This doesn't cover Atherton's train stop, based on their estimated map, which is interesting.
Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
31–40 of 140 posts
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#32Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#33Love to see it. It's great to have rural low-density for people who want it, but if you're building public mass transit in a big city, you really gotta commit to density.
Exactly this. So much money for transit has been completely wasted because the zoning around stops is hilariously low. We shouldn't be spending any money for trains on places that are not fully committed to having 4-7 story apartments all around the stops.
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The California housing crisis is a result of restrictive local policy preventing housing starts, not a shortage of materials.
Aren't there a lot of people in the Palisades still waiting for permits to rebuild from the fires almost a year ago? It's utterly absurd looking from the outside that officials are claiming the permits are being "fast tracked" even now.
"almost a year" isn't a very long time for West Coast permits
The duplex I'm in took... 4-5 years of permitting? Something like that.
Totally insane waits, I agree.
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't there a lot of people in the Palisades still waiting for permits to rebuild from the fires almost a year ago? It's utterly absurd looking from the outside that officials are claiming the permits are being "fast tracked" even now.
I mean, it was 16,000-18,000 homes that were destroyed? That's a hell of a lot when you consider that all the other new builds are still in the queue to be permitted too.
Sure! But you could treat it as an emergency and staff up. It could even be through a mutual aid system the way utilities team up to do repairs after disasters, borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions.
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will always serve up these kinds of con artist lies to placate people. You cannot add ~60 million foreign national people to the US population in the last 25 years without severely impacting the housing situation when the USA has only built 1.1 million housing units…
What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported
Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#37Great for much needed housing, but this will poison the well for public transit and cause NIMBYs to triple down on opposition to public transit expansion…
How much more tripped down can they get? I think they’ve been tripped down on it for decades.
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#38Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#39SB79 is a great step forward for California. Hopefully other states implement similar (and more aggressive) bills in their states. My dream world would see an elimination of local zoning as we do in the US, and a move to a zoning system more like the Japanese use. I would also love to see states adopt a Land-Value Tax to help incentivize development. Similar to SB79 I have always hoped for a bill that enforced someth…
[flagged]
> Can't have nice things
This is unironically the current state of things. If you want to live in a semi dense suburban area which is within walking distance of transit, restaurants, and parks, then you're pretty much out of luck or you're paying millions for the handful of houses that meet that demand.
Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
#40(Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to a complaint that people should be allowed to have “nice things” like suburban-style housing.)
> The bill only applies in urban transit counties. These are counties with 15 or more passenger rail stations. This includes the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara.
That already excludes most of the rural land in California. Some of those counties are still pretty big, however, so the next bit is also important:
> Within these counties, areas within a half-mile of most of the following stations are now designated as transit-oriented development (TOD) zones:
> Areas within a half-mile of all heavy rail (e.g., BART) and/or very high-frequency commuter rail stations—defined as stations that run 72 or more trains per day—are designated as Tier 1 TOD zones.
> Areas within a half-mile of all light rail (e.g., the San Diego Trolley), BRT, and/or high-frequency commuter rail stations—defined as stations that run 48 or more trains per day—are designated as Tier 2 TOD zones.
> In smaller cities, defined as cities with a population of less than 35,000 residents, only the quarter-mile area of the TOD zone is covered. And if a county becomes an urban transit county after January 1, 2026, only heavy rail, light rail, and eligible commuter rail will be covered—not BRT.
It is bad planning to build this kind of transportation and expect the area within 1/2 mile of the stations to stay “suburban,” (which really means single-family; there’s plenty of apartment buildings in suburbs around the world) much less “rural.”