It’s pretty clear that the one municipal function that runs through every city action in every city, big or small, rich or poor is “Planning.” Yet, Planning is usually not very much on the minds of people until something goes wrong, and when that happens it can divide neighbors or a whole community and leave a deep scar that won’t heal for years to come, if ever. Like it or not, Planning is the keeper of those values that define a City — its historic resources, destinations, views, architecture, vitality, beauty and even its people — all those attributes that distinguish one city from another.
Today, under the banners of “housing,” “revitalization,” or “progress,” we are hearing an increased number of statements that since it takes too long to get anything approved, projects should be granted approval on a “by-right” basis without any comments from “pesky” neighbors and public hearings. Those who oppose this approach to Planning are branded “NIMBY’s” and accused that they want to close the gates to anyone new and don’t care about the environment. There is an increasing crescendo to the ringing chorus of BUILD, BUILD, BUILD:
- The State’s Legislative Analyst released a study stating that we have a housing crisis because California’s “coastal communities” have not built enough housing in the past, but the data is generalized, not specific to particular communities and doesn’t recognize existing densities.
- Regional government says each city has to build specified percentages of new housing affordable to various income groups, but it, too, doesn’t account for existing densities in those communities, but while leaving it up to each city to decide where to locate its new housing, it has no enforcement mechanism to insure that affordable housing is built. Furthermore, because of historical inequities at the local government level, existing bias and the lack of citizen voices having meaning in planning, certain neighborhoods become the targets for more density, pollution and location for low income housing.
- The $85 million “hostile” takeover of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) leaves many East Bay cities concerned about losing local control entirely over placement of new housing within each city.
- The University, in the middle of a small, land-locked community, agrees to admit thousands of new students and doesn’t say a word to the community, nor does our local government say a word to the campus about where will these students be housed and how the campus will find adequate academic space.
- “Experts” of all kinds say that if enough housing units are built, someday the price of rental housing will come down, but they don’t say how many units will be required to reach that point, or what the community will look like when, and if, that finally happens.
- Mayor Bates attempts to initiate “by-right” approvals for the construction of multi-family buildings without holding a public hearing in Priority Development Areas throughout the City. The Mayor was scheduled to present his response to the need for more housing in Berkeley at the April 5, 2016 Council meeting. Over 200 people attended that meeting to hear the Mayor deem that it all had been a “misunderstanding,” without any explanation whatsoever of what had been misunderstood. He then presented a re-ordering of the agenda that combined amended and dropped so many items that everyone in the audience and even everyone on the Council and City staff was confused and nothing got done. His various proposals to increase density in residential neighborhoods that are immediately adjacent to commercial corridors such as San Pablo, University and Telegraph were subsequently referred to the Planning Commission — we will have to wait and see what comes of that.
- Then we hear that Governor Brown and State Legislators are proposing taking control of land use from local communities and replacing it with a State-governed process that requires “by-right” approvals! Could it be possible that it was just premature to try and eliminate public hearings on multifamily housing at the local level, when the State was getting ready to do the same thing?
At that same Council meeting, April 5, 2016, in addition to the remarks by the person who was recognized and had a day declared in her honor by the Mayor (see The Cultural Corner in this issue), the remarks given by another resident stand out.
That Statement to the City Council by Miranda Ewell is as follows:
I feel so so discouraged about what’s happening here in Berkeley. At the beginning of the year, like so many others, I was encouraged to hear Bernie Sanders speaking truth to power, calling out the culture of greed that is wreaking havoc in our country.
But right here in Berkeley, we are being overrun by that same culture of greed, often masquerading it seems as concern for the environment. We’ve had a city government that turned over our downtown to developers who are building high rise, luxury housing. The Bates administration has, by its own admission — read the chart on page 8 of the city report — built 89 percent of the luxury housing and only 4 percent of the moderate income housing projected for future needs. Now the mayor is proposing to extend this downtown density to major corridors that line the flatland neighborhoods of our town.
This so-called ”housing plan“ is not just gentrification. It is the BIG LIE: that dense high rise building is an environmentally conscious and socially responsible policy that will result in better conditions for the lower and middle income families that are being driven out of town because of rising housing prices.
The fact is that re-use of existing buildings and constructing low-rise housing results in a sustainable ecology that advances those social policy goals in a much more responsible way than destroying existing housing, hauling it away to landfills, and carting in steel and cement from overseas to construct a phalanx of shiny, new 9-10 story buildings that inevitably carry a price tag far beyond the reach of middle class families.
This is a rezoning plan that will rip out the heart from historic neighborhoods of middle class families who long ago saw the wisdom of living in the flatlands where walking, bicycling and mass transportation have been a way of life for decades.
I think it’s fair to ask if this isn’t just a farewell gift to developers by a mayor leaving office. And I ask those who are campaigning to lead this city in the next few years to think carefully about whether the legacy of luxury housing is something they want to continue. Isn’t it time to return to the spirit of a city that has long treasured diversity and justice and the Ohlone wisdom of honoring nature’s gifts of sunlight and air?
Thank you Ms. Ewell! And that’s what we’re thinking about!