Original post made
on Nov 30, 2007
This story contains 49 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
It's wonderful to have Diana champion our renovation project! The art center is really a gem, as she calls it. The art critic for the San Francisco Chronicle uses the very same word himself. Art lovers come from across the street and from across the Bay to explore the exhibits that our talented curator Signe Mayfield mounts. Children and adults love our art classes. School teachers praise Project Look! Savy holiday shoppers find treasures at the center's shop. The art center is a wonderful community resource.
The Art Center Foundation has always been grateful for the support of the city council and the city staff. It would be a dream come true, I must admit, if the city council were to assist with the much needed renovation of the center as well as paying most of the costs of new HVAC and electrical systems and ADA upgrades to the bathrooms. It is a city building after all. Think what a difference some of those millions would make at the art center.
Thanks for your support.
No mention of the cost of the ABAG BMR costs?
"It also states that the city would need to provide a $375 million to $500 million subsidy to pay for the 1,875 affordable units. "
These costs overwhelm anything that you are talking about.
"It also states that the city would need to provide a $375 million to $500 million subsidy to pay for the 1,875 affordable units. "
What will be the total cost to public health and the environment if we continue to permit - or refuse to reduce - our contribution to fouling the environment with commuter emissions?
This will be one of the results of our refusal to accommodate ABAG numbers.
PLease factor that into your spreadsheet.
I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. I was quite impressed, and worried about our future. I have three small children, and I want a real future for them.
As I began to listen and read about global warming, though, I became less convinced about Mr. Gore's arguments, on the one hand, and more convinced that, if global warming is a major threat to us, then we need to look at all possible solutions, not just conservation and sun energy. As a mother, I would like to think that soft approaches will work, but my mind says otherwise.
I have been following some of the posts on this site about nuclear energy. I have always opposed it, but I am coming around to another look at it. It has problems, but it is very clean, and abundant. Maybe it is time to rethink this issue.
The costs of below market housing in Palo Alto is huge, $300-500 million! We cannot afford this, Mike. I think we are better off with nuclear energy. From what I have read, nuclear will reduce greenhouse emmisions much better than dense housing in Palo Alto. It will also allow us to achieve this goal without overcrowding our schools, something I am very concerned about.
I don't have the answers, but I am starting to look at alternative approaches. Perhaps we all should be looking at the realities that confront us, and our future.
Heidi, "Perhaps we all should be looking at the realities that confront us, and our future. "
Agreed. Nuclear is an old-tech solution. I've been lobbying for alternatives. btw, Gore's arguments are supported by an order-of-magnitude greater number of scientists, than any opposing opinions. You might want to consider that.
Also, you would get a good laugh no the Daily Show for proposing nuke tech as a way to rationalize suburban sprawl.
Scientists go where the grant money is. The money is in gotterdamurungen [sp?] The numbers are fudged, and even NASA's Hansen admits it. Gore is getting rich off of "Global Warming". Before they can show Gore's foolishness in England they are required to inform the audience of a list of lies in that movie.
Graduate education is nothing more than higher form of welfare when students and professors receive grant money from the State or Federal Government.
"Before they can show Gore's foolishness in England they are required to inform the audience of a list of lies in that movie."
And that's why they start the showings with 3 minutes of silence.
Higher density in an area like Palo Alto (an area with too much traffic already) brings more traffic, not less.
BMR and high density housing does not in fact reduce damage caused by commuter emission. It increases it. Despite the beauty of the theory that higher density allows for better mass transit etc., the improvement that mass transit etc. brings is a drop in the bucket of the harm of increased density.
Anyone pushing this must have another agenda as well. It just doesn't make sense.
All the attacks on the integrity of people who want to keep density under control, all the distracting topics regarding "nay-sayers" etc. do tend to hide the basic problem that there is just no argument for increasing density in Palo Alto. Our share of the responsibility to house the poor? Too many people in the world without access to Palo Alto jobs? No stopping the road to high density? Why would anyone in Palo Alto want more density here?
"BMR and high density housing does not in fact reduce damage caused by commuter emission. It increases it"
"Despite the beauty of the theory that higher density allows for better mass transit etc., the improvement that mass transit etc. brings is a drop in the bucket of the harm of increased density."
What continues to astound is the partial analysis that anti-housing proponents bring to the table. They NEVER talk about comprehensive housing AND mass transport efforts - and they assume that these things won't reduce pollution. How do they know that to be true, other than uttering it over and over again, in the hope that it will be taken for granted, like a cheap ad for detergent.
Density can be scaled, managed and controlled in ways that maintain neighborhood integrity. There are many ways to bring forward development that actually *profits* the capital and social profile of our city.
My bet is that "Mike is wrong" takes pride in a number of pro-environmentalist stances. With that as an assumed given, how does s/he reconcile these two contradicting opinions?
One immediate answer to that is to say that infill housing and mass transport won't work - without any evidence to support that contention.
Yes, in theory - assuming that we have comprehensive housing, mass transport, and other solutions that are properly coordinated - increasing density in *strategic* ways will reduce our carbon load.
I haven't even seen a credible _theory_ from the other side, to support their contentions about housing. All they have is a manta - it's the word "no", repeated over and over again.
Hopefully, our city will awake from this sleepy meditation, and look at innovative ways to bring more residents here, fulfill our responsibility to the environment, lead our region in doing the same, and make our city sustainable into the future with a thriving, dynamic, and somewhat larger population.
byw, does anyone think that 2030's projected 80,000+ residents is the end? It's not; this means we have to plan for ways to Scale growth, well into the future.
I hear a lot of talk about planning for "seven generations"; it's about time we really took those words to heart, based on the growth that we know is coming, instead of burying our heads in the sand and hoping that potential home buyers and developers are going to altruistically overlook wanting to move/develop here.
Our Planning Commission can do far better than it has, recently - and so can the rest of our city's policy makers. We want to build forward sustainability, not artificial development moats that will doom us to relative mediocrity in 30 years.
So, Mike, where do you propose those people go?
I once proposed that anyone who came to California after 1936 go home - when asked why I chose 1936 I responded that was when I came here. The drawbridge mentality is srong hereabouts. The cult of Malthus and Ehrlich is, too.
One item Diana missed is the money being spent to refurbish Jesus Ramos Park. A park that was otherwise in pretty good shape.
So, why spend the money on this park? The money is coming in to the City from developer's impact fees which are supposed to be used for parks and libraries.
The City doesn't want to spend this money on libraries because they want you, the residents of PA, to pass a bond measure for libraries. Now the City has a problem, lots of money coming in from developer's impact fees; so why not spend it on a park that really doesn't need it.
Neighbor, "why not spend it on a park that really doesn't need it."
How do you know that the park doesn't need repair? Are you a recreation facilities specialist?
Walter, Yes, I wonder where the anti-housing crowd want all of our good future citizens to go? I wonder this about all the communities on our peninsula, who have been shirking their responsibility to ease carbon load into the environment.
I know the latter is not a rationale that would float with you, because uou and I disagree on the enormity of the global warming problem - so be it. That said, I know we're agreed on the disgust in delay of process - and thus the negative economic impacts to our city - simply to serve a minority (in this case, anti-growth residents) that have had their way too long.
Mike: Where is it proven that increasing the number of people will act to decrease carbon output? It doesn't make sense to me. The more people, the more energy use, and the more traffic, and the more students in our schools, and the more overuse of our sports fields. I, Truly, cannot understand this approach.
If one of the goals is to reduce carbon, then why don't we just aim at using more electricity, instead of fossil fuels? Hybrid cars? I have even heard of hybrid cars that can be plugged into the socket at our homes, making them even more pollution free.
Sharron: Our population is going to increase. Start with that as a given - it's not a point for discussion in debate.
With that as a given, we have to find ways to limit the constant sprawl that has been responsible for spewing most of the carbon emissions into our environment.
To date, we have done almost NOTHING about altering the housing pattern development that is a part of America's DNA. We have to change that.
Every city planner worth her salt will tell you that the pattern of outward housing development - from city center to exurbia - has done more to negatively impact our environment (and our personal health) than any other single variable.
Building infill, combined with *aggressive* construction of (and lobbying for) efficient mass transit WILL reduce carbon emissions. For instance, many incentives and disincentives can be put in place by housing, and other, agencies that reward individuals for staying our of their cars, or permit dense housing to be built only near mass transport.
There are a hundred ways to shift our current housing and transportation patterns. Some of this will be painful, but it must be done. We have to learn how to break old habits, because those old habits are causing problems that grow exponentially.
Hybrid cars? They're part of the solution, but the fastest way to change our carbon load problems is to build more housing, closer to work - not the opposite.
Mike: My sister lives in Tracy and commutes over here (Mt. View, actually) every day in a commuter van with seven other workers, who also commute here). She likes it. She and her husband have three kids, and they like their home. Personally, I would not want to commute so far, but she says she is used to it, and it gives her personal time to read books. I am sure that she would not like to live in very small housing in Palo Alto or Mt. View. She has three boys, so they need room to roam.
I understand your point that population will continue to grow, but why do we need to crowd ourselves in like rats to accomodate that growth? You say that it is about stopping carbon production, but I think that can be done by other means, like electricity.
If people crowd in together, that doesn't mean that they will not drive around town. They do! How many kids do you have, Mike? If you have more than one, you must know that it is impossible to get them to various activities using public transportation. I have two girls, and one plays soccer, and the other like dance, so I am always using my car to make tings work. My husband works in Redwood City. We have two cars, and both are necessary, and one of them is a Prius. When we can afford it, we will buy another hybrid, and I hope we can plug it in.
I think it is much better to use electrcity to lower our carbon output, compared to living like sardines, with too much traffic and overcrowded schools.
I appreciate your concerns, Mike, but I don't think I can agree with your solutions.
"but why do we need to crowd ourselves in like rats to accomodate that growth?"
Why is that scenario your assumption. There's plenty of room here for new residents. What about other dramatic increases to our population over the last 50 years? We adapted, just fine.
Your sister is welcome to her home in Tracy, but I don't want to see more people commuting than we have now.
btw, getting people to various venues without private transportation IS rather impossible...now. How does Amsterdam (Europe) manage? There are many other cities that do not have to depend on cars, as we do. We need to change some things.
My sense is that you're looking at our current condition, and are not willing to consider that citizens can make, and adapt, to change. That's what growth is all about, if it's done right (which it hasn't been - we are going to have to change that, because the reality of water and other environmental factors in our state (including the state of our health) demands that we begin to alter dysfunctional patterns of housing and transport behavior.
This will happen. We are at the genesis.
Tell me, how much of your home do you actually use, a lot? I have spoken to contractors of large homes, who have asked some of their clients to take a piece of string with them and measure out their daily activities (in their large home). These contractors tell me that those in small homes live very comfortably, doing the same activities as those in larger homes, using less "string".
We're spoiled re: housing size; that's something that cost and forward conditions will change, within a generation. Smaller homes are in our future, and we're going to love them.
Mike: Please tell me how many kids you have. Please.