often an absolute requirement. Long commutes are often unavoidable. And the layout of existing public transportation provides solutions for very few needs. Being able to use public transportation to get to and from work is an outlier case, not the norm. So even if new developments plopped down near hubs are intended to offer easy access to public transport, the people living there will most often still need their own transportation.
Not accounting for that need is a good example of the types of issues that plague the development here. Lack of cohesion and forethought. I'd also throw "lack of ethics" into that bag. Gentrification and generally not giving a damn what kinds of effects a given development will have on a community is incredibly entrenched, both in development practices and in public perception. So NIMBYism is entirely to be expected.
I think if developers started illustrating a willingness to go the extra mile in terms of forethought in some of these mentioned areas as well as others I haven't mentioned, perception could quickly shift. Because there is dire need of fulfilling housing requirements. If people saw needs being met in a responsible manner, the NIMBYs would be much more readily cast aside.
Instead, we have a system where the major developers get their projects mainlined by wheeling and dealing to line the pockets of the local politicians. The concept of "responsible manner" is mainly just a political mask marketed to smooth things over, not something borne of any real ethical intention. And the system works so well for generating profit to all parties involved (except affected residents) that I don't see it changing any time soon, or easily.
The NIMBYs keep developers in check, but only to a certain extent. Namely, the my backyard extent. That's why the leading edge of the infection continues to expand outwards instead of inwards.
In short, it's all problematic. But if I had to pin it on one thing in particular, it would be that it's difficult as hell to regulate ethical forethought.
California SB 6 and AB2011 were both passed in order to deal with this issue (ministerial process ignores CEQA) as well as to rapidly encourage house development in all parts of CA. Here's an article from earlier this year highlighting some of the effects which are already kicking in and how it's going to rapidly affect housing in California.
Sounds like progress. But it’s somewhat worrisome that Alameda has already been trying to develop Alameda Point for years. I wonder what other obstacles there will be?
Requirements on housing density have made nearly every city lose their rights to have control. The ones who managed to maintain control all had to very quickly approve a LOT of housing development which meant NIMBYs losing out everywhere. If Alameda Point somehow survived this, then there's probably a good reason which has to do with safety or feasibility.
Well, from the article you shared:
Maybe that's a special case because it's city-owned land? They seem to have made too hard a deal, so the developer balked when costs got worse.
I think it could be a more general problem though. A plan to build doesn't necessarily mean having money to build, private developers need to supply at least some of the money, and even when some legal barriers are removed, there are other ways to make things unprofitable for them so they don't actually want to invest.
I think the California state government's pro-housing laws are a big step forward, getting rid of some of the legal barriers to building. All California cities need to have plans about where to build. But paper plans aren't buildings, there's still strong opposition in many places, and opponents may come up with other strategies. We'll see where it works.
I would suggest you read what AB2011 and SB6 do. It's not just about approving plans. Housing density also has to be met within certain timelines or they take over. It's not just about putting it on paper.
Chiming in with an uninformed thought, Alameda also has incredibly high levels of toxins. It's possible they need to do some serious mitigation (a la Hunters Point or Point San Pablo) before they are allowed to develop.
From the article:
[...]
Los Angeles native checking in... I'll preface this by saying I have no idea how to actually solve the development issues that plague the area. And I'm not really sure how to structure the ensuing rant, or what point I'm going to be trying to make.
I tend to think of the development cycles here as bearing more commonality with infection. Think of a ringworm infection, with a leading edge expanding outwards. We have a lot of restrictions on verticality, some founded in good reason (look up some photos of the '94 earthquake if an illustration is needed), but also with a smidge of bad faith (because there are plenty of ways to build vertically that account for the issues justifying prevention). But there is a constant need for more housing, so the ring expands outwards. Since the flat land and valleys are already packed full, that means expanding out to the hills.
The result is massive scars of development plots that level entire hills and literally alter the landscape irrevocably.
There has been an uptick in development projects repurposing previously developed land, though. But these projects often fall short of the mark, particularly when it comes to accounting for increases in traffic in a given area. The transportation infrastructure here is not easily adapted to suit new needs. There is a constant push for new public transportation, but it's always too little, too late.
That said, there have been some projects that seem to have tried their best to accommodate all concerns. Mixed used, vertical developments near public transportation hubs are all the rage right now. But quite a few of these developments have taken excessive advantage of the ease on parking requirements when building in proximity to transportation hubs.
Because of the highly competitive nature of the job market across pretty much all sectors within the area, personal transportation is too often an absolute requirement. Long commutes are often unavoidable. And the layout of existing public transportation provides solutions for very few needs. Being able to use public transportation to get to and from work is an outlier case, not the norm. So even if new developments plopped down near hubs are intended to offer easy access to public transport, the people living there will most often still need their own transportation.
Not accounting for that need is a good example of the types of issues that plague the development here. Lack of cohesion and forethought. I'd also throw "lack of ethics" into that bag. Gentrification and generally not giving a damn what kinds of effects a given development will have on a community is incredibly entrenched, both in development practices and in public perception. So NIMBYism is entirely to be expected.
I think if developers started illustrating a willingness to go the extra mile in terms of forethought in some of these mentioned areas as well as others I haven't mentioned, perception could quickly shift. Because there is dire need of fulfilling housing requirements. If people saw needs being met in a responsible manner, the NIMBYs would be much more readily cast aside.
Instead, we have a system where the major developers get their projects mainlined by wheeling and dealing to line the pockets of the local politicians. The concept of "responsible manner" is mainly just a political mask marketed to smooth things over, not something borne of any real ethical intention. And the system works so well for generating profit to all parties involved (except affected residents) that I don't see it changing any time soon, or easily.
The NIMBYs keep developers in check, but only to a certain extent. Namely, the my backyard extent. That's why the leading edge of the infection continues to expand outwards instead of inwards.
In short, it's all problematic. But if I had to pin it on one thing in particular, it would be that it's difficult as hell to regulate ethical forethought.