This has nothing to do with historic preservation. Berkeley has even gone so far as declaring a parking lot as historic to block construction of an apartment building.
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.
Berkeley was not only the first city in America to use racist zoning to prevent lower-income and non-whites from moving into wealthy neighborhoods – but the Elmwood district was the first neighborhood in the city to receive such treatment. That 1916 plan persists basically unchanged to do this day, with the Elmwood having the highest percentage of white residents in Alameda County. The State is acting well within its obligations to put a stop to such policies.
I always heard Berkeley was supposed to be “progressive”, but this makes it seem like they’re all NIMBY liberals… Which would you say is closer to the truth?
This has nothing to do with historic preservation. Berkeley has even gone so far as declaring a parking lot as historic to block construction of an apartment building.
The state should take away their land use privileges and issue permits directly from Sacramento
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.
We need to do away with the paperwork and mandate stuff be allowed by right and skip the theatre of housing elements
Right. Because everyone loves it when their local government is over ruled by the state.
Berkeley was not only the first city in America to use racist zoning to prevent lower-income and non-whites from moving into wealthy neighborhoods – but the Elmwood district was the first neighborhood in the city to receive such treatment. That 1916 plan persists basically unchanged to do this day, with the Elmwood having the highest percentage of white residents in Alameda County. The State is acting well within its obligations to put a stop to such policies.
On this issue? Fuck it take away local control. It’s a failed policy that’s choking us to death slowly. Statewide zoning code now
And if the statewide zoning code doesn’t meet your approval?
Politicians at higher levels are not automatically more competent.
I always heard Berkeley was supposed to be “progressive”, but this makes it seem like they’re all NIMBY liberals… Which would you say is closer to the truth?
Definitely the latter.