yes. and here's my opinion.
you didn't buy that lower density. you stole it. if you had to compete fairly against 4 households that could split ye olde feoff among themselves, you couldn't afford it. you banned the poor from having bread so you can have cake. and you know who's supporting you? "socialists"
1
thank you for sharing! I hope you support AB1279, ideally with amended height and FAR requirements from SB50. I’m very excited about it :)
1
Why is AB1279 better? I can’t read legislation but skimmed and saw something about tying to RHNA which immediately deserves the garbage can.
1
short answer: laser focus on exclusionary communities. I agree on amendments but no one is paying attention to it enough. (I can provide a longer answer later but I just did a panel and I’ve had no sleep this week so am downing margs)
2
1
As long as Palo Alto is blown up, I give it a thumbs-up, but reading over 1279, it doesn't seem like it blows it up nearly this much:
2
1
1
That map exaggerates (shocking considering that the report was purchased for hundreds of thousands of dollars by the same NIMBY families who donate tens of thousands to local candidates), but yeah, SB50 is awesome for Palo Alto.
3
1
Not sure. Let’s ask the guy in the basement, @anniefryman. Do train stations with gameday-only service count as fixed rail?
2
2
So expect the closure and dismantling of Atherton station soon?
Apr 26, 2019 · 7:32 AM UTC
1
2