Posted on 02/13/2012 2:41:13 PM PST by SmithL
A massive plan to turn Lamorinda cities into Fruitvale Transit Villages to force drivers out of their cars and rely more heavily on public transportation was unveiled Thursday, February 9 at a joint meeting of the city councils of Orinda, Lafayette, and Moraga. The plan proposes a major reconfiguration of the layout of all three cities.
The plan was unveiled by Martin Engelmann of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, a public agency formed, in 1988, by the voters of Contra Costa County. The agency is charged with county-wide transportation planning.
The plan proposes to concentrate housing and population growth near transportation centers.
In Orinda and Lafayette, the plan proposes special housing centers near each city’s respective BART station. Moraga, which does not have a BART station, will have a special downtown housing center.
The plan assumes that between 2010 and 2040 that the number of households in the Bay Area will increase by 30 percent. The plan also projects that the number of Bay Area jobs will, during the same interval, grow by 35 percent.
Mr. Englemann’s remarks did not cover California’s current high level of unemployment. In January 2012, California’s official unemployment rate was 11.1 percent. The official national unemployment rate for the same month was 8.3 percent.
The plan’s rationale is to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide from cars.
Several individuals criticized the plan. One critic said the plan gave government “terrifying” control over individuals’ lives.
Another critic said the plan was too optimistic concerning job growth. This critic noted that California has tax rates that are too high to stimulate job formation. He said that California currently has the nation’s highest sales tax rate, the second highest personal income tax rate, and the seventh highest corporate income tax rate.
Another critic of the plan was Mike Metcalf, the mayor of Moraga. Metcalf called the plan an example of “liberal fascism.”
The meeting was held in the auditorium of the Orinda Public Library.
Maybe they can put ferry boats onto the contra costa cannal.
I wonder where these loonies came from, it cannot possibly be that number of wackos all live in just one state.
California, land of fruits and nuts.
They voted for it.
Wake up everyone this is the plan for all over this country.
TOTAL control of your lives.....AND WHO IS STOPPING THEM?
When I read this I first thought that the ultimate goal was to put more people at risk of being Mugged, sexually molested and murdered. Take away their means to escape the predators among us and the weapons to defend themselves with and it’s like the old story of the two wolves and the sheep deciding on what to have for supper.
Last I checked people are not required to live in a transit village or take mass transit.
This would be an alternative choice for those who do want those things.
I wasn’t here to vote on it...the East Bay Tea Party is trying its damndest to stop this Agenda 21 nonsense.
It’s not a good alternative for the people who are already in those towns because they were nice suburban communities.
What about the rights of people to develop their property?
It seems some people want to restrict what others can build on their property.
Areas change. Towns change. Ever look at old photos of cities? 2-3 story buildings, dirt streets, cute little shopfronts ... all changed. Even NYC used to look like an old Western town at one time.
There will always be plent of suburbs. But when the free market demands different kinds of housing, I don’t think it should be conservatives standing in the way.
I don’t think you understand Agenda 21.
Suburbs are bad, you are not entitled to a yard or own your own home or anything but an electric car.
High rises with bicycle paths and subways like New York are good.
This is extreme reductionist thinking.
Why are conservatives so afraid of developers meeting a market demand? There are lots of people who want to live in more dense settings with no yard or only a small yard. Why shouldn’t someone be able to capitalize on that demand and build it?
I personally do not like high rise living. I lived in one for 4 years and it almost drove me crazy. But a lot of people love it and there is a demand for this type of housing.
Also there is a vast array of housing types in between the suburban single family house and a high rise apartment. Demand for those in-between housing types too.
Supply and demand. What is so hard to understand?
And what is wrong with a bike path if voters want it and vote to fund it? Do we not have public parks? Do we not have publically funded sports stadiums? Tons of examples of where people in communities have voted to have public ammeninites. I personally do not like having to pay for a sports stadiums, but I have to abide by what the majority wants in these matters. So if the majority votes to put in bike paths, that’s the same damn thing.
How about road widening. I don’t want a road to be widened by 2 lanes in my neighborhood, much less have to pay for it, but I must. How is this not the same thing as having to pay for a bike path that others don’t want? It is the same damn thing.
If anyone ever proposes a law that I cannot have a yard or cannot drive a gas powered vehicle, I’ll be right beside you fighting such a law. But I don’t see anyone proposing that.
Also, we already have onerous laws dictating minimum lot size, minimum house size, what materials a house can be clad with, etc.? How is that not the same kind of dictatorial law that you are talking about (that haven’t happened)? I don’t see Conservatives getting up in arms about such laws as that.
Why can’t someone build the size house they want? Why can’t they fact it with stucco and not brick, or brick and not stucco (or the opposite of whatever the silly law says you have to face it with)?
Selective outrage is what I see.
I read the article and I followed the links. I also read the responses and many people are outraged they have no say in this. They are upset that taxes have been increased 11 times and that the toll road money is being spent on this reconstruction of their downtowns. They are upset they will no longer be able to see their hills.
I saw the pictures of what is there now and liked it. Some of the responses were concerned that those high rises will be Section 8 housing. I live in Los Angeles and that is exactly what they are putting in, Section 8 housing. There is a huge 3 story apartment complex going up in my neighborhood and nobody complained because we were not told it was Section 8 housing until after construction began. Of course that apartment complex is on a soon to be bicycle path that leads to the busses.
They can’t get people to move into these places, so they import illiterate women with anchor babies. They get the apartment, an EBT card, a shopping cart, free bus passes and free Wi Fi.
Going to the Halfway to Concord site I see that they are considering lowering the speed limit to force you out of your cars.
Maurice Strong: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Maurice Strong: “Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
Van Jones: “Sprawl is a response to racial fear and anxiety on the part of white elites. The ‘burbs were designed as a vehicle to get away from people of color, investing more in the white infrastructure as they moved away from the city, and the neighborhoods where people of color live. Does that mean the only environmentally-sound, antiracist thing for whites to do is move back to the inner cities. Yes, it does.”
Some FReepers strongly support Homeowner Associations and some abhor them.
Section 8 housing is whole different thing entirely.
But it all boils down to at the local level, people want different things. Some people don’t want to pay for what other people want and vis versa.
I’m talking about viable development.
If a property owner/developer feel they can make a profit from building something other than single family homes, they should be able to do that. Property rights.
What has happened is that zoning has been used to exclude some building types over others and thereby FORCE people to buy only one type of housing product. That is where the coercion and force had come into play in many areas of the country for +/- 40 years now. No free market whatsoever in many parts of the country for a long time now and it is time that changes.
Conservatives should be all over the free market angle, but instead they are the worst kind of NIMBY’s when it comes to wanting to force only one kind of housing product being allowed on the market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.