 |
| Everywhere but here, regional growth is happening. One Bay Area promotes strategic regional land-use planning. |
"Regional agencies that adopted a plan last year to guide Bay Area land use and transportation through 2040 have agreed with environmentalists to study and explain how they would promote public transit and limit greenhouse gases while building more highways.
The agreement settled a lawsuit by Communities for a Better Environment and the Sierra Club, who argued that Plan Bay Area would increase climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions and displace low-income communities. The plan also is under a separate legal attack by pro-development forces who claim it is heavy-handed and unnecessary. That lawsuit is before an Alameda County Superior Court judge.
Plan Bay Area, approved last July by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission sets guideposts for a 27-year period in which the nine-county
population is projected to increase from 7 million to nearly 9 million. It is not legally binding, but designates areas eligible for state
funding to encourage housing and jobs in pedestrian-friendly
neighborhoods near transit lines in order to keep development compact,
reduce vehicle use and preserve open space. The agencies have approved
170 "priority development areas," 100 acres or larger, nominated by
local governments." Read more.
Note photograph from Fort Mills, SC, Boy Scouts, troop 108.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
11 comments:
I agree this plan seems heavy handed and unnecessary. The main point is that's it's not legally binding and should not be taken into serious consideration when formulating our general plan.
ABAG wants to limit Pacifica to only 413 housing units in the next 8 years. If a serious buyer for the quarry ever materializes putting that limit in our general plan could deter them. While the rest of SM county's population has gone up, our population has not gone up in 35 years. Look at where that's gotten us.
www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/Final%20RHNA%20(2014-2022).pdf
Oh no! They want to limit us to 413? LMAO. If 40 are built in the next 8 years, it'll be a freakin' miracle. We don't need any ABAG housing limits here. Hey, could they limit us on new libraries? Now, that would help.
I agree 153, we probably would ever reach that limit. But we don't need NO stinkin limits to scare off potential developers any more than we already have.
Council needs to dump the 1000 person limit over 10 years from our proposed general plan.
General Plan update calls for 1000 units of housing (not people) over 20 years (not 10 years).
The Draft plan allows for 1000 more people to live in Pacifica for the next decade. Either way 421, it works out to about the same. Why put that in there and give the gang of no any more ammo?
Because the gang of no is not just a local phenomenon.
Add people? What a concept! For the record, Pacifica had 38,869 population in the 2000 US Census. 9.7% were over the age of 65. In the 2010 census Pacifica had 38,606 residents and 12.1% were over the age of 65. These numbers do not show growth. This makes perfect sense because there has been no committment to growth in at least 10 years.
Population in 2012: 38,189 (100% urban, 0% rural). Population change since 2000: -0.5%
Creeping Communism
The Red Scare
Between no new housing and no affordable housing, Pacifica is shrinking. As per the real plan. The percentage of residents who are longtime homeowners will increase. Club Pacifica is pretty much closed to new members.
BTW, seen on Trulia couple of months ago a very simply remodeled LM elevated rancher circa 1955 4br2bath renting for $3900 per mnth. Rented.
Post a Comment