▲
2
0
▼

California ecology groups helped to kill the most eco-friendly housing bill ever proposed


 invite response                
2018 Apr 26, 4:58pm   1,830 views  4 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

No interest group was more exposed by the saga of SB 827 than California’s environmental movement. Except for Malthusian tree-huggers who actively seek to reduce the state’s population growth—“California is full!”—virtually every environmentalist agrees that the place to build new housing is along transit lines. The opposite is currently happening: Barriers to building homes in cities have exiled development to the urban frontier, where subdivisions swallow up natural land far from the eyes of moneyed activists.

The national Sierra Club opposed SB 827 for the tenuous reason that it’s a “pre-emption” bill that tells cities what to do, like red-state bills that override progressive municipal goals. That analogy does not check out, since both Wiener and Skinner are big-city representatives trying to solve a big-city problem. It makes even less sense because the Sierra Club has supported eco-friendly pre-emption bills in the past. At the state level, Sierra Club California argued that allowing more infill development would push more residents to the exurban fringe. What?


https://slate.com/business/2018/04/why-sb-827-californias-radical-affordable-housing-bill-was-so-unpopular.html

They just don't want any one else in their own neighborhood, and are more than willing to lie to keep everyone else out through restrictive zoning near public transit.

Comments 1 - 4 of 4        Search these comments

1   tovarichpeter   2018 Apr 27, 5:12pm  

“No growth”, and “slow growth”, are responsible for Suburban Sprawl which has made housing unaffordable for most Americans, and made public transportation uneconomic, and the Sierra Club and Zero Population helped lead the fight against immigration.
2   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 27, 5:20pm  

My momma told me when I was younger, that the Sierra Club is an advocacy group for Big Landlowners in disguise as a Green Group

(She really did, that's not a rhetorical flourish, she temp'd when them as a Kelly Girl way back in the day and was appalled at what the leadership said around the office).
3   Strategist   2018 Apr 27, 5:56pm  

Patrick says
The national Sierra Club opposed SB 827 for the tenuous reason that it’s a “pre-emption” bill that tells cities what to do, like red-state bills that override progressive municipal goals. That analogy does not check out, since both Wiener and Skinner are big-city representatives trying to solve a big-city problem. It makes even less sense because the Sierra Club has supported eco-friendly pre-emption bills in the past. At the state level, Sierra Club California argued that allowing more infill development would push more residents to the exurban fringe. What?


Makes no sense on the part of the Sierra Club who are proponents for the environment. Increasing density where public transportation is accessible helps the environment. Now people have to live further where new homes will have to be built by reclaiming more forest land, and drive further creating more smog.
Makes no sense at all.
4   Patrick   2018 Apr 27, 6:59pm  

Strategist says
Makes no sense on the part of the Sierra Club who are proponents for the environment. Increasing density where public transportation is accessible helps the environment. Now people have to live further where new homes will have to be built by reclaiming more forest land, and drive further creating more smog.
Makes no sense at all.



It does make sense when you consider Sierra Club demographics. Most of the members themselves live in upscale neighborhoods and want to keep prices high and poorer people out.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions