Kirsten Bladh

It’s still a spot bill, but I imagine language will be introduced this month. AB 2059.

She frames it as an equity issue for the supercommuters in her district who drive from Solano to other parts of the Bay. Extremely short-sighted.

They are going to replace the buildings, but the tenants can remain in the existing ones until the new buildings are finished. Once those tenants are moved into the replacements, then they’ll demolish the existing buildings and add more buildings.

You def wouldn’t know from his content about this that all of the tenants are getting new homes and can remain in place until those are built. He’s making it seem like the city is going to kick them all to the street, immediately.

Op-Ed | It’s time to finally modernize the State Environmental Quality Review Act | amNewYork For years, we have worked within the machinery of city planning, climate policy, and housing policy. We have seen up close how our zoning maps, development

Me and @daphnelundi.bsky.social @urbanoceanlab.bsky.social
on climate, housing, and SEQRA:

"It is a climate – and moral – imperative that we allow more people to live in neighborhoods that are well-connected to transit, have lower climate risk, and have access to parks and social infrastructure"

For decades, NYC has run one of the largest, most unacknowledged welfare programs in its history, for suburban car owners.
By giving away 3 million street parking spaces of expensive public real estate for free, it’s a multi-billion dollar annual wealth transfer that drives up city debt

What time was your flight? I used to regularly bike to Burbank airport, but it was only safe (and enjoyable) because I was on the road hours before morning rush hour.

By "exempt" I meant exempt from CEQA, not exempt from streamlining. Should have made that clearer.

Oh sorry, no. My read is that it exempts "ancillary" road and highway projects, as well as transit.

But also, building transit to serve sprawl would be a massive waste of money.

I don't think that transit projects being included somehow makes the highway part okay.

The CA Assembly Transportation Chair is also running a bill this year that will abolish VMT analysis and mitigation requirements for highway projects.

An excerpt from the Building Affordable California Act that defines which transportation projects will be exempt from environmental review, namely projects described in subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of the California Constitution. Subdivision (a) is any highway or road project, while subdivision (b) is mass transit projects.

It explicitly exempts highway projects.

When in doubt about what’s driving high home prices, just read what fancy Brooklyn real estate agents send out in their public mailers

This type of thing is why I have been critical of the Abundance branding. This measure is a premier example of co-opting pro-environment, pro-people urbanist branding to deregulate data centers and greenfield sprawl for corporate interests, at the expense of the public.

more than 500 people have been killed in traffic crashes on LA streets since HLA was passed

3 of 6 cross votes (2 R, 1 D) represent the greater Cincinnati area, in contiguous districts I think. Odd.

I think it’s a legitimate issue on low ridership and/or low frequency train systems (especially for women riders), but people like Duffy obviously don’t want the things that would improve the situation, like more frequency and transit funding.

Wow. I have a friend who is traveling to LA for the game vs Belgium.

One of the matches in LA is supposed to be Belgium vs. Iran, right? Anyone know if that's still happening in roughly 3 months from now?

And our buses are constantly delayed by cars that are double or even triple parked.

It's actually sooooo psycho that there are streets in New York City that are constantly half-occupied by parked cars while pedestrians must shuffle past each other with barely any room.

Or they buy a multi-family building and convert it to a luxury home. It’s no coincidence that these mansion conversions are mostly happening in neighborhoods that build little to no new housing.

The people who would live in the new “luxury” units don’t just disappear if the project doesn’t get built, though. Instead, they add to competition for the existing housing, bidding up the market rent for everyone.

40% of US rail freight is also fossil fuels, mostly coal. Wind coal down and you free up a lot of rail resources! Some of which could be converted to fast electric passenger trains, which in countries with modern transport infrastructure are faster than air travel for most trips under 1000 miles.

To most of these people, “historic” preservation just means preserving the neighborhood exactly how it was the day they moved there.

If we can’t build new housing on a parking lot in the densest part of the city, we are a fucking joke.

Nothing reveals just what a fundamentally unserious bunch of wreckers NIMBYs are than when they fight to keep parking lots from being developed in Manhattan of all places

Why is it seemingly impossible for a politician to be good on both housing and transportation, simultaneously?