OT: Missing Bay Trail Section Through East Palo Alto Funded!

[Eyal Guthmann]

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/05/22/east-palo-alto-bay-trail-funded-amidst-deepening-local-housing-crisis/

[Andrew Boone]

Ok everybody so the point is that the gentrification angle - completion of the Bay Trail through EPA will raise housing costs - and this is true - is a lever which EPA can use to get funds to build affordable housing projects. And to protect / strengthen the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which is one of newly-reappointed City Council member Carlos Romero's top priorities within the next 18 month he has left in office.

Spread the Word and Spread the Rent Control 

- Andrew Boone, Streetsblog San Francisco, naub...@gmail.com

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:42:36 PM UTC-7, Eyal Guthmann wrote:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/05/22/east-palo-alto-bay-trail-funded-amidst-deepening-local-housing-crisis/

[Brett Lider]

Thanks for seeking out an SF2G quote, Andrew, and for the article and the work that went into the funding.

While I want to be positive, I found the FB Real Estate guy's quote to be pretty disingenuous. Where is the funding for this trail or for improving all the big intersections that lead directly to the new FB campus? Grr.

And on the topic of rent control, I support it in very limited forms while EPA and the surrounding area figures out how to build enough housing to keep prices stable. Which I have no data on EPA doing but it definitely looks like PA and Mountain View and probably MP aren't in any mood to do. So. Ugh.

Anyone else have any angles on this?

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andrew Boone]

Ah. So it was clear from the text of the article that Facebook management has done very little to address the traffic safety hazards that their own workers face to get to work. And they're penny-pinching cheapskates. Good.

Honestly I don't know how Facebook employees put up with it. Your employer can nearly snap its fingers and get anything it wants. And it's located in (overall) bike and ped paradise Menlo Park, where a very high value is placed on being able to walk and bike safely for transportation. Yet you face killer car traffic every day if you walk or bike to work because Facebook's managers are concerned with other matters.

Hey I been sitting here in my EPA apartment for 4 years waiting for such a popular Facebook Anti Traffic Violence Movement to materialize, but as of yet no one has stepped up to make it happen. As a non-FB employee there's only so much I can do alone.

Anyone down for a Menlo Park Bicycle Revolution?

[djconnel]

Interestingly, I stopped for the first time today at the taco place on Bay on the Bayway.  It was very nice.

Rent control generally limits market-rate supply, decreases turnover, and increases rents, making it less affordable for those who aren't lucky or connected enough to get a low-rent place.  It further encourages such dubious practices as sub-leasing and AirBnB which would otherwise be available on the open market.

If the Bay trail is considered a source of increases rent pressure, cut off vehicle access to the region and maybe that will reduce the demand and therefore the rents.

Anyway, the key problem in the Bay area has been lack of supply, and an over-supply of land-sucking parking and hugely overbuilt roads.

[Ben Kochie]

Yup, rent control is a bad solution to poor city planning.  When you add jobs at a rate of > 4x adding housing, bad things are going to happen.  Rent control is just going to accelerate the spiral into class divide that is going on in SF.

[Andrew Boone]

Dear SF2G,

Whether or not you agree with East Palo Alto's Rent Stabilization Ordinance, it is one of the city's highest priority programs, and is explicitly described as such in our new 2015 General Plan Housing Element.

As East Palo Alto's newest Planning Commissioner, one of my responsibilities is to protect and strengthen rent stabilization here. This also happens to be one of new appointed City Council member Carlos Romero's top priorities. His quote in the EPA Bay Trail is Funded article makes that clear. Rent Stabilization is also very important to all the other Commissioners, City Council members, and community as a whole. We are proud of Rent Stabilization. 

There is a very real possibility that the completion of the Bay Trail through EPA will raise housing costs for low-income residents at risk of displacement. So if you don't agree with our rent stabilization policies, then I suggest working with us to promote and implement some other effective anti-displacement measures. Perhaps you have solutions that our 27-yr-old Rent Stabilization Ordinance doesn't address and that we haven't thought of yet.    

If you just trash "rent control" as "makes housing less affordable" first of of you lose all credibility and secondly you are not going to get very far in East Palo Alto. The Bay Trail project is only fully-funded, not built, and the City Council must still approve its construction.

Thank You for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

- Andrew Boone, East Palo Alto Planning Commission, naub...@gmail.com

  

[Brett Lider]

Andrew,

Thanks for the thoughtful (and forceful) reply and the suggestion that we find ways to work together outside any areas of disagreement, especially if some SF2G members don't see eye-to-eye with EPA policy on rent stabilization.

Personally, I think rent stabilization without a medium- to long-term plan to build way more housing is just kicking the can down the road to where the consequences will be even more dire. But rent stabilization paired with an EPA Planning Commission and City Council that understand that the only way out of this crisis is to build our way out (as a city and as a region), I think that's a the winning political and practical approach. 

Let me know how I can help, Andrew. Can you comment on EPA's plans to increase the amount of housing stock so that people aren't competing over the same limited number of units?

- Brett

[Ben Blizard]

I was drafting an email along the same lines, but Brett beat me to it.

First, congratulations on the planning council spot. Tough gig, lots
of stakeholders with different strong opinions.

Second, no one was not suggesting a solution. The emails I read said
"build more (dense) housing. That's much better than just
strengthening rent control." I personally have seen that in a market
with increasing demand, rent control can have negative overall effects
on the housing market. It reduces supply, and the way the resulting
supply/demand curves set prices? We've seen what happens there.

Ben Blizard
Voice: (650) 450-0037

[Viet-Trung Luu]

There's a lot to be said about rent control and its role in making rental housing viable (though I'd add that rental housing needs to be viable not only for renters, but also landlords and developers), but:

I'd argue against making too strong a connection between projects like the Bay Trail and housing costs. It's not that there's no connection (though I'd argue that causality really goes both ways), but that virtually anything that improves the quality of life for residents will increase housing costs. This includes not only infrastructure projects such as the Bay Trail, but also things like reducing crime and improving schools.

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Boone <naub...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrew Boone]

Thank You Everyone for your interest in East Palo Alto's many challenges,

There is still a major political hurdle to clear to get the EPA Bay Trail built, and that's political support from the EPA community and City Council. Showing that SF2G is supportive of our Rent Stabilization Ordinance is a super easy way to win the hearts and minds of a people discriminated against for decades by racist housing policies and denied access to high-paying education and employment opportunities in the rest of Silicon Valley as a result.

East Palo Alto is pursuing the expansion of housing as a partial solution to affordability for low-income residents - and we have to do more than our fair share because Palo Alto and Menlo Park are not doing their fair share. Both cities constantly complain about meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements of Plan Bay Area. Menlo Park didn't even have a Housing Element until faced with a lawsuit that would have prevented the approval of the Facebook Campus! Menlo Park had been violating state housing law for 43 (!) years by that time, directly resulting in high housing costs for local low-income residents, who are mostly people of color. So you see how we can be very sensitive to criticism regarding our housing policies.

I am not yet an expert on East Palo Alto's plans to address housing un-affordability by expanding housing supply, but my understanding is that it may depend in large part on the details of affordable housing impact fees, which can be used to lower costs for low-income residents. What people are worried about here is that some of the housing built will be occupied by rich Facebookers and drive up rents. Why are we worried about this? Because it has been happening for 3 years now.

My thoughts on what to do next: Create an advocacy organization (so, first create a Facebook Group) dedicated to:

a) WINNING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PROTECTED BIKE LANES ON EL CAMINO REAL IN MENLO PARK IN JUNE 2015 - we need to start organizing for this NOW

b) completing the SF Bay Trail through East Palo Alto

c) fixing the dangerous intersections on Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road, and University Avenue for people walking and bicycling

d) protecting and strengthening housing policies to protect low-income residents in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park from displacement and expand affordable housing supply region-wide

Such an organization composed of many Facebook and Google employees and local residents who agree with these goals could be extremely influential in Menlo Park and there are many easy ways to help East Palo Alto with its challenges through such a group as well.

What do YOU think?

- Andrew Boone, East Palo Alto Planning Commission   

[Andrew Boone]

Viet-Trung Luu,

I agree. But the reality of how the SF Bay Trail affects housing costs in East Palo Alto is less important than the political consequences of the concern that it does.

Again, from the EPA Bay Trail is Funded article:

“Linking  the two Internet hubs — Facebook and Mountain View’s North Bayshore tech area — the Bay Trail could help address some of the area’s congestion problems,” said East Palo Alto City Council Member Carlos Romero in a statement yesterday. “The trail’s proximity to Palo Alto and Menlo Park may prompt employees of tech firms to bike this scenic route to work, and East Palo Alto may become more attractive to well-heeled tech workers wishing to locate closer to work, thereby bidding up the city’s housing costs.”

“Unfortunately, few East Palo Alto residents are directly employed by these firms, and I would not want to see our residents burdened by an amenity that others see as a benefit,” said Romero. “This is why in addition to bike and ped transportation improvements, we need strong housing protections for local low-income residents.”

I've put in bold the most important points. In summary:

SF2G has to convince the EPA City Council that the SF Bay Trail will not raise housing costs and cause additional displacement of our community members. I can help you do this, if it is true.

- Andrew Boone, East Palo Alto Planning Commission

[Andrew Boone]

Ok.

On Sunday, May 24, 2015, John Murphy <murph...@fastmail.com> wrote:

I was involved in a discussion with the SFBC bikes on board project. I was positing that Caltrain would really benefit from electronic bike lockers. 

The consensus summary was - and I agreed - that this was out of scope for the bikes on board project. 

SF2G may be tiptoeing into some bicycle advocacy but any "official" position from this really unofficial organization on something like rent control is really out of scope. Kibbitz away - there are a lot of intelligent folks here - but anything beyond "bike paths good" is "not good". There are many many organizations working on housing and discrimination, and one very mediocre "official" organization (SVBC) working on cycling advocacy.

John Murphy - ta...@murphstahoe.com

[Peter Colijn]

Hi Andrew,

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Andrew Boone <naub...@gmail.com> wrote:

SF2G has to convince the EPA City Council that the SF Bay Trail will not raise housing costs and cause additional displacement of our community members. I can help you do this, if it is true.

I think this is, frankly, unreasonable. Any improvement to East Palo Alto that makes it a more desirable place to live could arguably increase housing costs. Follow that argument to its logical conclusion and you will be opposed to any and every improvement to the community, which I suspect is not your intention. I do share your frustration that neighboring municipalities have not been building more housing, though I don't think that means East Palo Alto should follow their 'example'.

Furthermore, SF2G is not an advocacy organization. We are a group of cyclists who would make use of the completed 'gap' in the SF Bay Trail if it existed, but certainly not the only people who stand to benefit from it. As a group, SF2G is unlikely to have a significant impact on housing prices or availability in East Palo Alto, because it is focused on people living in or near San Francisco.

Thanks,

Peter

[Andrew Boone]

Peter,

You make some very good points, as have others in this discussion. Let's work on the things we agree on. I'll pay attention to developments with Rent Stabilization locally and serve as a resource for anyone interested in the issue. 

The intersections on Bayfront Expressway are horrible for everyone, no matter how you travel through them (car, bike, walk) or where you live or work. We should demand that they be fixed, since their car-centric design is killing people.

The Willow Road and University Avenue bridges over Highway 101 are similarly terrible for people walking and bicycling and we face a lot of complex problems to get them fixed. Volunteers are needed to create an advocacy campaign. WWSFBC Do? (What What San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Do?)

Anyone want to see Protected Bike Lanes on El Camino Real in Menlo Park? The City Council is supposed to decide this in June and I'm getting nervous. If they vote no, then all the neighboring cities are screwed to get bike lanes for a while and maybe any other real safety improvements (Atherton and Redwood City are waiting to see what Menlo Park does).

I'm working on all these things anyway (well not the Bayfront intersections so much, but I sure would if other people were working on it too) so if anyone is interested in joining the effort please share your ideas too and let's see what we can come up with.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Boone, East Palo Alto Planning Commission

[djconnel]

On protected el camino lanes: not. They'll become like the lanes on bayshore: strewn with glass and debris. Maybe some would benefit but it's not in sf2g interest. The day those go in would be the day my royales would end in RWC.

[Brett Lider]

Dan - Do you ride in the traffic lanes on Bayshore? I mostly see bicyclists use protected lanes, including myself. It's rare that they have so much debris that it is any kind of hazard.

This does highlight that SF2G is non-hierarchical and does not have a single point of view. I'll be advocating for bike lanes on El Camino but others in this club might not.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:15 AM, djconnel <djco...@gmail.com> wrote:

On protected el camino lanes:  not.  They'll become like the lanes on bayshore: strewn with glass and debris.  Maybe some would benefit but it's not in sf2g interest.  The day those go in would be the day my royales would end in RWC.

[djconnel]

Brett: separated lanes make a lot of sense when vehicular traffic is high speed and it's unrealistic for bikes and vehicles to mix, but el camino in Menlo park should not have high speed traffic. Slow down the traffic and then integrated lanes are fine.

On bayshore my experience is likely more limited than yours but I think conditions there are substantially worse than before the barriers went in. Perhaps during higher traffic times the barriers there are a net asset. I'm not generally anti barrier. They just don't make sense to me on el camino. Better is the traffic speed be no higher than 30 mph since pedestrians commonly cross it.