True Solutions for Transportation & Housing

A great deal of myths and fabrication are being injected into the debate around housing and transportation in Marin.  Attempts to discuss the facts are clouded by political and marketing messages combined with unconstructive name-calling, and the old favorite - the irrelevant ad hominem attack. For profit, market rate high-density housing is being pushed under the guise of sustainability and saving the planet; opposition is dismissed as fear-mongering.

Some housing advocates suggest that this significant development is a myth - there is no high density happening here in Marin. Yet the evidence is now sufficiently clear to demonstrate otherwise:

-       we have a 920 unit Larkspur Station Area Plan

-       the building at WinCup (40 units per acre)

-       there is a newly submitted plan for a 138 unit complex in Casa Buena Drive in Corte Madera (40 units per acre)

-       the 82 unit complex in Marinwood Plaza  (30 units per acre)

These projects are the new vanguard for high-density new development in Marin.  Development is happening, and at a faster rate and higher densities than Marin has seen before.

SMART, Plan Bay Area and the Supervisors Pave the Way

The way has been paved for this rapid growth by SMART station area plans, Plan Bay Area’s PDAs, combined with the county supervisors who on September 24th passed an amendment increasing density from a more suburban 20 units per acre to an urban 30 units per acre almost county-wide in unincorporated areas. Claims of supporting Levine’s bill returning the county to 20 units per acre should be considered carefully in the light of this amendment.

Then we discover areas being volunteered for high-density development without any genuine consultation. Plans such as the Civic Center Station Area Plan are mysteriously inflated to be higher and denser outside of public view.

Getting Beyond the “Sustainability” Label

So it seems appropriate to reaffirm how we can address climate change, increase affordable housing and improve transportation – and achieve these goals in the most effective way.

My approach is not to take claims such as “doing this is sustainable” or “we must do that to fight climate change” at face value. Only too often these claims are used to justify political or commercial ends. It can be easy to be taken in by a well-oiled marketing machine that’s wise to leveraging these arguments.

It becomes necessary to dig beyond the superficial. To understand the facts regarding car and transit emissions; recognize the realities around how we can provide housing and mobility for those who deserve access to better opportunities.

Fighting Climate Change the Cost Effective Way

Fighting climate change is important, and taxes are a finite resource that we must use cost effectively to achieve this end. So we must not leap on unproven ideas, ideas that are cost ineffective. We must really question the math on how much each dollar will contribute to reducing emissions; and if it’s not cost effective then we need to seek out the most cost effective means. We must consider that new cars are mandated by Whitehouse and EPA legislation to achieve 54.5mpg by 2025 and are already making unprecedented progress towards this goal.  With less fuel burned CO2 emissions drop (CO2 emissions are near directly related to mpg).  This increased fuel efficiency means that car emissions are rapidly dropping below transit.

I cover the topic of how cars achieve lower emissions than transit in the Patch article SMART Train Actually Increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Plan Bay Area seeks to reduce car greenhouse gases to 1990 levels with an imposing $92 billion program of building high-density housing near transit such as the SMART train here in Marin. But now that cars are already emitting less per passenger mile than transit, and with the gap widening the Plan is effectively spending taxpayers money to achieve little, nothing, or worse – move the needle the wrong way and increase emissions. 

Using Affordable Housing to Justify Development, Then Building Luxury Apartments

Developing property is a risky business and making returns relies on maximizing potential revenues. Commercial, for-profit developers seek to maximize the number of market rate units. Plan Bay Area and associated PDAs and Housing Elements help open up development opportunities, remove obstacles such as CEQA. CEQA is a tool that allows examination of potential negative impact on the community such as increased traffic, parking and pollution. It has become an inconvenience to those who want to push through high-density developments.

Developers ride on the coat tails of housing advocates lobbying for affordable housing – claiming altruism – but as demonstrated by WinCup with just 10% affordable units this justification is quickly forgotten.

Sometimes advocates seem to lose sight of their stated goal of building more affordable housing. For instance 33 North San Pedro Road in San Rafael and the new Win Cup building were justified as providing affordable housing and reducing vehicle usage because they are near transit.  But scrutiny reveals that what’s actually built are luxury apartments starting at $2,500/month for a 1 bedroom unit.  Developers have pushed and have succeeded to minimize the numbers of affordable units to just 10%. Something tells me that residents able to afford these luxury rents won’t be taking transit.

An Integrated Approach to Affordable Housing

We should be helping to ensure that those with low incomes have opportunity. This does not mean concentrating housing in our least attractive and unhealthiest locations near freeways.  

Marin already has the right model of truly integrated communities –new developments must set aside upwards of 20% of units for low-income residents. My own neighborhood is a fantastic example of this – you’ll find people from our workforce such as teachers and Police along with low-income residents mixed in amongst market rate homes. You wouldn’t know which is which. The community is integrated.

The Unspoken Threat to Affordable Housing: Gentrification

A more critical threat from this new type of high-density luxury development is that of displacement of low-income minorities.  Marin City is home to a high concentration of minorities, but it has been designated as a Priority Development Area – marked for “significant growth”. Perhaps in anticipation of such gentrification routine maintenance of the award winning 168 unit public housing there has been deferred.

Accessing Opportunity Means Mobility

Those with low incomes need mobility to access opportunity. Once again this becomes a matter of cost-effectiveness. We should not be spending $1.6bn on a nostalgic train that has been made to sound “sustainable”, or worse invest in a trolley network. Those with low incomes deserve this money to be spent on lowering the cost of using transit – reduced bus and ferry fares. Not elaborate schemes that appear dependent on an approach concentrating housing near freeways.

Just as important is the need for this group to have access to cars. Many work two jobs or shifts at anti-social times. What can really help would be providing subsidized access to car-sharing services such as ZipCar and ridesharing services such as Lyft.

The Answer: Education and Transparency

In all of the above situations the path to the solution is education – framing the facts, exposing the statistics and helping others to reach their own conclusions instead of depending on marketing spin that might declare a project to be sustainable or a mode of transit to be greener. 

This education must be combined with genuine transparency – so that as decisions are made all conflicts of interest are declared. Nothing should be behind closed doors - all aspects are publicly considered. If this means what I have outlined above is wrong – and there’s a better way then I welcome learning. I for one would welcome such enlightenment.