[dcldcl]

SB-827: Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus [0]

Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below.

Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state.

Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling?

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

[krausejj]

https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s... is the best article so far, but the nber introduction from 2002 is a great background piece (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835)

also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...

[dcldcl]

If I get the idea behind it, we're going to eliminate/reduce parking requirements and give a density bonus. And the primary way this will be feasible is if (more) people take transit.

Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development.

Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services.

Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.)

But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there.

Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.

[prawn]

What density are they talking about? If 4-6 levels, then you can likely accommodate residential in the upper tiers and light commercial (consultancies, etc) at the bottom.