Thoughts on SB 827, 828? - NIMBYs vs YIMBYs

The cost per house is what counts. PA houses cost ten times those in the Imland Empire. Even $9k mentioned is much more than average paid by poor communities

We don’t have too many jobs in our town… but the politicians are very corrupt!

I live in a very pretty town. It’s beautiful. We are all paying a lot to live here.

I’d like to see it protected as something precious for future generations before all the trees are cut down and the pollution, crime, traffic, and overpopulation coupled with lack of resources make this place unlivable for all, including the last people in who want what we have. It will be destroyed en route for them, too, sad to say.

Once you pave over nature with parking lots … well… these towns will look like every other bunch of boring big boxes. We have a new development near us. We call it “New Baltimore”. Jokingly of course.

It sticks out like a sore thumb right now, but one day, imagine seeing New Baltimore, for as far as the eyes can stretch. That could happen when every decent-sized bus intersection is grounds for putting up ten story buildings.

(Let’s remember: those in power can create bus routes (and remove them) pretty easily when there are financial incentives!)

I do have empathy. And friends with shitty commutes and awful rents. There are two sides here, no question. I just don’t think this is the answer.

This issue has to be solved but we need better ideas.

The bill targets major transport hotspots. I don’t think those areas are full of nature.


From what i understand, a half mile from any train/subway/trolley and a quarter mile from any express bus stop or intersection of two major bus routes that run at least twice a day.

That covers a LOT of ground. I’d reconsider what you just said. You could pave over a lot my county with that criteria.

This is a bill to make cities denser. Good for urban life and mass transportation. The alternative is the LA effect and traffic gridlock. Nimbyies don’t care-they want the 1950s myth. So far nimbyies rule.


CA has very little effective mass transit and ridership is declining every year. This is from 2016 but more recent data similar.

Perhaps a new law: all companies must leave who cannot immediately provide housing, water, infrastructure (schools, highways, transit,etc) at reasonable rates?

Then they will stop invading MY space. Out to San Bernadino, I say! And Austin! And Chattanooga! And India! (Oh, that’s already happening, isn’t it?)

It’s all relative. I don’t work for one of those companies. I live here, too. Maybe they are the ones who should leave.

Edited to add: The frequency of bus stops at an intersection has to be every 15-20min or less (during rush hours) to qualify.

I believe allowance of 8 story buildings would only apply to streets 45 feet wide or wider. That means 4 lane wide streets with parking. If your neighborhood is full of nature right now, I would guess the streets aren’t that wide and you wouldn’t have too much to worry about.

1 Like

Where do you live?
Plenty of nature in Tahoe. Not so much in downtown SF.

8 stories, 10, now we’re in the weeds.

Pac and Stacs bring huge resource demand that is not paid for by the developers. They are ugly and bring lots of traffic and other challenging demands. So still a mess and this is why locals want control of their own town.

A town doesn’t belong to anyone who wants to live there any more than I have a “right” to live in Atherton just cuz that’s pretty and it’s near my job.

And by the way… a 3BR townhouse (or should I say, rowhouse?), in “New Baltimore” is still a million dollars.

1 Like

@Lilly I’m not familiar with Atherton. Where is “New Baltimore?”

When people are homeless and people making $100k have to get roommates asthetics are not as important as housing

1 Like

Every large metropolitan city is having these problems. This remedy is not feasable. Let the market sort things out.

It always does. If this passes, newcomers will buy at the top and watch their investments sink as more and more supply enters the market.

Or perhaps only expensive rents and pricey places. Who’s to say? Markets are markets. They are working one way now. It’s an unknown what will happen really but that’s just my guessing.

The point is zoning and nymbies won’t let the market work and have not for forty years…If it had there would be no housing crisis…


False assumption. Just look around. There first doesn’t apply. The Earth doesn’t belong to this small group staying there first. Everybody has the right to stay there.

The government is elected by the people, by induction, the people is also corrupt.

1 Like

Downtown Redwood City is actually building mid rise apartments…lots of local opposition…But the politicians showed courage…We will see what happens…

That requires more than a statement of your opinion, since there are housing crises in cities around the world. Some of which have skyscrapers.

Not buying.

My opinion is based on dealing with cities and building departments since 1976. I been involved in building and development of thousands of units…The people looking for homes have no representation…Existing residents vote for their own interests…Most don’t any more housing or traffic…They vote for their own self interest, even if their own children are hurt by lack of housing…

Skyscrapers are a red herring, not needed or wanted except in downtown SF. Mid rise 8 story buildings are needed to get enough density for mass transit to work…currently sprawled out single family burbs with clogged freways are not working…LA has proved this model to be a disaster…The BA has an opportunity to try higher density as opposed to sprawl…At least RWC is making an effort…


Until we have the water schools mass transit and highways (etc) to handle … ooops we don’t.

Build those first -oops can’t. Most people drive cars now and our mass transit is terrible. Welcome to reality. Mass transit works in dense areas.

This law allows for high buildings with little transit to most places people go here in CA. You will see many more cars on the road, not less.