• 11 Posts
  • 171 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 30th, 2024

help-circle











  • That’s already the case, though a relatively recent change, called Builder’s Remedy. An incorporated city is granted the right to zone but if they do not have a state compliant housing element (an eight year plan for expected growth and housing to meet that) and if they deny building permits for that planned housing, then a builder can bypass the city’s permitting process. A city effectively forfeits their right to city planning if they don’t have an achievable plan for sufficient housing stock.

    Berkeley has a state approved housing element. If this protested building is in the plan, then there’s not a whole lot the shop owner can do about it. They probably missed their council meetings in figuring out where to put housing during the planning of their city’s housing element. Or they’re upset that they lost in their local politics.







  • These are the same assholes who are suing the city saying proposition K was illegal. Check out this crazy statement in their court petition:

    The effects of Proposition K will be to displace longtime residents, merchants, visitors, and daily commuters. Proposition K advances exclusionary public policies of limited benefit, and compromises the safety, accessibility, and overall well-being of the entire Bay Area. It effectively denies people equitable access to public roads, safe transportation, and a livable environment.

    Briefs have just been filed and the city’s opposition brief is pretty damning. You can check out the case document’s if you’re so inclined, but we can also just wait. The hearing is scheduled for November 10th and I’m planning to make some fresh popcorn when that news hits.