 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Home Resource Center In the News Home Greenbelt Alliance in the News |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
Greenbelt Alliance In the News
March 12, 2006 Greenbelt stresses vision in building Subheading By James TempleWith the Bay Area population set to swell by nearly 2 million people over the next quarter-decade, few would dispute that more housing must be built. The ever-thorny questions are: where and how? The San Francisco-based Greenbelt Alliance has spent nearly 50 years fighting to ensure that development does not come at the expense of open space, farm land or rare species. Its primary tool in this effort has been the urban growth boundary, a legislated line beyond which projects can't extend. The Greenbelt Alliance takes credit for protecting some 1.1 million square feet of Bay Area open space, in large part by helping to install boundaries around 22 cities and counties. Housing, the group argues, must be built densely within cities by developing multi-story projects on empty or under-used parcels. Ideally, it says, the buildings should lie along transit lines and near shops and jobs, to ease pressure on the region's clogged roads. Developers are increasingly on board with the concept, dubbed "smart growth," as are city planners. But builders argue the existing growth boundaries are often draconian and that, despite the environmental arguments, people simply want to buy and live in detached homes with yards, garages and white picket fences. This perennial debate took on a particularly contentious tone late last year, as environmental groups and developers traded barbs over four boundary ballot initiatives set for November -- each tied to as many specific projects in East Bay cities. The end result was a tie with urban limit lines upheld in Livermore and Brentwood and loosened in Pittsburg and Antioch. Vote tallies notwithstanding, Greenbelt and other environmental groups have promised to continue fighting the latter projects. The Times recently sat down with David Reid, East Bay field representative for the Greenbelt Alliance, to discuss what's next for the organization, the limitations of smart growth and the conflicts between environmental and housing affordability goals. Q: With the urban limit line debate over, at least in the immediate term, what are Greenbelt Alliance's highest priorities in the coming year? A: The battle is far from over in those cities. We're continuing to battle sprawl development and the sprawl developer to try to maintain the quality of life that people really deserve in those communities. We're going to be looking at the regulatory processes as the developers go through their planning, and we'll be hopefully involved in trying to make them have the least possible impact on both wilderness areas and quality of life and traffic. But (what) we'll also be looking at (is), is it possible to stop these developments entirely? Q: A significant portion of the East Bay remains undeveloped. What type of land needs to be preserved -- is it all land that hasn't been touched, land with endangered species, land with views? Where do you draw the line? A: There are a lot of answers to that question. The Bay Area is a bio-diversity hot spot that is globally recognized, so we need to protect the diversity of habitats for all plants and animals. But we're also interested in protecting recreational opportunities; it's part of the lifestyle of the Bay Area that you can get out of the house and without having to go too far, you can be in a beautiful open space. But in the big picture, it's also about planning ahead because just in the next 25 years the Bay Area is expected to grow by 1.7 million people. If we don't plan today for how to accommodate those people, we're all going to have to live with the consequences. Those consequences will include even worse traffic than we already have, declining air quality, the loss of open space that people care about, the continued loss of rare and threatened species. While we have land in our cities that can be developed to create a high quality of life and can help to revitalize some of our older cities, than we absolutely should do that first. Q: Are there some limitations on the degree to which you can do this? There are only so many lots that haven't been developed or can be torn down and redeveloped. And, especially in the East Bay, there are height limits, so if you are building in these cities, there is a cap on the amount of density you can provide. A: Absolutely, and we're not proposing to build San Francisco out in the East Bay. But certainly there is a tremendous amount of opportunities still in the East Bay. There are policies that limit the capacity for smart growth and we're looking at changing those policies, working with cities to maintain high quality of life, but also accommodate growth in what we hope is a sustainable way. Q: The arguments that the Home Builders Association of Northern California has put forward, as well as suburban home builders, is that there is tension between the goals of preservation and housing affordability. That the main reason California and probably the Bay Area in particular have such high home costs is because the environmental regulations are so strict. What is your reaction when people make that comment? A: No one would deny that there is an affordability crisis in the East Bay, and Bay Area in general. But to address that problem, we need to be careful. Yes, we need to build more housing, but we need to plan very carefully about how and where those houses should be built. If we don't, then we're only going to make the affordability and traffic problems worse. Right now there is a tremendous amount of houses being built in expensive suburbs on the very fringes of the Bay Area. This is not addressing the affordability problem. Q: Another challenge to smart growth is that, whatever the environmental arguments for it, some people just like to live in single-family homes and they don't care if it's an hour-and-a-half commute. How do you confront that challenge? A: We have a lot of single-family homes in Contra Costa County. It's the other market types that we need. I think that's one of the changes we're seeing. Not only are government and planners becoming more open to the smart growth idea, but I think you're seeing home buyers more open. When people are looking in neighborhoods in San Francisco where you can live and work, or live and jump on mass transit and get to work in five minutes, they're saying, 'Wow, that's something I'd really like to have as part of my lifestyle.' Q: Despite the fact that we are seeing more smart growth, it does seem like a lot of these projects are still at the high end of the market. Home builders would probably say, 'We're building in cities, where land is much more expensive and the planning process more costly.' How would you respond to that? A: First of all, I agree with you that in our (especially inner) core cities of the Bay Area, like Oakland and San Francisco, it is important to have a balance of housing costs and housing types so that people who want to have a condo in Oakland can afford to have a condo in Oakland. We're looking at inclusionary housing ordinances (requirements that developers set aside a certain portion of their projects as affordable) all through the Bay Area. What it does is it really allows for a balance of housing in an area. It says, 'let's build 100 market-rate houses and let's build 20 houses that a working family can afford.' That's not too much to ask, and ... what we're seeing is that it can pencil out for the developers and it's very much needed for the state of the region. James Temple covers real estate. Reach him at 925-977-8534 or jtemple@cctimes.com. David Reid on: The Greenlining Institute's mission: "We're continuing to battle sprawl development and the sprawl developer, to try to maintain the quality of life that people really deserve in those communities." Smart growth: "... in the big picture, it's also about planning ahead, because just in the next 25 years, the Bay Area is expected to grow by 1.7 million people. If we don't plan today for how to accommodate those people, we're all going to have to live with the consequences." Affordable-housing construction: "Yes, we need to build more housing, but we need to plan very carefully about how and where those houses should be built. If we don't, then we're only going to make the affordability and traffic problems worse." Inclusionary housing ordinances: "What it does is it really allows for a balance of housing in an area. It says, 'let's build 100 market-rate houses and let's build 20 houses that a working family can afford.' That's not too much to ask. ..." Name: David Reid Age: 30 Title: East Bay field representative Location: Walnut Creek Career: Reid joined Greenbelt Alliance in 2004. Previously, he worked to restore salmon habitat around Portland, Ore. Education: Bachelor of arts, international relations and sustainable
development, Pomona College full transcript: sound clips: ### |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
