On another note— it’s kinda fun watching them all line up behind Mr. Romney. I won’t even mention cult comments related to him. Although the Christian tea baggy right used to always mention it……..hmmm funny how they are quiet about that now in the Republi-cult.

Well, I digress, sorry.

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!

Oh man, that was fun.

Unlike that existing regulation, SB 375 does not set boundaries for development or attempt to constrain or reduce the supply of a particular housing type. The status quo can continue if the local community wants. In some cases the law actually _simplifies_ development by letting it bypass the usually lengthy environmental process, which could lead to more housing supply. And even if it’s just apartments that qualify for that, do you really think the building industry will ignore demand for single-family housing? It’s not as if SB 375 forces them to do so.

It’s also not as if SB 375 forces anyone not to own a car, so, when that disaster comes, every Californian (who can afford it and has a license) can hop in a car and get away (if they’re not stuck in a getaway traffic jam, of course).

It’s not so extreme for the Attorney General to review a major planning document for one of the state’s largest regions and find it doesn’t fully follow state law, nor is it so wrong to recognize building more roads does not necessarily solve traffic congestion or help air quality.

This law is so extreme that San Diego is being scrutinized by K. Harris because there are too many roads being built by the year 2050 and not enough public transport (oh, I’m all for bike paths and walk ways, they are called trails & wouldn’t cost anything). Thank you Mr. Seiler for exposing this mess.

* using your own two feet for any errand is basically out of the question,
* the bicycles that depend on no fuel source except the rider’s breakfast are crowded off the road,
* the cost of the remaining transportation option of the automobile is heavily susceptible to changing gas prices,
* everyone’s transportation at any moment depends on everyone else’s driving choices and habits,
* the individual who cannot drive a car because of age or physical condition must depend on others for rides,
* the sheer distance between land uses as imposed by poor zoning rules and private building practices demands car transportation for almost every purpose,
* the personal option of public transportation is made virtually or literally unavailable by the transit-unsupportive environment, and
* the choice to live in alternative neighborhoods where cars are much less necessary is just not available for lack of such neighborhoods in appropriate locations

should represent freedom needs further explanation.

Car-dependency is not freedom. Having a choice of using a car, a bike, public transit, or the feet to reach points near and far is freedom. This is what’s found in dense cities, and this is what’s found in the older detached-house suburbs next to those cities. But this is not found in the newer suburbs with walled-off subdivisions, disconnected streets, parking lots surrounding each and every store, mostly uncrossable arterials, and car primacy in almost every public and semi-public place.

And, wouldn’t you know it, much of this un-freedom status quo, though happily constructed by the real estate and building industries, was “planned” by the local government policies such as exclusive zones and wider-and-faster-equals-better road standards. So what we see now in the “free” suburbs is not an expression of unhindered property rights but in part a dictated vision.

But now under SB 375 those local governments have an incentive to stop imposing that vision and start allowing a choice among neighborhood types and among transportation options, plus the permitting process for the newer development types would be eased. The choice of living in existing sprawling neighborhoods still exists, as car-dependent as ever if you like that, as do the foreclosed houses, if their sheer undesirability hasn’t yet prompted their developers to tear them down. But where new development exists, whether on reused inner properties or unbuilt outer lands, it might very well be a mixture of apartments*, townhouses, and even detached houses with lawns, whether for rentership or ownership, plus nearby goods and services, all on streets and a street network allowing both car and non-car transportation.

Compared with the status quo, this is a step toward greater freedom.

*And not a Cabrini Green to be seen anywhere, as that has not been anyone’s idea of a model in California since the 1950s.

Ted