[PEN-L:8334] Re: California Green Party Question

[Brad De Long <delong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>
>Brad, as I recall, mentions a bit heavy-handedly that it would
>take "tearing down Berkeley bungalows" for dense apartment
>buildings.   This is misleading as to the nature of creating
>density.  Our first draft General Plan is calling for major
>increases in downtown housing density, economies of scale from
>which can be used to internally subsidize affordable housing
>units.  But it is not necessary to raze whole neighborhoods to
>create the density transit needs, in order to improve matters in
>Berkeley.

Good luck with your increases in downtown housing density. But how
are "major increases in downtown housing density" different from
"tearing down Berkeley bungalows"?

I think that in the long run trying to keep opposition disorganized
by hiding what you are really proposing is a counterproductive
strategy...


>The wild card in all of this is UC Berkeley (which is exempt from
>local property taxes and zoning), which tore down a parking
>structure three blocks from campus and wants to rebuild it
>instead of putting in MORE HOUSING.

This is the Haste lot? Torn down for earthquake safety reasons? Now
holds about 500 cars as a parking lot? Used to hold 1000 as a parking
garage? Or is this something else?


Brad DeLong