Welkome Comrade to One Bay Area

How do you like the following idea? People will be told where they will live; the type of buildings in which they live; and, the way they travel. Or else.

Most people will live in planned communities that are self-sustaining, that have most amenities nearby. Vehicle use will be almost unnecessary since these communities will be located near mass transit, and land use will be minimized as mid- to high-rise buildings will house almost all the population.

Also, residents will have what they need within walking distance, or a bicycle ride away - making them all healthier and if not, why then you’ll pay between a penny and 10 cents a mile for every mile you drive in the nine Bay Area Counties with that money going to transportation improvements above and beyond gas and property taxes… oh, and you’ll do this by paying a monthly bill based a GPS-like device that will be implanted in your vehicle.

While that may sound like a plan from a socialist country (or Bizarro world), it’s happening right here disguised as the One Bay Area Plan. “Sustainable communities” are the latest buzzword and blueprint for future property development and even more growth control (if thart's possible) in the nine Bay Area counties. The problem is that the goal of a sustainable community is actually quite laudable but One Bay Area manages to pervert that philosophy while using the concept’s cache (plus the threatened use of government sanctions) to cull a loyal following.

In California there are a total of 17 regions, including in Los Angeles and San Diego, that are implementing sweeping changes to future development so that, Kumbayah, we’re all in ”sustainable communities.” For the Bay Area, that plan will include two-thirds of all new housing to be mid- to high-rise buildings. These buildings will be located in certain areas, called Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and according to One Bay Area, and by the year 2040, nearly 70 percent of all new housing in the Bay Area will be in these PDAs. In fact, only four percent of the region’s total land area will be used for the PDAs, according to the plan.

The plan is being administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), so the general public is removed from actually effectuating change through enlightened recommendation or dissention.

(That is, unless you’re a “social justice” group - apply your own definition – then ABAG and MTC adopt your recommendations en whole. Hyperbole? Then how do you explain the element of ‘social equity’ being contained in a land use plan? Somewhat like including a social justice component in a cook book.)

Make no mistake - the region is on the brink of adopting all or some portion of these ideas either as part of each cities’ or counties’ respective ‘sustainable communities’ plan -OR- as part of a General Plan update -OR – as part of a local Climate Action Plan. (Yes, these are all joined at the proverbial hip.)

Critics note one of the biggest problems with One Bay Area is the impact on property rights. One Bay Area and other plans like it are top-down centralized planning that subverts the real estate and housing markets and makes a mockery of private property rights. 

It harkens back to a day when ‘urban limit lines’ (ULLs) were all the rage and local governments were adopting ULLs left and right as part of (I am not making this up) “smart” growth/no grwoth movements. Then, as land values rose by virtue of being inside the ULL, local government was baffled; clueless as to why housing costs were skyrocketing. Déjà vu all over again?